Ecology-led DesignHow ecology shapes our design process and outcomes

14 Aug 2026

The Challenge

We are designing and building in the midst of two interconnected crises - climate change and biodiversity loss. As these pressures accelerate, the places we live are increasingly exposed to flooding, overheating, extreme weather, habitat loss and declining environmental quality. At the same time, the way we create and manage our built environment contributes directly to these problems through material extraction, carbon-intensive construction, waste generation, hard engineering and the continued loss and fragmentation of natural habitats.

These challenges are often discussed separately. Carbon sits within one conversation, biodiversity within another, while flooding, materials, health and community wellbeing are considered elsewhere. In reality, they are all deeply connected. Every project interacts with ecological systems, affecting soil, water, vegetation, species movement and resource use, while the environmental quality of the places we create also has a direct impact on the people who use them.

There is now a substantial body of evidence showing that access to nature can support physical health, mental wellbeing and social connection (Nguyen et al., 2021; Wan, Shen and Choi, 2021). But beyond the research, many of these benefits are intuitive. We are drawn to trees that provide shade, water, birdsong, seasonal change and landscapes with depth and texture. Places shaped by living systems feel richer, healthier and more enjoyable than those where nature has been tightly controlled or reduced to a decorative strip around the edges.

Example of typical design where ecology is absent from consideration resulting in poor quality green spaces. Image credit: Irish Examiner

Current Practice - where ecology currently sits in the design process

Ecology has traditionally entered the design process relatively late. By the time ecological surveys are commissioned, many of the decisions that will fundamentally shape a site may already have been made. Building footprints, roads, parking, drainage and servicing are established, leaving ecologists to assess the consequences and the remaining landscape to accommodate biodiversity.

This can result in a less damaging project, but that is very different from creating a regenerative one. Opportunities to retain existing habitats, restore natural water systems, connect ecological networks or allow nature to influence the character of a place can easily be missed when ecology is treated primarily as a constraint to be managed.

The result is familiar, small areas of planting around buildings, tightly maintained lawns and fragmented green spaces that may appear ‘green’ but provide relatively little ecological value.

Claremont House, an adaptive reuse project incorporating existing heritage buildings and mature trees. Image credit: ACT

Where the challenge arises

Part of the challenge lies in how we have learned to think about nature in the first place. Our built environment often reflects an assumption that people sit outside natural systems and that successful design means bringing those systems under control. Water is moved away and rerouted, vegetation is contained and landscapes are expected to remain neat and predictable.

Our ideas of what constitutes a well-maintained landscape reflect this. Perfect lawns, clipped shrubs, straight edges and the removal of dead wood are commonly understood as signs of care, while long grass, self-seeded plants and natural decay can be interpreted as neglect. These conventions have deep cultural roots, connected to histories of landownership, status, estate landscapes and colonial and religious ideas about ordering and controlling nature.

Understanding and including ecology early gives us the knowledge to look at these places differently. A ditch may also be a habitat and ecological corridor. An area of wet ground may provide natural water storage. Dead wood can support an extraordinary range of life. A landscape that appears less controlled can in fact be significantly more diverse, resilient and alive.

Moving from a predominantly human-centred view towards a more ecological one does not mean designing places that work less well for people. It means recognising that we are part of the same living systems and that our health, comfort and resilience are closely connected to theirs.

Solutions map from Pathways 2 Resilience project demonstrating holistic approach to understanding the local landscape context. Image credit: ACT

The solution - what if we designed as part of nature?

What happens if we start from that position? Rather than asking how nature can fit around development, we can ask how development might become part of the ecological systems that already exist. Every site contains relationships between water, soils, vegetation, wildlife and people. Understanding those relationships from the beginning creates opportunities not simply to protect what remains, but to restore and strengthen them.

That could mean allowing natural water flows to become part of streets and public spaces, reconnecting fragmented habitats or adapting existing places to make room for nature again. Infrastructure can provide habitat as well as engineering function. Buildings can store carbon rather than simply emit it. Materials can be selected for reuse and disassembly, allowing waste to become a resource. New development can evolve from a deeper understanding of the ecology of a place rather than requiring that ecology to adapt around it.

This way of thinking also extends beyond the nature we can see. Every material carries an ecological story through extraction, manufacture, transport, maintenance and eventual disposal or reuse. A project cannot meaningfully claim to support nature on site while ignoring environmental impacts created elsewhere. Ecology-led design therefore needs to consider the whole system, from habitats and hydrology to embodied carbon, material choice and long-term adaptability.

Diagram from Red Bank project demonstrating the Design for Disassembly approach where the whole life cycle of materials are considered to limit environmental impact. Image credit: ACT

What this means for our work

At ACT, we are working to bring this thinking into projects from the beginning. Rather than treating ecology, architecture and climate resilience as separate disciplines, our aim is to allow each to inform the others.

This is supported by an interdisciplinary team with complementary expertise. Ecologist Jack Kennedy brings technical ecological knowledge, helping us understand habitats, species, hydrology and the ecological processes that shape a place. Siobhán Keogh, a climate resilience researcher with a background in architecture and an MSc in Ecological Management and Conservation Biology, works across ecology, climate adaptation, design and community engagement. Architect Luke Mandle, who recently completed the RIAI Environmental Accreditation programme, brings a growing technical focus on operational energy, embodied carbon, environmental quality and whole life-cycle assessment.

Together, these perspectives allow environmental questions to be asked at different scales and, crucially, at the right time. What habitats already exist here? How does water move through the site? How will this place respond to a changing climate? What are the carbon and ecological implications of the materials we choose? How will the project perform over its lifetime?

Site mapping from Reimagining Lisdoonvarna project emphasising the riparian buffer running through the town. Image credit: ACT

Community knowledge is another important part of that process. People understand the places where they live in ways that cannot always be captured through a survey or short site visit. They know where flooding happens, how spaces are used, where wildlife is seen and how places have changed over time. Listening to that knowledge alongside ecological and design analysis helps us understand a place as a living system. It is about embracing the complexity of nature rather than designing it away.

Better outcomes for all

Bringing ecology into the beginning of the process is not simply about achieving better biodiversity outcomes. It can also make the design process more effective.

Understanding ecological constraints and opportunities early can reduce the risk of discovering significant issues once a design is already advanced. Working with natural systems can reduce reliance on hard engineering and create more resilient responses to flooding, overheating and other climate impacts. Designing for adaptability, lower embodied carbon and whole-life performance can also improve long-term value.

This is becoming increasingly important as environmental performance moves from good practice towards professional obligation. The revised EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive will introduce mandatory reporting of whole life-cycle carbon, including embodied and operational emissions, beginning with larger new buildings in 2028 and extending to all new buildings by 2030. The direction of travel is clear; the environmental impact of a building will increasingly need to be understood across its entire life rather than simply through its operational energy use.

Perhaps most importantly, this approach can create better places. Supporting biodiversity does not have to come at the expense of human experience. Trees provide habitat but also shade and shelter. Wetlands support wildlife while storing water and creating beautiful public spaces. Diverse planting can provide food for pollinators while bringing colour, texture and seasonal change into people's everyday lives.

Scotch House, biodiversity rich spaces woven into urban multi-use developement.  Image Credit: ACT — Scotch House, biodiversity rich spaces woven into urban multi-use developement. Image Credit: ACT

Conclusion - What if we changed the starting point?

The biggest change may not be in the solutions we use, but in the questions we ask first. What if every project began by asking what is already living here? Where does the water go? What habitats could be strengthened? What resources could be retained, reused or regenerated? And how could the places we create make life better, not only for the people who use them, but for the wider living systems they are part of?

These questions will not always lead to simple answers, and they may challenge some of our established ideas about what a designed or well-maintained place should look like. But that is precisely why we think they are worth asking.

At ACT, we are interested in working with clients, communities and collaborators who want to ask these questions at the beginning of a project, when there is still an opportunity for the answers to fundamentally shape what comes next.

If we stopped asking how much nature we can accommodate within our designs and started asking what our designs could contribute to nature, what might we create differently?

A positive example of regenerative housing design at Bridport Cohousing. Image credit: Rebecca Noakes Photography/Barefoot Architect

Nguyen, P. Y., Astell-Burt, T., Rahimi-Ardabili, H. and Feng, X. (2021). “Green Space Quality and Health: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11028.