Living Regeneratively: Housing Design That Enables Resident Agency in Ecological Restoration

Abstract

In 2022, the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework set forth an ambitious target for “biodiversity-inclusive cities”, recognising the imperative to address biodiversity decline across all sectors, including the built environment. However, the application of this emerging concept remains limited, with few projects directly aligned with the framework’s objectives or timelines necessary for meaningful biodiversity outcomes. To address this limitation this research presents The Paddock, a 27-home regenerative development in southeastern Australia, designed to empower residents in ecological restoration and regeneration efforts. Engagement was initiated through citizen science surveys and a co-design workshop during 2015–2016. As a result, The Paddock seeks to support five focal species’ return via ecosystem-centred design principles. Utilising a mixed-methods approach, the paper documents the design process, ecological decision-making, and the evolving people–nature relationships within the community. Preliminary results indicate the anecdotal return of four targeted species alongside other local fauna. Feedback gathered from residents, combined with insights from the landowner and architect, illustrates that residing in a regenerative environment enhances ecological connections and stewardship tendencies. Ongoing long-term species monitoring will further evaluate the project’s ecological impact. This case study underscores the potential of biodiversity inclusive design (BID) in fostering biodiversity-positive and socially responsive housing developments.

1. Introduction

In 2022, the United Nations’ Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [1] set an ambitious target: the creation of “biodiversity inclusive cities” (see Target 12). This target acknowledges that reversing global biodiversity loss will require both ecological protection and systemic transformation across all sectors relevant to the built environment. Urban areas are dynamic intersections of human and natural systems; they are increasingly recognised as critical sites for ecological regeneration biodiversity conservation [2,3,4]. While high-level aspirations for biodiversity inclusion in cities are gaining traction, many practitioners and academics are trying to understand what biodiversity inclusion actually looks like within urban planning and design.

One approach is to enhance biodiversity through the many co-benefits they offer for people and the built environment. Integrating nature within man-made systems offers co-benefits including improved health and wellbeing [5,6], enhanced urban resilience [7,8], and other ecosystem services [9]. This led to an increase in design methodologies aiming to improve socio-ecological health in both urban and rural settings [10], for example by enhancing walkability and access to green spaces [11] or by enhancing everyday nature experiences through biophilic urbanism (see [12]). It also led to research into nature-based solutions’ role in reducing ecological vulnerability of towns and cities (e.g., [9,13,14]). This approach results in greener homes, neighbourhoods, and cities, providing many benefits for people; however, these benefits may or may not translate to benefits for biodiversity [14].

Another approach is to treat biodiversity as non-human stakeholders with needs (ecological requirements) and wants (resource preferences) that are actively considered within the design process. Biodiversity Inclusive Design (BID) is a collaborative and intentional approach that regards local biodiversity—non-human species—as active participants or citizens of place [15,16]. BID is also known as multispecies design [17,18], animal-aided design [19], biodiversity-sensitive urban design [20], wildlife-inclusive urban design [21]. BID aligns with the species’ right to the city (see [22]), applies place-based ecological design principles including those articulated by Ian McHarg [23], and shares similarities with participatory design approaches, with a clear intent to design for non-human stakeholders (e.g., focal species, groups of species, habitat) [15,16]. In this way, biodiversity becomes a co-driver of decision-making, rather than an afterthought or constraint.

Biodiversity inclusive design calls for cross-disciplinary collaboration across three key dimensions: designing for non-human needs, enhancing the ecological function of a place, and supporting positive people–nature relationships [16]. It also asks for decision-making to be evidence-based and transparent. Figure 1 synthesises Biodiversity inclusive design as a concept (Figure 1a) and design process (Figure 1b). There are 18 different components within the biodiversity inclusive design process (represented by the coloured boxes) that can help designers consider beyond-human needs across the three BID dimensions.

Documenting a project’s intent, process, constraints, and access to ecological knowledge allows for ongoing learning towards biodiversity-inclusive cities. Ahern et al. [26] suggests that development projects can act as a living experiment helping us learn how to improve ecosystem services within man-made environments. This would include establishing experimental design guidelines, such as the biodiversity inclusive design frameworks, and testing protocols that can allows us to compare outcomes achieved by different projects. Biodiversity inclusive design, ideally, results in projects where people can directly see the different ways in which the needs of non-human stakeholders informed the design.

There are many examples of Biodiversity inclusive design practice. For example, as far back as 1929, a developer in Florida built bat towers to control mosquito populations [27]. More recently, in 2015, Next Architects built Vlotwatering Bridge, South Holland, a pedestrian crossing providing roosting opportunities for a local bat species underneath the bridge [28]. While the first example failed to support its target species (with bats purposefully introduced to the site immediately flying away) [27], the second example is looking more promising (although further evaluation might be required) [28]. Knowing what species designers were trying to attract, and why, enables researchers to explore the rationale for its success or failure. However, projects that could be categorised as biodiversity-inclusive are not often formally evaluated, thus relying on previously built projects that may have incidentally implemented biodiversity inclusive design (e.g., [29]). Furthermore, evaluation of these processes should consider direct biodiversity-positive benefits as well as stewardship and pro-environmental behaviours.

Emerging research for Biodiversity inclusive design mainly focuses across three key areas: (1) exploring opportunities for ecological collaboration within the design process (e.g., [16,17,24,25,30,31,32]), (2) the design and evaluation of bespoke infrastructure for biodiversity such as wildlife-friendly lights, bird-friendly windows, nesting analogues, and living infrastructure (e.g., [18,33,34,35,36,37]), and (3) documenting design process and potential biodiversity benefits evaluated through modelling (e.g., [38,39]). However, to the best of our knowledge no project has simultaneously documented the design process, biodiversity-inclusive thinking, and stewardship outcomes of a completed design project. To begin addressing this gap, this paper explores Biodiversity Inclusive Design (BID) as a foundational practice and interrogates the potential for this approach to enable stakeholder ongoing nature connection and agency to care for the local ecosystem after the project has been completed.

This paper examines The Paddock, a residential development in south-eastern Australia that serves as a case study for biodiversity inclusive design in action. The project was developed in various phases, with the first residents moving into the site in December 2019 and ongoing construction work until earlier this year (2025). As species return might take a long time to manifest, The Paddock’s ability to provide empirical evidence for increased biodiversity within the site is limited. However, it offers an opportunity to explore the role of biodiversity inclusive design in cultivating stronger people–nature relationships and in enabling stewardship in residential development.

With the aim of evaluating biodiversity inclusive design through a people–nature relationships lens, we ask ”how can a Biodiversity-inclusive housing complex support ecological capacity building, and agency within future residents to enable ongoing connection to nature and biodiversity benefits?“ The research employs a mixed-methods approach to document the project’s aspirations across different stakeholder groups, describe the design process through an ecological lens, and identify early socio-ecological impact for The Paddock. Data included project documentation, semi-structured interviews with the project’s architect and one of the landowners, and a resident survey conducted in April 2025. The Paddock applied approximately half of the recommended activities within the biodiversity inclusive design process. Despite the lack of ongoing interaction with the ecologists, the landowners’ and architect’s deep place-based experience and connection to nature were pivotal in retaining ecological thinking throughout the process. We found promising evidence of positive nature encounters and stewardship for participant residents. The paper concludes with reflections on the broader potential of BID as a replicable model for embedding biodiversity goals in urban development—highlighting the promise of socially engaged ecologically grounded design in achieving the ambitions of the Kunming–Montreal framework.

2. Introducing The Paddock—Case Study Background

The Paddock is a 27-home intentional housing community located on a 13,500 m² site in Castlemaine, Victoria—approximately 90 min from Melbourne. Rooted in regenerative design principles, the development prioritises ecological restoration, community living, and sustainable practices. From an ecological lens, the project aimed to regenerate and heal the site’s ecological systems, become biodiversity-positive, and foster positive everyday nature experiences. Alongside this drive to support the local ecology, the project was also pursuing ambitious sustainable living goals and denser intentional housing. Living within the means of the land, enhancing food security, and building community were central themes pursued by the design team.

This project was developed by Neil and Heather Barrett and designed by Crosby Architects (architecture), Emergent Studios (landscape architects), and Vivid Civil (engineering). The ecological component of the project formally began in 2014 as a dialogue between the lead architect and researchers. Early research activities included baseline citizen science ecological surveys, supported by ecological experts from La Trobe University (Bendigo campus), which led to an Ecological Potential Report and subsequent co-design workshops in 2016. This process delivered five focal species to design for, making this project a suitable example for biodiversity-inclusive design in action.

The design process drew on three frameworks: the Living Building Challenge [40], Regenesis’s regenerative development approach [41], and the concept of biophilia [12,42,43]. The synthesis of these influences shaped a participatory, iterative, and values-driven development process. Rather than a linear imposition of design, the project evolved in conversation with stakeholders, ecological consultants, and future residents. This led to biodiversity inclusive design emerging as a guiding philosophy within the regenerative development umbrella that could guide beyond-human aspirations for the project. Central to this was the goal of enabling the return of five local species to the site, a tangible marker of ecological recovery and success. The outcome was a socially and ecologically intentional neighbourhood, with design decisions informed by the needs of both human and non-human users.

3. Materials and Methods

This research employed a mixed-methods, qualitative research approach to explore the ecological design process through the lens of biodiversity-inclusive design [16] and the social and ecological outcomes of the project. Data was collected through three primary sources: (1) project document review, (2) semi-structured interviews with two key figures in the project—the lead architect and the landowner/developer, and (3) an online survey distributed to all households involved in the development. It is worth noting that both authors were deeply involved in this project, acting as regenerative development advisors and organising and delivering the ecological analysis and guidance for the project. This means that the research is similarly infused by our personal experiences and reflections throughout the design, development, and ongoing nature of this project. Data collection occurred in April–May 2025.

3.1. Project Document Review (Ecological)

This project revisited past documentation generated in the process of designing and delivering The Paddock. This included: the original ecological data gathered to set up the site baseline, the ecological report, the workshop fliers, photos, and discussion notes for the various workshops held with the future residents throughout the design process and the Living Building Challenge (LBC) documentation for the project (not submitted). Additionally, the lead architect shared some sketches, plans, and documentation at various stages of the project.

3.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

In-depth, online semi-structured interviews were conducted with two foundational members of the project team: the architect responsible for the design, and one of the landowners who initiated and oversaw the development process. Each interview was conducted via Zoom (zoom.us) and lasted approximately 60–90 min and was video- and audio-recorded with participants’ consent. These interviews were intended to provide insight into the project’s conceptual foundations and the evolution of its design specifically for the ecological aspects.

Semi-structured interviews provided a flexible method to engage participants in a dialogue [44,45]. Aligning with the qualitative semi-structured interview guide [45], this research used the documentation review to create the interview. The process gave the authors the opportunity to create a draft project timeline and identify their gaps in knowledge about the project for a more focused and productive discussion with the interviewees. The interviews aimed to understand the extent in which the biodiversity-inclusive design activities influenced the design and delivery of The Paddock. The questions were divided into two key sections:

• Design process, where we co-created a project timeline and reviewed the project ecological goals, milestones, and events for The Paddock;
• Socio-ecological and biodiversity-inclusive outcomes, where we presented participants with a series of photos from the completed project and gathered participants’ response through storytelling. This explored the successes and shortcomings of the biodiversity inclusive aspirations and key outcomes delivered for five focal species selected for the project.

Given the small sample of the interview participants and the nature of their roles within the project, they both remain identifiable. To mitigate potential negative impact, both research participants received a copy and reviewed this article prior to publication.

3.3. Resident Survey

Through The Paddock’s residents’ committee, an anonymous, online survey (Google Forms) was distributed to all 26 participating households. The email invitation acted as a plain-language statement indicating the authors’ relationship to the project and the nature of the research. To support community uptake of the survey, a short YouTube video reiterating the plain-language statement was created. This process gave potential participants the option of watching a video or reading the email to understand the scope of the survey and research.

The survey aimed to understand people’s aspirations and nature-related experiences while living in The Paddock. It also provided qualitative evidence of potential biodiversity benefits for the project. The surveys were open for completion throughout April 2025 and were designed to be filled within 5–10 min. With a total of nine questions, the survey included:

• Residents’ reasons for choosing to live at The Paddock;
• Residents’ understanding of the ecological aims of the project;
• Residents’ nature experiences at The Paddock and future aspirations.

Six out of nine questions were open-ended questions, allowing participants freedom of expression and extracting meaningful storytelling [46]; to view the full survey, refer to Supplementary Materials S1. Of the 26 households contacted, 12 completed the survey (11 fully, 1 partially), yielding a response rate of 46%. By filling out the survey, all participants implicitly consented to being part of this research. Survey participants were de-identified; however, due to the limited pool of potential participants, and the targeted nature of this survey (engaging Paddock residents specifically), there is a high probability of re-identification. Participants were made aware of this risk.

3.4. Data Analysis

The research data was analysed through deductive and inductive thematic analysis and then brought together into a holistic narrative through triangulation, creating a holistic understanding of The Paddock, Castlemaine.

Deductive thematic analysis pertains specifically to the design process data gathered from the semi-structured interviews. Data was organised and categorized in relation to the biodiversity-inclusive design process [16], allowing to draw a direct parallel between the project and its supporting theory. The remaining data from both the semi-structured interviews and the surveys was analysed through reflexive thematic analysis [47,48]. Reflexive thematic analysis uses inductive coding to identify patterns and shared meanings within the data [48]. This process allowed for key ideas and narratives to emerge directly from the participants as they reflected on the regenerative goals of the project, the practical challenges encountered during implementation, and the nature experiences delivered by the project. Themes were developed collaboratively between both authors and cross-checked to enhance data reliability.

Triangulation enabled the researchers to compare resident perspectives with the original intentions and frameworks guiding the project. This approach also allowed for the identification of gaps, synergies, and emergent insights regarding the lived experience of regenerative design and community development. The findings are presented with attention to the contextual particularities of Castlemaine and the broader relevance of The Paddock as a model for future regenerative and intentional housing developments.

4. Results

This section discussed all the aspects that have led to The Paddock and provides a snapshot of where things are at as of the launch date. The first section talks about the development of ecological thinking and runs through the timeline of the project aligning it with the BID framework. The second speaks to the aspiration of the project ecologically, the selection of the five focal species and different ways in which the design supports the focal species. The third part shows the positive impacts of this approach in the development through the eyes of the current residents. Finally, the results present the plans and aspirations for the future of The Paddock.

4.1. Designing The Paddock—Ecological Design Thinking Within the Design Process

The Paddock, Castlemaine, is a small-scale intentional housing community aiming to prove that it is possible to develop the land while simultaneously increasing the biodiversity value of an area. Now completed, the project comprises 27 homes, 26 residences and one community house, within a 13,500 m² site in Castlemaine, Victoria—approximately 90 min by train from Melbourne (Figure 2a,b).

From its early beginnings as a simple density exercise in 2008, the project evolved into a deeply ecological and socially engaged development. Central to its transformation was the adoption of the Living Building Challenge (LBC) [40], alongside regenerative design [41] and biophilic design [42,43]. These design frameworks collectively shaped a participatory, evolving, and place-responsive design process. Rather than imposing a predetermined vision, the project was co-developed over many years through close collaboration among architects, consultants, clients, and future residents.

Table 1. The Paddock project timeline. Aligning with the BID process diagram, the project timeline is organised into five stages: Pre-contract: Aspirations and history, Site analysis, Design, Construction, and Post-occupancy (numbers as defined by the BID process in Figure 1b). This table incorporates imagery (plans, photos, and sketches) to illustrate key events; image credits are provided underneath each photo. The image details are not material to the results in the paper. Larger version of the images provided in Supplementary Materials S2.

Date	Design Process Milestone	Summary Description
1. Pre-contract: aspirations and history
1946	1.0 A modified landscape Aerial view of the site in 1940s, provided by Crosby Architects. Line represents The Paddock site boundary.	The earliest aerial image of the site (1946) shows a modified landscape where the native vegetation has been stripped for lumber or grazing. The image shows a house on the southeast corner of the site and two native trees that remain on the site until today.
1983	1.1 Greening work by landowners Aerial view of the site in 1990s, provided by Crosby Architects. Line represents The Paddock site boundary.	The landowners first purchased this land in 1983. While residing at the site, they planted various trees to bring life back to the land. Many of these trees were not endemic to the area but offered ecological value to local species, attracting birdlife, echidnas, and other wildlife to the area.
2008	1.2 Initial Project Conversations Site plan, by Crosby Architects. Darker grey boxes represent potential houses across the land.	Early concepts for this project focused on density. While the landowners were determined to build some form of eco-housing, they were still narrowing down their expectations. The lead architect shares that the landowners “were considering everything! but sustainable development and restoring the land was always part of it” and “at one point, they considered building 8 homes in this plot” a process that would adjust to standard housing densities and subdivision processes but would compromise the ability to retain open space. Through a feasibility analysis and housing density exercise, Crosby Architects identified an opportunity to challenge Australian density standards for rural and suburban areas. “The idea was to have terraced houses going into single dwellings, we looked at different models to get more density”, shared the lead architect. However, this exercise was just a first approach to evaluate density, and many more iterations using various lenses, including that of regeneration, were needed before the project emerged as it is today.
2012–2015	1.3 Lead Architect Resides On-Site Crosby’s home office, photo by Geoff Crosby.	Geoff Crosby, the architect, moved in and worked from the site, building deep ecological awareness through direct, daily engagement with nature. He reports he would often “work outside, looking through the trees towards the dam”. This experience informed the architect’s thinking and understanding of the site, “this began shaping my thinking around the dam… the dam was always crucial to the layout of the site. Buildings were always on the highpoint of the land and then the dam can filter through”, he shared.
2014–2015	1.4 Collaborative Work and LBC Commitment Bull Street Terrace proposal, by Crosby Architects.	The architect and second author (Dominique Hes, DH) began collaborating on a different LBC project updating the typology and expectations for Victorian terrace houses and generating a workflow (see Bull Street Terraces, [49]). In 2015, landowners endorsed using the LBC and prioritising site ecology. LBC workshop with Lance Jeffery. Some concepts trailed at the Bull Street Terraces that informed the Paddock project included the material selection, the terrace house model, vertical and cross ventilation, and density.
2014	1.5 Living Building Challenge Introduced	Crosby Architects explored LBC certification and began conversations with the landowners about applying it to this project. LBC was very aligned with sustainability and ecological aspirations for the project and the architect saw this as “a rigorous model so I didn’t need to think about all the strategies to evaluate the project”. The architect met members of the authorship team.
2. Site Analysis
March–August 2016	2.1 Citizen science workshops (May–August) Citizen science workshop flyer, the yellow section is the area where the Eltham Copper Butterfly habitat was, blue and red where transects were taken, by Dominique Hes.	To establish a baseline condition and engage in participatory action, the project delivered three different ecological surveys through citizen science workshops (March, May, and August). Led by facilitators from Bendigo TAFE (Technical and Further Education), La Trobe University, the workshops taught people how to conduct ecological surveys and shared information about the local Ironbark forests. DH was instrumental in making these citizen surveys happen, enabling the partnership with Bendigo TAFE but also receiving and translating the raw data after every workshop. Further assessments (tree risk assessment and laboratory analysis of soil and water samples) were conducted by Bendigo TAFE and shared with the authorship and design team for interpretation.
	2.2 Final Ecology Report (August) Sample section of the ecological report The Paddock [50]. The polygon at the centre represents the site boundary. Coloured dots in the maps represents locations in which different species have been recorded.	The first author (Cristina Hernandez-Santin, CHS) conducted a desk-based biodiversity survey using Atlas of Living Australia [51] to identify opportunities for biodiversity-inclusive design and consolidated this information with the citizen science data producing a single ecological report. Key findings include [50]: There were 20 bird species recorded as part of the citizen science surveys (all common species); Desk-based studies identified 19 threatened species within six kilometres of the site; A total of 11 species flagged as opportunities for biodiversity-inclusive design (this led to the selection of five focal species to design for, see Section 3.2); No contaminants in the soil and water, but water had a high turbidity, and soil was low in nutrients.
3. Design
2015–2016	3.1 Masterplan design Masterplan design, by Crosby Architects.	The masterplan design and the ecological analysis developed simultaneously, with the architect receiving information as it emerged (through DH). The new layout now responded more distinctly to the land, flowing with the natural topography [52]. Throughout the land, water was allowed to flow freely, something that the landowners shared “was very difficult to pass through council” as traditionally, each plot owner needs to manage water internally. “The [western] neighbour wanted a wall to prevent water from our site from continuing downhill, we had to do a lot of talking and a lot of negotiating to help them see how that would block the water cycle”, shared the landowner. Key elements of this design include: Natural water flow, with an ephemeral creek joining the dam at the top and bottom; Retaining native bushes (particularly at the north-east corner); Terraced gardens for an edible community garden; Permeable parking lots; All water and energy are produced on site; Opportunity for a Living Stage installation identified [53]; Living Stages are temporary and sustainable outdoor performance spaces informed by permaculture and community engagement to celebrate local stories (see [53,54]); One building provides a shared community kitchen (lower level) and a self-contained apartment for visitors (top level).
February 2017	3.2 Biophilia and Regenerative Development Workshops Water workshop at Crosby Architects office, photo by Dominique Hes, 2017.	Design process deepened through a Biophilic Design and the Regenerative Development framework. This included a series of workshops where design team and community stakeholders worked through a systems thinking lens to clarify site identity and nested systems with the future residents. See Supplementary Material S3 for an example of a workshop agenda. Different systemic elements required different workshops. For example, pictured on the left was a session devoted to exploring the water system. Similarly, the biophilic workshop taught the future residents about biophilia and used the biophilic pattern framework to explore existing and potential opportunities to enhance biophilic elements of the project.
July 2017	3.3 Visioning and Governance Workshop First residents’ workshop, photo by Geoff Grosby, 2017.	Workshop with future residents’ shapes vision, governance, and a shared ecological ethic—including care for the frog habitat in the dam. Cristina Hernandez-Santin shared some ecological information and led the community in determining ecological targets and priorities. Elena Pereyra from CoHousing Australia joined this session to share different models for intentional housing.
4. Construction
September 2018	4.1 Groundbreaking	Construction phase began. The process started with the removal of about 30 cm of top-soil from a section of the site, to get rid of a high-impact weed for the region (Chilean Needle Grass).
December 2019	4.2 First Residents Move In Project celebration, photo by Dominique Hes, 2019.	First eight houses completed. The first half of The Paddock was launched on the 5 December 2019. Speeches by former Premier Steve Bracks and Mayor Christine Henderson (speaking in the photo) amongst others and the celebration included a site and house tour.
March 2021	4.3 Project storytelling and knowledge transfer Community gathering in 2021, photo by Dominique Hes.	In March 2021, the lead architect and first residents met, offering an opportunity to share key design elements. Part of the meeting was to talk about the ecological strategies, species, and agency of the residents to be part of the journey. This workshop also introduced the community to some tools to engage with biodiversity (e.g., FrogID app [55]). The authorship team continued to develop a relationship with the residents. CHS visits were sporadic but present while DH made regular visits (every 12 months) staying with the landowner or at the community shared accommodation within The Paddock. These visits gave the opportunity for the original residents to learn more about the ecological lens of the project. DH completed some frog surveys with one of the children on the site using the FrogID.
2020–2023	4.4 Ongoing COVID-19 Disruptions Cleared land ready for the next stage of development, photo by Dominique Hes.	Pandemic caused construction delays. The landowner looks back at this period as a bittersweet moment. On one side, delays and project costs were “a nightmare”, on the other, with the first residents moved in “it was lovely to see how they were helping each other; it was what we always intended it to be, an intentional community”. During the project launch, residents shared emotive stories about this period sharing the important role that this emerging community played in each other’s lives.
5. Post-Occupancy
April 2025	5.1 Ecological Resident Survey (qualitative only)	Resident survey conducted to evaluate ecological outcomes and perceptions since the project’s completion.
	5.2 13th April, Paddock Launch Welcome to Country Ceremony, photo by Cristina Hernandez-Santin, 2025.	With construction and landscaping now complete, the residents and landowners organised a project launch; a moment of celebration of everything that was achieved. In a moving ceremony, residents shared their stories and love for the project reflecting on the beauty and difficulties of The Paddock. CHS and DH walked the site and took photos of evidence of the ecological design strategies around the site.
June 2025	5.3 Winners of the Australian Institute of Architects, Sustainable Architecture Award	The Paddock was nominated across three different categories for the 2025 Victorian Architecture Awards. In March 2025, Geoff Crosby led a series of tours with the judges from each category. On the 27 June 2025, The Paddock became the winner of the Allan and Beth Coldicutt Award for Sustainable Architecture. The Paddock also received a commendation for the Multiple Housing, Residential Architecture category.
September 2025	5.4 Upcoming ecological workshop	In September 2025, the authorship team will visit The Paddock to share the results of this research, support onboarding the newer residents on the ecological journey of the project to elicit stronger stewardship and agency to care for the land. Our aspiration is that this engagement might also lead to future partnerships.

presents pivotal points in the project timeline with a strong emphasis on the ecological dimension of the project. For each event, we provide a brief description and, in some instances, even some photos.

4.2. Aspirations for The Paddock—Establishing Intent for Different Stakeholders

4.2.1. Understanding Project Goals

The multiplicity of objectives characterising regenerative projects such as The Paddock can make it difficult to delineate discrete goals. As Geoff Crosby observed, “Neil and Heather Barrett initiated the development after living next to the site for 40 years… they had high aspirations for the project”. Although open to a range of possible development models, the landowners consistently expressed a desire for a sustainable and ecologically responsible outcome. As the project evolved, their vision was further informed by intentional communities encountered in Europe, prompting an interest in village-style co-housing models.

As the team grew, each stakeholder brought their own set of aspirations that gave new depth to the project. In the end, the project was simultaneously pursuing sustainable living, intentional housing, and community building, to challenge low-density planning schemes in small towns, food security, being net positive for water and energy; and, most importantly for the topic of this research, to enhance local biodiversity.

In addition, the project architect, Geoff Crosby, was motivated by a desire to explore higher-density housing typologies and to reimagine the potential of Victorian terraced housing in a contemporary context. As the design team expanded, each stakeholder contributed unique aspirations that enriched and diversified the project’s overall intent. Collectively, these goals coalesced into a shared vision centred around sustainable living, intentional community formation, and ecological enhancement. This vision not only challenged prevailing low-density planning paradigms common in small towns but also foregrounded food security and—most relevant to this study—the enhancement of local biodiversity.

A key aspiration for The Paddock was to respect and build upon the existing ecological character of the site. The design process was notably shaped by the architect’s lived experience on the land between 2012 and 2015. Recollections of everyday encounters with local fauna, such as observing echidnas traversing the grasslands, prompted a reflective stance on prevailing development norms: “It is sad that development often bulldozes the site; I wanted to preserve these ‘nature’ encounters,” he shared. These reflections, coupled with findings from an ecological assessment, led to the adoption of a biodiversity-inclusive design approach. This report identified a suite of focal species to guide landscape interventions and framed the broader conceptual basis for integrating biodiversity into the design process.

All these factors resulted in three core ecological goals that guided design thinking:

• To regenerate the place, healing the site ecology and leaving the place better than it was found;
• To be a biodiversity-positive inclusive project, selecting five focal species to inform design;
• To enable positive everyday nature experiences, fostering ecological connection and stewardship over the land.

In operationalising biodiversity-inclusive design, five focal species were selected to influence key design decisions. An initial desk-based assessment catalogued species recorded within a 10 km radius of the site using the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) [51]. From this, the project team identified locally threatened taxa, top predators, indicator species, and charismatic fauna as potential focal species [50]. Due to limited project budget and timeframe, the analysis was necessarily low-tech and guided by the authors’ experiential knowledge. This included the creation of a basic trophic chain diagram, which allowed the team to categorise species and infer ecological relationships, in lieu of a formal interaction network analysis.

From an initial shortlist of eleven candidates, the final five focal species were selected collaboratively by the design team and clients: the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis), Legless Lizard (Delma impar), Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps), and Eltham Copper Butterfly (Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida).

Table 2. Focal species for biodiversity-inclusive design. This table outlines the five focal species to design for as well as justification for their selection, recommendations for design, and implications for the local ecology as informed by species profiles, scientific publications, and available design guidance. Design recommendations have been tailored for The Paddock and do not comprise an all-encompassing list of design recommendations for this species.

Species	Rationale for Species Selection	Design Recommendations (Relevant to The Paddock)	Other Species that Would Benefit
Powerful Owl Ninox strenua [56,57]	This species is the largest owl of Australia, a top predator dependent on tree hollows but found within native forests and urban areas. The species status is vulnerable.	Retail old and tall trees; Retain trees with large tree hollows; Planting trees on both sides of the road; Narrow and relatively dark nighttime (avoiding light pollution).	Owls will act as pest control, helping other native animals gain competitive advantage over rats, rabbits, and other small animals. They can also scare away other pests that can eat produce.
Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis [58,59]	This species is highly mobile, threatened, and a good water quality indicator.	Slow-flowing fresh water; Varied topography within the dam; Densely planted vegetation at the edges; Floating and submerged vegetation; Grassy areas surrounding water bodies to allow movement between ponds; Rocks and logs for sunbathing and shelter; Sunny patches and rocks surrounding water body to allow for sunbathing.	Growling Grass Frog have high water quality requirements, supporting freshwater wetland birds, they also eat other smaller frogs and insects, requiring designers to think about whole wetland species diversity in the ecosystem.
Legless Lizard Delma impar [60,61,62]	This is a vulnerable species that resembles a small snake and opens important opportunities for education and engagement.	Logs on ground; Organic litter will help grow invertebrates eaten by the lizard; Planting palette of mostly native grasslands; Open ground for sunbathing with rocks and logs for protection and nesting; Unsealed paths, retaining soil permeability.	Designing for this species will provide features for many different ground-dependent reptiles as well as for some amphibians. Legless Lizards also help balance the diversity of an area supporting decomposition and soil fertility.
Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps [63,64]	This is a charismatic and well-loved species. It is also a tree-hollow-dependent animal with similar refuge-needing characteristics to many parrots.	Retain old and tall trees; Retain trees with hollows or incorporate nesting boxes for gliders; Incorporate fruit trees and bushes.	Gliders are important nighttime pollinators and seed dispersers increasing productivity of a system. They also eat insects helping balance the diversity of a system.
Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida [65,66]	This is a threatened species highly dependent on the native habitat of Sweet Bursaria bushes found within the site.	Retain existing vegetation in the northeast corner of the site; Remove weed infestation.	Designing for this butterfly will also benefit other butterflies and bush-dependent small birds such as the Blue Fairy Wren.

summarises the design implications associated with these species, highlighting how each contributed to shaping the spatial and ecological dimensions of the project. While information was provided to the design team through verbal or email communications, the recommendations were only brought together into a single table format while writing this publication.

4.2.2. Motivations for Moving in: Sustainability, Community, and Nature

The residents showcased a strong value alignment with The Paddock’s design principles and aspirations. In particular, there were three key elements attracting people to the site: sustainable living, a like-minded intentional community, and proximity to green space (both within and surrounding The Paddock).

Sustainable living was a primary motivator for purchasing a property at The Paddock. Respondents cited the development’s eco-friendly building practices, emphasis on energy efficiency, and the opportunity to downsize and live with “less stuff”. As one resident put it, they were “hoping to help preserve the natural environment and enjoy living in as light a footprint as possible”.

Building a community with like-minded people was also an appealing quality of this place. The intentional housing component of this project designed the space to elicit social encounters. Several residents had prior experience with cooperative living or environmental groups and sought to continue that ethos in a more relaxed, semi-rural context. One resident shared they were “drawn to the supportive, like-minded community (people interested in the environment), the beautiful natural surrounds and the prospect of growing more food”. Community was described not just as a social experience but as a form of shared responsibility: to the land, to each other, and to future ecological outcomes.

Proximity to green space and nature also featured heavily in decision-making. The Paddock’s location—bordering bushland, with food gardens and shared commons—allowed residents to reconnect with native landscapes. One person, formerly involved in large-scale land regeneration, saw The Paddock as “a smaller, prepared site” where their values could be lived out on a more intimate scale.

4.3. A Biodiversity-Inclusive Paddock

In this section we weave together the design outcomes through a socio-ecological lens, bringing together design outcomes to benefit biodiversity (as informed by semi-structured interviews, surveys, and our analysis) and everyday nature experiences (as informed by surveys).

The semi-structured interviews uncovered stories of loss and success as the reality and constraints of a planning and implementation process compromised some of the ecological aspirations of the site. However, the original intention of the project was retained, delivering a highly biodiverse landscape inspired by Castlemaine’s local ecology and offering a wide variety of nature experiences to the residents. Meanwhile, the survey uncovered a rich tapestry of wildlife encounters that highlight the biodiversity inclusivity achieved by the project.

One of the first design decisions made was to retain as many as half of the existing trees within the site (Figure 3). Old tree retention is a biodiversity-inclusive decision capable of supporting tree-hollow-dependent animals such as the Powerful Owl (focal species), the sugar glider (focal species), and many species of bats, owls, parrots, and possums. Furthermore, the old trees provide a variety of living and dead branches with suitable perching spaces for bird predators such as the Powerful Owl. The residents consider this decision has actively attracted birds to the site. One household described their daily wildlife observations as “morning bird TV”. Similarly, another resident reported seeing a Powerful Owl in the vicinity of The Paddock, while another respondent said they “have seen an owl three times at dusk, don’t know what kind”. Although its identity as a Powerful Owl is unconfirmed, the project considers this a big success.

Similarly, water was always a strong focus for the project (Figure 4). From early concept drawings, the water dam was always intended to be retained, allowing the water to flow freely through the site. There are two water bodies within The Paddock, the dam, at the highest point of the site, and the sump, at the lowest point of the site. The dam and the sump were designed with special consideration to frog requirements (e.g., Growling Grass Frog). Key design decisions included de-weeding, cleaning and deepening the dam itself, and planting a variety of native grasses surrounding the dam and sump to support frogs and insects. This initiative has been successful; one resident mentioned that sometimes the frogs were so loud they needed to close their windows to start with, while others said it was the best song to fall asleep to the sounds of the native animals: “Blue banded native bees, kangaroos, skinks skinks skinks, beautiful corroboree frogs, butterflies, annoying cockies [sulphur crested cockatoos], black tailed cockatoos (yay). The list is endless”.

The two water bodies within The Paddock are joined together by an ephemeral creek designed to promote biodiversity (Figure 5). One of the focal species used to guide decisions in this area was the Legless Lizard. The creek has a dry rock riverbed with a lot of organic litter and logs providing refuge for ground-dependent species. The lead architect shared that “there was a lot of discussion of what trees were going to be cut off and how to make sure those logs were used”. It was decided that they should be retained within the site as part of the landscaping strategy. This decision not only benefits the Legless Lizard, but also many other lizards and snakes. Five residents mentioned Blue-tongue and other lizards as part of their memorable nature encounters at The Paddock. One person reported a potential sighting of the Legless Lizard by stating they remember “hearing and seeing the golden scales of a reptile—I think a lizard but possibly a snake!”. Regardless of whether this memory is of a lizard or a snake, snake sightings are also documented for The Paddock, not only through the resident survey conducted, but in social media. One resident shared via Instagram a story of a Brown Snake caught in the compost bin. The resident community rallied to save the snake and rehome it in the wild, showcasing positive attitudes towards all forms of life regardless of their venomous status. This story was shared directly with the second author by one of the residents (via email).

Lastly, the planting palette was a key win for the project, and the potential for this insect to return. It included the grasses and understory plants they need to thrive. There was also a grass workshop organised by early residents to learn about the grasses to keep and which were weeds. This resulted in a resource that sits in the community house for all residents to be able to engage with the capacity to participate in the care of the ecological community (Figure 6a). Between the native species, native grasses and Sweet Bursaria were prioritised to provide habitat and resources for native butterflies and other insects (Figure 6). While an insect survey has not been completed, and there is no reported sighting of the Eltham Copper Butterfly, creating a diverse planting palette is attracting many different butterflies to the area. One resident shared “I had an amazing experience with a butterfly which was a cocoon, and I was able to see it after it emerged and before it departed”.

The ecological analysis highlighted that the northeast corner of the site presented native Sweet Bursaria bushes, and a design decision was made to retain and protect these bushes to benefit the Eltham Copper Butterfly (Figure 7a). In addition, de-weeding was an important move to protect this threatened butterfly (see Table 2) and the project began with an extensive weed removal process to preserve and protect native biodiversity. However, despite protection requirements established within the construction document, disruption caused by COVID-19 and related supply chain issues resulted in several changes in builder teams across the project. At some stage the Sweet Bursaria corner was flattened and cleared (Figure 7b). “I was furious about that”, shared the landowner, “that was the most painful [event], when we found out that the builder completely wiped that out”. The architect explained that the project became “messy” with COVID-19, and the builders “were doing so much for the rest of the site and didn’t have much space. It was a miscommunication” he concluded. While this was a big loss for this project there are now emerging plans in place to revegetate that space with the residents, bringing back the Sweet Bursaria and hopefully creating a refuge for the Eltham Copper Butterfly.

4.4. The Paddock’s Socio-Ecological Impact

People moved in at different stages of the project, and its progress was heavily impacted by global events. The results of the survey came from residents that moved in at stages 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 8). This provides both an opportunity and a challenge; while the original residents can mentor the newcomers, these newer residents have not been part of the original workshops and co-design. This means that there is a period of adjustment and renegotiation of the full community and potentially a settling-in time while values are adjusted and re-aligned.

For many of the residents, biodiversity and ecology restoration is already deeply ingrained in their values. For example, the residents have led an effort to establish a variety of nest boxes (Figure 9) out of their desire to give homes to birds, phascogales, and gliders; however, this is not the case for all residents. For example, one person wrote that biodiversity “was not a focus for me. But now I’m here, I love the trees”, showcasing the potential for biodiversity-inclusive design to support and realign people towards stewardship values. As the research continues over the next ten years, this capacity of the shift in expectation and understanding will be a key feature to explore.

The survey results indicate that The Paddock is settling into a thriving ecosystem. There were 75 species encounters recorded within the survey (

Table 3. Fauna mentioned by residents in the survey’s open-ended questions asking: “Have you spotted any species around The Paddock you would like to list?”; and “What has been one memorable experience you have had with the plants or animals that live or move through the Paddock?” * indicates potential species sighting as inferred from resident descriptions, biodiversity surveys will be needed to determine with certainty.

Biodiversity Group	Total	Focal Species	Species and Number of Sightings Reported
Birds	32	Powerful Owl (*1)	Unidentified birds (9), Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos (4), Sulphur-crested Cockatoos (2), Eastern Spinebills (3), Ducks (3), Cranes (2), White-faced Herons (2), Silvereyes (2), Blue Wrens (1), Pardalotes (1), Pied Cormorant (1), Spoonbill (1), Owl (1).
Reptiles	16	Legless Lizard (*1)	Snakes (4), Skinks (4), Blue-tongue Lizards (3), General lizards (3), Long-necked Turtle (1).
Mammals	11	Sugar Glider (0)	Kangaroos (8), Echidna (1), Rabbits (1).
Insects	9	Eltham Copper Butterfly (0)	Blue-banded Bees (5), Butterflies (including Tailed Emperor) (3), Dragonflies (1).
Amphibians	7	Growling Grass Frog (*1)	Unidentified frogs (4), Pobblebonk (1), Spotted Frog (1), Barking Marsh Frog/Long-Thumbed Frog (1).
Other			Yabbies (1).

). Based on anecdotal recordings, up to three of the focal species for the project are reported for the site. Anecdotal reporting included a Powerful Owl on the neighbouring site, an unknown owl species within The Paddock, the “golden scales of a reptile” that could be a lizard or snake, indicating a potential sighting for a Legless Lizard, and the noisy frogs that accompany the residents to sleep. While none of these are confirmed species sightings, the joy expressed in the survey for the wide variety of nature encounters experienced while in the site goes beyond the simple return of vitality of the ecosystem.

These preliminary surveys hint at a deep relationship and wellbeing of feeling part of a healing environment. In placemaking terms this would be the building of a sense of belonging and attachment to a place. One resident shared:

“It’s hard to think of one experience. I’ve enjoyed watching ducks and ducklings around the dam, watching small birds like blue wrens, Eastern spinebills and pardalotes visiting our gardens as the plants have grown up to provide habitat and food, seeing blue tongue lizards emerging from under wicking beds, seeing white faced herons gliding in to feed in the dam, hearing frogs sing me to sleep at night, and hearing and seeing the golden scales of a reptile—I think a lizard but possibly a snake!—disappearing under my back steps”

Living in this thriving ecosystem is not without its challenges. One of the key challenges raised in a few surveys is the desire to be involved yet the overwhelm of emails, activities, and opportunities. For example, a resident shared that “we have not monitored the [nesting] boxes that we installed or used night cameras to check for phascogales, gliders”. This also impacted the ability to connect to residents for this early survey but also their ability to feel connected to the project.

4.5. Looking Forward

The Paddock offers a potential model for regenerative intentional housing. The project was recently shortlisted for the 2025 Architecture Awards in three different categories (Regional Award, Residential Architecture—Multiple Housing Award, and Sustainability Award). While presenting the project (and touring the site) one of the jury members expressed their thanks “for letting us see this”. Despite not knowing the award results upon publication of this article, these nominations and stories bring evidence of the innovative and exemplary nature of this project.

The landowner and architect expressed hope that these nominations will help bring more attention to the project, inspiring others to adopt intentional community models, regenerative design, and biodiversity inclusivity to reduce urban sprawl and enhance socio-ecological benefits of the project. The lead architect shared that the nomination process is making him “feel reinvigorated to try something new again”. With this renewed energy, Geoff Crosby is hoping to evaluate The Paddock against original project aspirations and develop a strategy to take the model forward into all his projects while avoiding some of the challenges experienced in this project. “We tried to do so much in this property”, he shared; he envisions a ”checklist” that will help him organise and prioritise the aspirations of a project then “select which ones are the ones that we will push for and which ones will be better left for the next project”.

Meanwhile, respondents articulated a clear vision for The Paddock’s next decade. Key priorities included strengthening community bonds, increasing ecological education, expanding native plantings, and fostering sustainable living practices. Social cohesion was viewed as foundational; several people noted that informal interactions and a shared vision were essential for resolving tensions and maintaining momentum.

Education emerged as a critical pathway to deeper connection. Residents advocated for knowledge-sharing on fire safety, biodiversity, and sustainable living. This idea was also echoed by the architect and landowner who also believe the ecological design intent needs to be re-shared with the residents. The landowner mentioned the need for an on-boarding process for the newer residents because “the first 8 houses knew the aspiration, but the newer… houses didn’t”. Residents also identified under-utilized areas of the landscape—such as the eastern boundary—that could benefit from targeted planting and care. This ties back to the unfortunate miscommunication that resulted in loss of critical habitat for the Eltham Copper Butterfly. The landowner expressed desire for a “spring planting and ecological workshop” to help bring back the Sweet Bursaria.

Finally, the role of stewardship was emphasized. Respondents expressed support for monthly working bees, minimal development, reduced lighting, and stronger composting practices. The goal was not just to maintain but to enhance the land as a place where native species—and human values of care, cooperation, and restraint—can thrive. To deepen stewardship potential of the project, the design team (landowner, architect, and two authors) expressed their desire to organise an ecological workshop in May or early June 2025. The challenges—of time, communication, and competing priorities—are real but not insurmountable. With ongoing education, shared action, and a clear vision, The Paddock may indeed become what one resident imagined: “an area of cohabitation between native animals, plants, and humans”.

5. Discussion

The Paddock project offers an example of how Biodiversity Inclusive Design (BID) can support ecological regeneration, human well-being, and meaningful relationships between people and place. This publication serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it provides a written record to the residents on the history of their home, now that the design and construction is fully completed. This record provides a single point of reference for future socio-ecological work with this community. On the other hand, The Paddock exemplifies the potential positive impact of development conducted through ecological integrity and community participation. While we acknowledge the existence of other biodiversity-inclusive projects (e.g., Batbridge in South Holland [28], the crab bridge in Christmas Island, Australia [68], Brantstraße in Munich, Germany [69]), to the best of our knowledge, this publication represents the first detailed case study for biodiversity-inclusive design from concept to delivery as well as its implications for stewardship and people–nature relationships.

5.1. The Paddock Project and Biodiversity Inclusive Design: Successes, Trade-Offs, and Gaps

The Biodiversity Inclusive Design approach applied in this project achieved several notable successes, creating spaces with promising characteristics for people–nature coexistence and with some clear success eliciting stewardship and even mindset change. However, the project also faced some challenges and trade-offs that resulted in some limitations and creative solutions.

Our findings on resident perspectives suggest that BID may have a role to support systemic change towards ecocentric approaches to living and sense of community. Systemic change is needed if we aim to regenerate the ecological health of an area, increase liveability and wellbeing benefits of nature, and support biodiversity conservation within urban areas [23,70,71]. For example, anthropocentric narratives of the city are well documented [22,23] and an active barrier to biodiversity inclusivity within cities [70]. However, systemic change is difficult. According to Meadows [72], to support cultural change one must “insert people within the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power” (p. 164). This project has allowed people to live according to their values, and in some cases caused a mindset shift as reported by one of the survey participants. Since moving into The Paddock, current residents have displayed empathy towards (see snake story in result section) and long-term stewardship (see grass and nesting boxes stories). While many residents displayed ecocentric values from the moment they became interested in the project, some people choose to live here because of the intentional community aspect of the project. The Paddock’s natural environment has helped the second type of residents reignite their connection to nature by offering multiple invitations to spend time outdoors interacting with nature, both planned (e.g., community garden) and incidental (e.g., birdwatching). Nature connection is highly interlinked with people’s ability and desire to engage in pro-environmental behaviours [73,74], suggesting that the array of nature experiences on offer is providing meaningful moments to enjoy nature. The array and diversity of nature experiences within The Paddock were strongly influenced by BID.

Biodiversity-inclusive design influenced the early spatial configuration of the site and integrated ecological thinking into the broader design narrative of The Paddock. The project formally began when the design and research team planned and delivered citizen science workshops to understand the baseline condition for the site. This represents a clear win for The Paddock, as ecological consulting can often be engaged only to conduct ecological impact assessments, evaluating a project’s impact after it has already been designed to fulfill planning requirements [personal experience]. Ecological expertise is not currently seen as a core part of a design team in practice [70,75], despite having well-documented arguments advocating for ecologist involvement across the whole planning and design processes [13,25,31,76]. This early decision was influenced by the project’s participation in the Living Building Challenge, which requires projects to carry out a thorough site analysis, but it is aligned with recommendations from various BID frameworks [16].

Establishing an ecological baseline for the site allowed The Paddock’s team to engage in a more nuanced analysis of the local ecology which they were able to thoughtfully translate into key design decisions that helped retain ecological function within the constraints posed by a housing project. Key design decisions such as integrating a permanent wetland, preserving natural water flow, integrating permeable parking lots, and more, were directly informed by early ecological insights and the influence of the Living Building Challenge. Similarly, attempts to retain inclusion of native vegetation and the orientation of spaces to accommodate habitat connectivity reflect a thoughtful translation of ecological insights into design decisions. Despite the benefit of this exercise, ecologists were not formally involved across the whole lifecycle of the project.

A key tension for BID is the challenge of retaining interdisciplinary collaboration and ecological advice over the full life cycle of a project. Lack of logistical resources devoted towards ecological design processes and deliverables is a known barrier for BID [70,76]. This project partially overcame this barrier by establishing research collaborations with the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University. While the universities gained learning experiences for their students and research opportunities, The Paddock gained access to some grant money as well as ecological and regenerative advice between 2016–2017. However, this partnership also came with its own constraints, namely the inability to retain deep involvement after grant funds ran out; this meant that the intended ongoing dialogue between ecologists and the landscape architect did not fully materialise. Some key decisions, including those relating to the final plant palette and maintenance practices, were therefore made without sustained ecological input (see Section 5.2 for more detail).

Despite the inability to retain constant interdisciplinary collaboration, this project maintained a consistent ecological ethos throughout its formative phases because it achieved both of those things before the project even fully began. This represents a step up for The Paddock, as consistent ecological ethos is often diluted over time due to lack of clarity or shifting priorities [77]. This ongoing commitment likely responded to two key factors: (1) the deep enmeshment of socio-ecological goals, and (2) the ongoing presence of an ecology champion [70]. The Paddock’s aspirations for regeneration, intentional community, and sustainable living are intrinsically interrelated with the biodiversity-positive intentions of BID. Research indicates that clearly established ecological goals framed alongside its co-benefits determine the biodiversity success of a project [77]. The importance of these co-benefits is also highlighted by stories of how the emergent resident community supported each other through the struggles of the COVID-19 pandemic (see 4.4 in Table 1). This highlights potential mental health and wellbeing being experienced at The Paddock. Furthermore, the landowners and lead architect acted as project co-champions, as both shared a deep, lived connection to the place. This aligns with scholarship on place attachment and regenerative practice, which suggests that long-term engagement and personal connection to land are essential for fostering care, maintenance, and adaptive management [71,78]. While this was a unique asset in the project, it also raises questions about how BID can be scaled or replicated in less privileged or less stable contexts where such champions may not naturally emerge.

The feasibility and success of The Paddock were likely supported by the project’s location in a small regional town with strong environmental values and relatively intact surrounding natural landscapes. Contextual factors such as the scale of development, community familiarity, and high volunteering rates of Castlemaine made it easy to tap into local social capital to support design activities; meanwhile, the existing ecological fabric of the area made it relatively easy to identify species to design for. While the principles and processes may be replicated at different levels including single buildings [69], neighbourhoods [39], and whole cities [3], the unique conditions of stakeholder ecological literacy, nature connection, and regenerative commitment may not be readily available in other settings. In this way, the Living Building Challenge becomes a clear driver for success, with over 250 projects successfully certified across multiple scales (see LBC Project map [79]). Furthermore, certification updates are now requiring stronger ecological considerations across the whole process. However, aligning with the Living Building Challenge imposes additional costs for a project. For example, this may include sustainably certified materials, technological additions, and time commitment expectations on future residents, amongst other decisions which come at a premium cost. While these decisions offer long-term benefit, they can push a project over the line in terms of affordable housing.

This leads to a broader consideration of inclusivity in regenerative design. While the project references intentional communities as a potential model, it does not explicitly address the socioeconomic barriers that often limit access to regenerative lifestyles. Issues such as affordability, gentrification, and unequal access to green infrastructure are real threats to the inclusivity of BID [70,80]. For BID frameworks to be applicable in diverse urban settings, they must be more explicitly attuned to these barriers, incorporating strategies to ensure equity alongside ecological goals. This may include co-design processes with marginalised groups, affordable housing mandates, or policy instruments that protect against green gentrification.

5.2. Exploring Design Process Alignment with Biodiversity-Inclusive Design

The Paddock took a species-as-clients approach to biodiversity-inclusive design, making an intentional decision to select and cater for five species. Within the BID process, researchers have identified approximately 18 different components to enable design for the three dimensions: ecology of place, species, and people–nature relationships [16]. Figure 10 visually summarises the BID steps followed at the Paddock project as evident from the data presented and our analysis. The brown text represents the key activities conducted by The Paddock team to integrate biodiversity within the design process. The green, turquoise, and blue boxes represent target initiatives within the BID process that were delivered through the implemented initiatives. Lastly, the grey boxes represent elements that were not delivered within this project.

Based on our analysis, The Paddock engaged in 10 out of the 18 different activities suggested by researchers. Roughly half of these activities were carried out rigorously and aligned with best available guidance. This includes baseline condition, ecological patterns, visioning processes, focal species selection, and participatory design. However, as previously mentioned, project constraints and partnership structures made it difficult for the ecology team to remain fully involved across the design process, limiting the level of depth employed to identify non-human users’ needs, integrate food and shelter opportunities, minimise impacts of construction, and integrate ecological considerations into the adaptive governance structure. These same constraints also explain other activities that the team was unable to pursue such as evaluating potential project impact for both biodiversity and socio-ecological goals, conducting connectivity analysis, or receiving more focused design advice on wildlife-friendly materials and mitigating common biodiversity threats such as light pollution and window collision. These activities require technical ecological skills and knowledge or substantial research on available products in the market. The following paragraphs compare the design activities employed at The Paddock to complete the aforementioned components with best practice recommendations within the academic literature.

A key strength of this project’s BID process was the ecology of place dimension; this was largely determined by the alignment of the design process with the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The LBC calls for building projects that work within the ecological limits of a place and give back to the place, aiming to deliver nature-positive projects [40]. Projects are evaluated based on seven different petals such as water, energy, materials, and place. Aligning with this certification provided a framework that intrinsically achieved four out of the five ecologies of place BID activities. This included starting the site analysis by establishing the baseline condition of the local ecology, identifying key ecological patterns of the place, clarifying the ecological vision for the project and how it related to other project goals, and an attempt to minimise construction impacts. Aligning with best practice, the first three activities were carried out through participatory processes, strengthening social ecological connection and supporting people–nature relationships [16].

Participatory design is increasingly recognised as a critical pathway to achieve long-term benefits for people–nature relationships across urban and rural areas. Participatory design can help exchange local ecological knowledge, support nature connection, and promote stewardship [16,81,82]. The Paddock brought stakeholder’s voices to the table to both understand the site (citizen science workshops) and make critical decisions that impacted design (biophilic and regenerative workshops), and governance of The Paddock as an intentional community (governance workshops). These workshops were likely attended by early adopters, who became residents after the first half of the houses were completed. These workshops and the ongoing exchange of ecological knowledge in the early stages of the project could have played an important role in supporting empathy towards non-human stakeholders [70,83]. However, it is also likely that these people already had high pro-environmental values [73] and directly chose to live in The Paddock because of the project’s commitment to sustainable living. Meanwhile, despite best attempts to minimise construction impacts, miscommunications, staff turnover, and stress in the aftermath of a global pandemic meant that stipulating environmental protection within agreements was insufficient to preserve some of the native bushland during the construction processes. This highlights the importance of enabling communication across multiple strategies (verbal and written) as well as the potential role for activities that support builders’ non-human empathy throughout the construction phase of a project.

Incorporating First Nations’ ecological knowledges within the design process was an important element that was overlooked by The Paddock. BID increasingly recognises the importance of Indigenous ecological knowledge for culturally grounded and ecologically resilient design [16,84,85]. The First Nations’ ecological understanding, conservation, and management practices offer many lessons to (re)ignite our personal connection to nature and care for the land [85,86,87]. However, engaging with Indigenous People was not within the scope for The Paddock. This can be explained by the 10+-year trajectory of the project, where the call for stronger integration of Indigenous thinking in city-making processes, and more specifically within biodiversity-inclusive design, is still emerging. For example, out of the biodiversity-inclusive frameworks analysed by Hernandez-Santin, et al. [16], only one framework explicitly mentioned the importance of First Nations’ knowledge in restoration. Future projects should aim to strengthen First Nations’ engagement.

Last but not least, The Paddock had many early wins and missed opportunities across the non-human users of place as clients dimension. When taking a species-as-clients approach, it is key to delineate a strategy for selecting focal species that the design will cater to. Aligned with recommended processes [39,88,89,90,91], species selection within The Paddock broadly entailed: (1) desk-based research to identify a pool of potential species to design for, (2) assessing the site’s ability to support different species, (3) creating a shortlist of species by identifying species with ecological, social, or cultural value, (4) considering people–nature interactions, and (5) negotiating which focal species to design for in collaboration with local stakeholders. This led to the selection of five species to inform the design process. Apfelbeck et al. [88] recommends a search radius of 20 km; however, our search radius was limited to 10 km as determined by the search capabilities within the database used for analysis (Atlas of Living Australia, [51]). For the site’s ability to support species, we considered biodiversity survey results, site characteristics, and the future identity of the project as a small suburban housing project at the edge of a town. Selection criteria for shortlisted species were well-aligned with those advocated by or used by other researchers including species’ mobility capacities (see [89]), retaining a diversity of ecological niche considerations (see [39]), role as an indicator species (see [39,90,91]), conservation status, and/or charisma (see [39,91]). Final selection of species was determined through an array of formal (Biophilia and Regenerative Development Workshops) and informal conversations (email and phone conversations) with project stakeholders including future residents, landowners, and the lead architect. This process resulted in an array of aspirational and intentional guidelines to bring non-human stakeholders to the design table. However, the aspiration of using ecologists to provide active and on-going non-human participation at the design table was not fully realised.

There was originally an intention set where the co-authors of this publication would play an ongoing role in the project, actively advocating for biodiversity (Author 1, CHS) as well as providing guidance for regenerative and biophilic design approaches (Author 2, DH). This led to a series of informal exchanges (as documented in the results), that provided an overview of key initiatives to support the selected focal species without being able to apply this advice as rigorously as intended. For example, many researchers advocate for creating formal non-human personas to collate non-human needs and identify relevant design features and strategies [19,92,93]. The level of rigour employed by different researchers varies, where Tomitsch [92,93] gathers publicly available information about the persona’s habitat, needs, challenges, and species–species interactions while Weisser [19] advocates for a species’ life-cycle lens, noting down changes in their needs and resources across different stages of their life. However, non-human personas were not formally created for The Paddock. Instead, ecological advice to identify species needs and integrate food and shelter opportunities was approached through informal conversations and ecological storytelling.

Ecological storytelling can be a powerful tool for systemic change. Storytelling can help people exchange knowledge and experiences and connect ideas that might trigger different ways of thinking about a place [71,72]. In systems change theory, mindset shift is placed as one of the top levers for system change [72]. While there is also a precedent for this approach (see [31]) when paired up with limited resourcing for ecological input, it can result in information gaps that can strengthen ecological decision making. This missing rigour can be explained by the dependency of research partnerships and grants to bring in ecology perspectives into the project. However, research partnerships can also be instrumental in supporting the growth of biodiversity-inclusive design practice, as it can allow for design projects to tap into specialised skills to push the boundary of the discipline. For example, research practice collaboration led to the creation of Animal-Aided Design Studio in Germany, where they are now continually working to deliver real-world projects [69]. Similarly, in Australia, ICON Science Research Hub has helped the City of Melbourne establish biodiversity targets for the city, conducting an extensive connectivity analysis and species modelling to assess the biodiversity potential of a future neighbourhood [39,94]. However, these are larger-scale projects with resources beyond the capacities of a small single-site development such as The Paddock.

The lack of ongoing ecologist input within the design process also led to missed opportunities to create suitable niches for biodiversity within the built fabric. There is new and ever-evolving research into co-design habitats allowing walls and built structures to create homes for different species. For example, in the aforementioned project Brantstraße, Munich, the Animal-Aided Design Studio delivered bespoke bird bricks for one of their target species [69]. Similarly, projects in England are now adding bat bricks into the walls of the building [95]. In other typologies of built infrastructures, such as coastal areas, ecologists and designers are collaborating to create walkways and living walls specifically designed for aquatic fauna [18,96]. The Paddock’s approach to Biodiversity-inclusive design, in this project, remained focused on the landscape architecture design. From an architectural point of view, The Paddock opted for indirect benefits for biodiversity, for example by sourcing local materials and minimising carbon emissions, rather than searching for or creating bespoke habitat analogues for the selected species. However, as the lead architect pointed out, this project was already trying to do so much that maybe it is okay that this is an element pursued in future projects or, better yet, by the resident community.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study is a preliminary effort to document the project’s history, intentions, and early impressions from residents and accessible members of the development team. The project has focussed on the design” phase of a project and emerging stewardship perspectives, leaving post-occupancy biodiversity analysis for future research efforts.

It is important to acknowledge that the results and their associated discussion are presented only through a biodiversity-inclusive lens. This project also aspired to challenge conventional housing sizes in Australia, inspire intentional community development models, take Victorian terraced houses into the future, and more; however, the research has focused on evaluating the alignment, impact, and potential for biodiversity-inclusive design as an approach to embed beyond-human voices within the design process and elicit agency and stewardship within the new residents. Future research on this case study could expand upon our design process table and evaluate design decisions through co-housing models, ecological design, and beyond.

This research has several limitations that should be addressed by future research. These limitations are expanded on below and include: (1) the limited involvement from ecologists through the whole design phase, (2) contextual specificity and transferability, (3) focus on qualitative data at this stage of the research and project life, and (4) short survey engagement period and communication limitations.

1. Limited resources for ecologist involvement across the whole life of the project (beyond volunteering)

Budget constraints in this project limited long-term involvement of the design team beyond the initial project delivery phase. In the case of The Paddock, this challenge was partially mitigated by the personal passion of the design team, ecologists ongoing voluntary engagement, and the pursuit of Living Building Challenge certification. However, this level of involvement is atypical and highlights a structural risk for replicability in future developments where such intrinsic motivation may not exist. Future research could use comparative case studies to examine a broader range of projects with varying levels of budget, certification goals, and team commitment. This would help identify systemic mechanisms that support sustained design team involvement over the long term.

2. Contextual Specificity and Transferability

Another limitation of this research is its focus on a single, context-specific project, which limits the generalisability of its findings. Future research should expand the evidence base by comparing projects across different geographic, social, and ecological contexts. In particular, comparative studies between small-town and metropolitan initiatives could illuminate how scale, governance structures, land-use pressures, and cultural values shape the opportunities and constraints for biodiversity-inclusive design.

3. Focus on qualitative data at this stage of the research and project life

This study is a preliminary effort to document the project’s history, ecological intentions, and early impressions from residents and accessible members of the development team. As such, it drew on qualitative data, particularly open-ended survey responses, to explore how residents relate to and care for the site’s ecological features. While this publication focused on hearing residents’ voices, future research will aim to incorporate quantitative ecological analysis to evaluate changes in species richness, habitat quality, and other indicators over time. This evaluation could combine an array of methodologies such as camera trapping, machine learning algorithms to streamline data processing, ecological connectivity models, and citizen science exercises with the residents. Additionally, it could evaluate post-occupancy management and stewardship practices by the residents, drawing a parallel between site management and sustained biodiversity outcomes and evaluate additional co-benefits such as mental health.

4. Short Survey Engagement Period and Communication Limitations

The engagement period with residents was limited to just two weeks, restricting participation. Some residents reported communications fatigue due to frequent emails from their Residents’ Committee, which could have caused some residents to miss the email inviting them to participate in this survey. In addition, the survey timing may have limited response rates, as it occurred prior to the next scheduled community meeting. Future research should extend engagement periods and more carefully coordinate with existing community communication channels to avoid overburdening participants. Alternative data collection methods could also be pursued to ensure less vocal residents can share their thoughts. This should build more sustained dialogue between the researchers and the residents, supporting future socio-ecological governance activities and ongoing stewardship of the land.

6. Conclusions

The Paddock offers valuable lessons for the application of BID in practice, demonstrating how ecological principles can shape design and community experience. As of its launch date, The Paddock showed that BID can support better design decisions for nature, despite project size and budgetary constraints, and support residents’ agency as stewards to the ecosystem. Future research will be needed to explore health and wellbeing benefits to the residents as well as ecological restoration outcomes. At the same time, it reveals the importance of continuity, resource planning, social equity, and post-occupancy reflection as essential components for truly inclusive and enduring biodiversity outcomes. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, it represents the first case study of biodiversity-inclusive design from conceptualisation to delivery.

Across is conceptualisation and design process, the project challenged conventional development models including: (1) conventional housing sizes in Australia, (2) predisposition for detached housing in suburban and small-town areas in Australia, (3) and pushing the envelope of ecological design by bringing together regenerative development, biophilia, and biodiversity-inclusive design. The project’s application of biodiversity inclusivity could have been strengthened through increased rigour and sustained ecological advice. This includes further engagement with ecology experts throughout the design phase, engaging with First Nations knowledge holders, and integrating traditional ecological knowledges or embedding biodiversity-inclusive features within the architectural design. However, biodiversity inclusive design is a novel and evolving field with various gaps in knowledge in need of further research.

By embedding environmental stewardship and community governance at the core of a project, the project can deliver ecologically vibrant and socially cohesive regenerative neighbourhoods. The Paddock offers an overwhelming success story with current residents reporting an increase in biodiversity, sharing an array of nature encounters, and, for one resident, leading to mindset change. However, there are still some stories of loss, offered as a lesson for others to avoid mistakes and miscommunications experienced across the project. Stories of loss highlight the need for onboarding processes bringing consultants, builders, and new residents up to date with the story of the project and fostering stewardship. Future research within The Paddock will focus on quantitative methods to evaluate the project outcomes for biodiversity, nature experiences, and stewardship. However, we also hope that this publication will inspire future design and research embracing biodiversity-inclusive design and support the growing wealth of literature on people–nature coexistence.