biomimetics

Article
Biomimicry as a Sustainable Design Methodology—Introducing
the ‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ Framework
Lazaara Ilieva 1, * , Isabella Ursano 1 , Lamiita Traista 1 , Birgitte Hoffmann 2 and Hanaa Dahy 2,3,4

1 Research Group in Sustainable Design Engineering, Technical Faculty of IT & Design, Aalborg University,
2450 Copenhagen, Denmark; ursanoisabella@gmail.com (I.U.); lamiita0205@gmail.com (L.T.)
2 Department of Planning, Technical Faculty of IT & Design, Aalborg University, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark;
bhof@plan.aau.dk (B.H.); hanaadahy@plan.aau.dk (H.D.)
3 BioMat Department, Bio-Based Materials and Materials Cycles in Architecture, Institute of Building
Structures and Structural Design (ITKE), University of Stuttgart, Keplerstr. 11, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany
4 Department of Architecture (FEDA), Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11517, Egypt
* Correspondence: lazaarasi@plan.aau.dk

Abstract: Biomimicry is an interdisciplinary approach to study and transfer principles or mechanisms

from nature to solve design challenges, frequently differentiated from other design disciplines by
its particular focus on and promise of sustainability. However, in the biomimicry and biologically
inspired design literature, there are varying interpretations of how and whether biomimetic designs
lead to sustainable outcomes and how sustainability, nature, and mimesis are conceptualised and
engaged in practice. This paper takes a particular focus on the built environment and presents a
theoretical overview of biomimicry literature spanning across specific fields, namely architecture,
philosophy, sustainability and design. We develop upon conceptual considerations in an effort to
contribute to the growing calls in the literature for more reflective discussions about the nuanced





 relationship between biomimicry and sustainability. We further develop a ‘Biomimicry for Sustain-
Citation: Ilieva, L.; Ursano, I.; Traista, ability’ framework that synthesises recent reflective deliberations, as a possible direction for further
L.; Hoffmann, B.; Dahy, H. theorisation of biomimicry, aiming to elaborate on the role of biomimicry as a sustainable design
Biomimicry as a Sustainable Design methodology and its potential to cultivate more sustainable human–nature relations. The framework
Methodology—Introducing the is used as a tool for retrospective analysis, based on literature of completed designs, and as a catalyst
‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ for biomimetic design thinking. The objective of this paper is to serve as a point of departure for more
Framework. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37. active and deeper discussions regarding future biomimetic practice in the context of sustainability
https://doi.org/10.3390/ and transformational change, particularly within the built environment.
biomimetics7020037

Academic Editor: Marc Weissburg Keywords: biomimicry; sustainability; sustainable design; sustainable innovation; sustainability
promise; biologically inspired design; nature; mimesis; built environment
Received: 2 March 2022
Accepted: 28 March 2022
Published: 30 March 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
In the context of biologically inspired design (BID), biomimicry is an interdisciplinary
published maps and institutional affil-
approach, bringing together biologists, designers, engineers, among others, to study and
iations.
transfer principles or mechanisms from nature to solve design challenges [1,2]. However,
in the biomimicry and BID literature, there are varying interpretations of how and whether
biomimetic designs lead to sustainable outcomes [2–5], how ‘nature’ is conceptualised
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
within biomimetic practice, and to what extent ‘mimesis’ is a systematic transfer of nature
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. or a discursive process of inspiration from nature [6–8]. Thus, we present a review of the
This article is an open access article biomimicry literature with a focus on the built environment, developing upon conceptual
distributed under the terms and considerations, to contribute to the growing calls in the literature for more reflective
conditions of the Creative Commons discussions about the nuanced relationship between biomimicry and sustainability. Given
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the largely synonymous relation between the terms BID and biomimicry [9–11], we discuss
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the concept of biomimicry in the context of BID, which will be made clear in our use of
4.0/). design cases further below. Technical deliberations on the differences between biomimicry

Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020037 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics

Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 2 of 13

and BID are beyond the scope of the present paper as we aim to contribute to reflective
discussions on biomimicry and its elusive role as a sustainable design methodology.
Biomimicry is framed as a response to the growing calls for alternatives to the eco-
logically destructive technologies, systems, and approaches of the current industrial age
defining current unsustainable human–nature relations [8], which takes “nature as a model
to meet the challenges of sustainable development” [12]. McDonough and Braungart’s
Cradle to Cradle design approach reflects a similar orientation, maintaining that the laws
of nature are the bedrock of good design [13]. In the literature, biomimicry is frequently
characterised by its promise to achieve sustainable designs [2,3,14–17] (infrastructure de-
sign see [18], architectural and urban design see [16,19–21]), to reconnect humans with
nature [1,4,7], to regenerate ecosystems [22], and to fundamentally transform the way we
think by moving beyond anthropocentric narratives of human domination over non-human
life [5,23,24].
The fundamental principles driving these biomimetic promises centre around the
emulation of nature’s time-tested patterns. The argument builds on the fact that life on
Earth has been developing for 3.8 billion years, while humans have been around for a mere
200,000 years—a blink of an evolutionary eye. Thus, nature is often conceptualised as “a
catalogue of products” [7] (p. 6), “a living encyclopaedia of ingenuity” [1] (p. 122), “a large
database of strategies and mechanisms” [20] (p. 693), or “a gigantic pool of ideas” [12] that
has 3.8 billion years’ worth of insights and clever adaptations to offer—an untapped wis-
dom that humans should consult, emulate, and learn from to ‘achieve’ sustainability [7,19].
In other words, the natural world has characteristics that, if systematically studied and
transferred, can help us move toward sustainability. Here sustainability is often treated as
an achievable steady state for which biomimicry becomes a ‘tool’ or ‘vehicle’. In practice,
designers translate this steady state in terms of harm reduction and damage limitation,
thereby assuming an inherently harmful characterisation of human activity that must
be minimised via optimal designs. However, this characteristic promise of sustainable
designs is frequently contested in the literature, since biomimetic designs do not always
lead to more sustainable outcomes [7,14,18,22,25], with the very notion of sustainability
itself—a contested concept [26,27].
“As a field, biomimicry is diverse and, at times, less than coherent. Its practitioners
can scarcely agree on the term’s definition, on what level of fidelity to nonhuman life
is required for a project to count as ‘biomimesis’ or to what ends its methods are best
applied.” [23] (p. 64).
“Further critiques of biomimetics have noted that the application to sustainability chal-
lenges requires deeper levels of theorisation to have meaningful impact. The emerging
literature on biomimetics, however, tends to be focused on the technical translation of bio-
logical function without explicit consideration for the state-of-the-art thinking regarding
sustainability considerations.” [5] (p. 2).
In response, we further propose a framework, which synthesises recent reflective
deliberations in the literature, as a possible direction for further theorisation of biomimicry,
aiming to elaborate on the potential of biomimicry to “help launch designers into their
new role as sustainability interventionists.” [14] (p. 66) and to ultimately cultivate more
sustainable human–nature relations.
In the following sections, we will provide an overview of these debates in the literature,
preceded by an elaboration of our research methods, and bring to light the various classifi-
cations of biomimicry, and the fundamental assumptions underlying the conceptualisations
of sustainability, nature, and mimesis in these discussions. Following this, we introduce
the ‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ framework that operationalises these considerations
in order to elaborate on the potential of biomimicry and offer a possible direction for
further theorisation of its application to sustainability challenges. Finally, we conclude
with an open discussion regarding the further development of the framework, along with
exploratory questions to guide future conceptual and experimental research agendas.
 considerations in order to elaborate on the potential of biomimicry and offer a possible
direction for further theorisation of its application to sustainability challenges. Finally, we
conclude with an open discussion regarding the further development of the framework,
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 along with exploratory questions to guide future conceptual and experimental research 3 of 13
agendas.

2. Materials
2. Materials and and Methods
Methods
This study is based
This study is basedon onsecondary
secondaryresearch
researchand andinvestigates
investigatesthe conceptual
the conceptual consider-
consid-
ations ofofbiomimicry
erations biomimicryfrom froma alarge
largecollection
collectionofofresearch
researchpapers
papers found
found in in the following
the following
databases: EBSCOhost,
databases: EBSCOhost,Web WebofofScience
Science Core
Core Collection
Collection andand SpringerLink.
SpringerLink. TheThe publica-
publications
tions span across the fields of architecture, philosophy, sustainability
span across the fields of architecture, philosophy, sustainability and design. Keywords and design. Key-
words included sustainability, sustainable development, biomimicry,
included sustainability, sustainable development, biomimicry, biologically inspired design, biologically in-
spired design, built environment sustainable design, and human–nature
built environment sustainable design, and human–nature relations. The papers were cho- relations. The
papers
sen basedwere
on chosen based on
the following the following
search search
criteria: recent criteria: recent
publications (afterpublications
2015) as well (after 2015)
as papers
that explicitly discuss the nuanced relationship between biomimicry and sustainability and
as well as papers that explicitly discuss the nuanced relationship between biomimicry (i.e.,
sustainability (i.e.,
sustainability sustainability
promise), promise),
methodological andmethodological and conceptual
conceptual considerations considerations
of the application
of biomimicry
of the application of biomimicry
as a design responseas toasustainability
design response to sustainability
challenges, biomimicrychallenges,
as a novel waybio-
mimicry as a novel way of thinking, and biomimicry as a paradigmatic
of thinking, and biomimicry as a paradigmatic shift in redesigning human–nature relations. shift in redesigning
human–nature
The relations.
following review The following
is thus review
based on over 30 is thus based
papers on over 30
that provided papers
explicit that pro-
definitions
vided
of explicit definitions
biomimicry of biomimicry
as well as reflective as welldebates
and critical as reflective
on theand critical
promise of debates
biomimicry on theto
promise of
cultivate biomimicry
more sustainable to cultivate more sustainable
human-nature relations. human-nature relations.
For the text mining
mining and and review
reviewprocess
processofofthe
thecollected
collectedpapers,
papers,we weadopted
adoptedthe theaffinity
affin-
ity diagram
diagram methodology,
methodology, which which involved
involved the retrieval
the retrieval and recording
and recording of main of main
points, points, fol-
followed
lowed
by by the identification
the identification of themes of themes and patterns.
and patterns. The purpose
The purpose in making in making use of
use of these these
sources
sources
was was to
to better better
grasp thegrasp the complex
complex and plural andissues,
pluralpromises
issues, promises and implications
and implications inherentin- to
biomimicry as a concept.
herent to biomimicry RelevantRelevant
as a concept. quotes defining biomimicry
quotes defining and its implications
biomimicry and its implica- on
design,
tions onsustainability, the conceptualisation
design, sustainability, of nature
the conceptualisation ofand mimesis,
nature future promises
and mimesis, future prom-and
risks were extracted and recorded on a digital board. These were
ises and risks were extracted and recorded on a digital board. These were subsequently subsequently divided
into groups,
divided into which
groups,were which further
werecombined into main
further combined themes,
into main as shownasinshown
themes, Figurein1 Figure
below,
in order to
1 below, inidentify
order topossible
identifypatterns
possibleregarding biomimetic
patterns regarding practice and
biomimetic sustainability.
practice The
and sustain-
end result
ability. Thebrought
end resultclarity and consensus
brought clarity andbetween different
consensus lines of
between thoughtlines
different and ofdisciplines
thought
employing
and disciplinesbiomimicry
employing in their work, which
biomimicry gavework,
in their an informed
which andgavedetailed foundation
an informed and de-for
the framework developed in the present research.
tailed foundation for the framework developed in the present research.

Figure 1. Resulting groups and themes from the affinity diagram process. The themes are repre-
Figure 1. Resulting groups and themes from the affinity diagram process. The themes are represented
sented by the yellow circles.
by the yellow circles.

3. Results
In this section, we provide an overview of the various classifications of biomimicry
identified in the literature, bringing to light the fundamental assumptions underlying
the conceptualisations of sustainability, nature, and mimesis in these discussions. We
subsequently introduce the ‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ framework that operationalises
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 4 of 13

these considerations in order to elaborate on the nuanced relationship between biomimicry

and sustainability.

3.1. Biomimicry for X’ Classification

In the literature, various classifications of biomimetic designs have been developed.
Some are particularly technical, differentiating between ‘classes’ of bio-derived develop-
ments, such as Speck et al.’s decision tree classification tool [16]. This level of detail is
beyond the scope of the present paper as it does not offer a relevant point of departure for
our discussion regarding biomimicry as a sustainable design methodology. The classifi-
cations that will be discussed here are more broadly based on motivations for applying
biomimetic approaches to the design process, i.e., a classification of biomimicry’s (design)
promises [7,19,25]. This particular focus on the intentionality behind a design approach is
in response to the notion of ‘naturalistic fallacy’ that is identified in the literature as a risk
of biomimicry [7,8]. The naturalistic fallacy is committed when a design is argued to be
‘good’ or ‘sustainable’ because it is based on the principles of nature, i.e., it’s good because
it’s natural.
Hence, in order to deepen the levels of conceptual considerations of biomimicry
as a sustainability design methodology and avoid the naturalistic fallacy, we take the
motivations driving biomimetic innovations as a point of departure. Common to many of
the classifications based on biomimicry’s design promise is the distinction between what is
called ‘biomimicry for innovation’ and ‘biomimicry for sustainability’ [7]. The former can
be described by the study and application of nature’s evolutionarily optimised strategies
through the interdisciplinary biomimetic process that is motivated by its particularly
high potential for innovation, offering its practitioners a novel way of looking at design
challenges without a driving concern for ecological performance [7,12,25]. ‘Biomimicry
for sustainability’, on the other hand, is characterised by a more explicit concern to create
designs that are well-adapted and integrated into life on Earth by accounting for product
life cycles and Earth system limitations [14,25].
Within these articulations of biomimetic promises, sustainability is often treated as
an achievable steady state for which biomimicry becomes a ‘tool’ or ‘vehicle’. In practice,
designers translate this steady state in terms of harm reduction and damage limitation
approaches with an explicit focus on discrete, easily quantifiable performance outcomes
concerning improvements in efficiency during the use phase. For example, in the context
of the built environment, biomimetic designs have led to reductions in embodied energy
of construction materials, improvements in energy and structural efficiency as well as in
material use and maintenance [1,20]. Such translations of the concept of sustainability
are deeply rooted in ‘traditional’ articulations of sustainable development (e.g., net zero,
harm reduction, damage limitation, eco-efficiency—see McDonough and Braungart [13]
for an in-depth discussion of the notion of ‘eco-efficiency’ and “why being ‘less bad’ is no
good”) that assume an inherently harmful characterisation of human activity that must
be minimised.
More recently, however, such traditional framings of sustainability employed in
biomimicry discussions have been broadened to encompass new articulations of how
to be in the world that are based on an understanding of humans as a part of nature,
rather than apart, echoing ongoing discussions of bio-inclusive ethics [4], conceptions of
value [28–30], and net-positive outcomes [31,32]. Pedersen Zari, for example, proposes
an additional category, ‘biomimicry for human psychological well-being’, which is rooted
in the motivation to explore “whether design based on an understanding of the living
world could contribute to increasing human psychological wellbeing” [25] (p. 18). Since
her focus is based in architecture and urban design disciplines, her discussions of this
third category centre around biophilic design, which combines research and frameworks of
human psychological connection with the perceivable natural world [33,34] with spatial
design and urban planning concepts [25].
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 5 of 13

MacKinnon, Oomen & Pedersen Zari [7] further develop on this, proposing the clas-
sifications, ‘biomimicry for transformation’ and ‘biomimicry for society’. In particular,
they argue for the potential biomimicry has in presenting new narratives of sustainable
human participation in nature and the realignment of human systems within biological
systems. Although MacKinnon, Oomen & Pedersen Zari [7] do not differentiate between
the two categories nor offer concrete translations of either in practice (i.e., what it means
for the designer to pursue this ‘class’ of biomimicry), they do highlight a need for more
reflective, than solely active, biomimetic practice in order to further develop the concept of
biomimicry in an effort to realise its ambitious potential “to inspire new mindsets, values
and narratives concerning the relationship between people and nature” [5] (p. 6). In the
following section, we give a brief overview of the responses in the literature for these
deeper levels of theorisation of the biomimicry concept that open up a space for more
reflective discussions.

3.2. Strong vs. Weak Biomimicry’ Classification

In the literature, there are a growing number of responses that pursue this reflective
approach. To illustrate this approach and the interpretive flexibility of the biomimicry
concept, we will give an overview of the analytical classification of biomimicry that Blok
and Gremmen [8] have formulated as ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ biomimicry, based on which
they analyse biomimicry in terms of its conceptualisation of nature, mimesis, technology
and ethics.
As briefly touched upon above, within biomimetic practice, nature is often treated
as a catalogue or database of products, ideas, and ingenuity for humans to categorise,
disassemble and adapt to human systems. This conceptualisation of nature is characteristic
of what Blok and Gremmen have categorised as “strong biomimicry” [8]. According to the
authors [8], strong biomimicry assumes human epistemic sufficiency to ‘know’ nature and
thus reproduce it in biomimetic designs. Consequently, the strong conception of mimesis
hinges on the imitation of this perfect nature, by which elements of the natural world
are “dissected, pulled apart and reconstituted as an assemblage of capacities” [23] (p. 73)
to be studied, translated, and applied to human systems. At this categorical extreme,
nature remains conceptualised as the first nature of Enlightenment thought—as a universal
world ‘out there’ for human civilisation to work on and through [23]—an entity necessarily
separate from the human realm.
At the other extreme, the weak conception of biomimicry hinges on a less perfect
nature upon which humans may build via a flexible understanding of mimesis that beckons
“a sense of co-becoming, co-individuation of form and matter” [6] (p. 806). In other
words, through weak mimesis, designers become drawn into a dynamic dialogue with
material nature and “acknowledge that human beings are merely participants in rather
than masters over a complex ontological entanglement from which emerges a shared
design for (human and nonhuman) lived reality” [6] (p. 807). Similarly, MacKinnon,
Oomen and Pedersen Zari characterise weak biomimicry as a process by which designers
build upon natural inspiration with human analogical thinking, thus leaving “more room
for flexibility in integrating nature into concrete biomimetic designs” [7] (p. 8). This
categorical distinction reflects the nuanced articulations and conceptualisations of nature
within biomimetic practice.
We argue that the more flexible conceptualisation of mimicry can allow a shift in
the designer’s focus from performance outcomes to process outcomes, entering a more
discursive and synergistic relationship with nature. In this way, the design of experimental
and communicative processes can become an important element in developing what Freya
Mathews calls ”a new culture of engagement with nature” by which we “allow nature to
‘redesign’ not only our commodities but also our own desires” [4] (p. 382). The ‘weak’
conceptualisation of biomimicry can thus encourage a more procedural understanding of
sustainability that moves beyond the harm reduction discourse and shines a more positive
light to human activity, calling for explorations of net-positive outcomes for both humans
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 6 of 13

and non-human nature [27] and “conscious processes of learning and participation through
action, reflection and dialogue” [35] (p. 678).
Although the ‘strong vs. weak’ discourse on biomimicry paints a relatively black and
white classification of biomimicry, the debates are nuanced, indicating yet another potential
for further analysis and expansion of the concept and its application. This nuanced view of
biomimicry, however, is often overlooked and simplified in sustainable design literature.
For example, Ceschin & Gaziulusoy’s Design for Sustainability framework [36] limits
the scope of biomimetic design interventions primarily to the material, component, and
product levels centred around user–product interactions. We see a clear underestimation of
the potential of biomimicry to affect change on greater levels of socio-technical-ecological
systems and human-nature interactions. Thus, we take this oversimplification as a point
of departure for the development of a framework that aims to open up biomimicry as a
design for sustainability methodology and actively bring its conceptual nuances to the
forefront of biomimicry research.

4. Analysis
In an effort to respond to this depreciation of biomimicry and highlight its broader
role as a sustainable design methodology, we have attempted to frame our discussions
above in terms of the ‘biomimicry for X’ classification and the nuanced conceptualisation
of mimicry. Hence, the following discussion aims to present a possible direction for further
development in constructing a more holistic and reflective theorisation of biomimicry and
its application to sustainability challenges. It is important to highlight that the mapping
of biomimetic designs within our framework is qualitative, thus it is subject to a certain
degree of interpretation.

4.1. First Dimension of the Biomimicry for Sustainability Framework

We position the ‘biomimicry for X’ classifications on our first dimension (x-axis), as
depicted in Figure 2, which represents the scope of the biomimetic promise. This can also be
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 understood in Pedersen Zari’s terms of “the projected end aspirations of different7 kinds of 13 of
biomimicry [so as] to avoid the assumption that just because an object, material, system or
building mimics nature in some way, it is inherently more sustainable” [25] (p. 17). Along
thetechnical
first dimension, we have placedbut
problem (transportation) design examples
is placed furtherthat areright
to the frequently mentioned
than Velcro in the
given the
literature
design’s[1,6,7,16,20]
minimisationinoforder to illustrate
air resistance andeach
thuscategory. These[38].
fuel-efficiency designs were
The last chosen to
example
reflect
placedthewithin
range of varying
this aims
category of biomimetic
is Neri design,
Oxman’s Silk from techno-centric
Pavilion, which presentstoa biosynergistic
novel ap-
proach to human problem (construction), with potential for lightweight
objectives, as well as the diverse application of the biomimetic process. structures [39,40].

Figure 2. First dimension (x-axis) of the Biomimicry for Sustainability framework, with general
Figure 2. First dimension (x-axis) of the Biomimicry for Sustainability framework, with general
criteria for each category. The varying placement of the examples in the vertical direction is arbi-
criteria
trary,for
foreach category.
visual purposesThe varying placement of the examples in the vertical direction is arbitrary,
only.
for visual purposes only.
Following is the ‘biomimicry for net-zero optimisation’ category, which presents a
reformulation of the earlier discussion of ‘biomimicry for sustainability’, in order to reflect
how sustainability is understood in terms of the net-zero approach that does not neces-
sarily counteract unsustainable trajectories, but rather slows them down by optimising
existing designs. The underlying assumption in this approach centres around a technical
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 7 of 13

In Figure 2, as we move further away from the origin to the right, the projected scope
of the biomimetic intervention becomes increasingly concerned with responding holistically
to sustainability challenges. We begin with ‘biomimicry for innovation’ on the far left,
which encompasses biomimetic research and designs that “are about novel approaches to
technical problems, increased performance capabilities, or the ability to increase economic
profit margins” [25] (p. 17; for a more in-depth discussion of biomimicry as an avenue of
innovation and economic production, by which nature remains entangled with logics of
capital accumulation and resource privatisation, see [23]). This is a clear techno-centric aim
whose projected end aspirations revolve around user-product interactions and commercial
interests, like the example of Velcro that mimics the function of the way a seed from the
Burdock plant attaches temporarily to an animal’s fur to travel long distances before ger-
minating [37]. Also exemplified in the diagram is the Bullet Train, which mimics the form
of the kingfisher’s beak that can move through air and water quickly and with minimum
impact or noise. This example presents a novel approach to a technical problem (transporta-
tion) but is placed further to the right than Velcro given the design’s minimisation of air
resistance and thus fuel-efficiency [38]. The last example placed within this category is Neri
Oxman’s Silk Pavilion, which presents a novel approach to human problem (construction),
with potential for lightweight structures [39,40].
Following is the ‘biomimicry for net-zero optimisation’ category, which presents a
reformulation of the earlier discussion of ‘biomimicry for sustainability’, in order to reflect
how sustainability is understood in terms of the net-zero approach that does not necessarily
counteract unsustainable trajectories, but rather slows them down by optimising existing
designs. The underlying assumption in this approach centres around a technical focus on
reducing impact. The example placed in this section, ITKE’s Flectofin, is illustrative of a
biomimetic design that has aimed for quantifiable performance outcomes such as reduced
energy and material use [20,41]. It mimics the mechanism behind the movement of the
bird of paradise flower when a bird lands on it, for adaptive exterior shading systems in
buildings. The intention behind the design was the optimisation of energy consumption in
mechanical cooling systems [20,41], hence its position within this second category.
Next, we move toward a more transformational conception of sustainability, based
on which biomimicry is used to affect paradigmatic changes on a societal scale. Here, we
coalesce ‘biomimicry for human psychological well-being’, ‘biomimicry for transformation’,
and ‘biomimicry for society’, discussed above, under a more general classification that we
call ‘biomimicry for societal transformation’, since all three present a particular objective
to effectuate change on greater, societal levels through design. Here we offer the example
of Yaniv Peer’s Mobius Project, which mimics ecosystem recycling of resources and aims
to transform the role of urban spaces in terms of food production, waste management,
community-building and education [1].
Within this category, the notion of biosphere limits and planetary boundaries functions
as a fundamental principle driving responses to sustainability challenges. Research and
design agendas centre around a knowledge-first approach, by which “science characterises
problems in terms of their causes and mechanisms and forms a basis for subsequent
action” [42] (p. 286). In this way, design work is driven by a concern to redesign our
systemic means of fulfilling societal functions (e.g., transport, housing, food) that remain
within the Earth’s carrying capacity. As the Mobius Project illustrates, the design does not
challenge the amount of resources used or wasted in society, but rather offers a way to
make the consequences of our societal actions less bad.
In line with Robinson & Cole [32] and Mathews [4,43], we argue that a shift beyond
this ‘constraints and limits discourse’ is needed to engage in ‘a co-creative partnership with
nature’ by designing processes of reflection, feedback and dialogue and thereby exploring
possibilities of net-positive outcomes and synergistic human–nature relations. Borrow-
ing Mathews’ notion of a ‘form of synergy proper to biomimicry’, we propose a fourth
classification—‘biomimicry for biosynergy’. She defines ‘biosynergy’ as a novel direction
in biomimicry thinking that shifts from “a mutualism of means [...] to a rapprochement of
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 8 of 13

ends” [4] (p. 377). In other words, this new way of thinking shifts design intentions from
fulfilling current human consumer ends in line with the interests of nature, to questioning
our ends themselves—“what does the rest of nature want us to want?” [4] (p. 377).
Her notion of biosynergy thus takes us a step beyond net-positive sustainability and
begs the question—from what perspective are net-positive outcomes positive? She argues
that biomimicry must start from within nature by allowing “nature to design us as well
as our instruments” [4] (p. 373). In this way, human activities can have a generative
impact for nature, where nature is no longer a stable category of thought, distinct from the
human realm. Here, the example of BioHaven’s Floating Islands presents a biomimetic
innovation that transfers mechanisms from wetland ecosystems to improve water quality
by capturing, absorbing or filtering organisms, chemical entities, etc., and to increase
biodiversity by establishing micro-habitats [44]. This innovation illustrates an application
of biomimicry that begins to approach Mathews’ [4] notion of biosynergy as its design
has considered the ends of humans as well as nature. It is a clear example of a human
innovation that has a positive generative impact on nature. However, the design of the
islands does not necessarily intend to challenge current human–nature interactions that are
causing the degradation of water systems. It does not motivate us to think about our ends
themselves—how can we allow nature to redesign our desires?

4.2. Second Dimension of the Biomimicry for Sustainability Framework

In order to design from within ‘nature’s mindset’, we argue that the conception of
mimesis is a helpful element to consider as it is pivotal in framing the designer’s relationship
with nature. Thus, we introduce the second dimension (y-axis) to the framework, Figure 3,
which spans from a ‘fixed’ to a ‘flexible’ conception of mimesis, bringing to analytical light
the agency of nature within the design process. Although we take our point of departure
in the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ classification as identified in the literature, we reframe and
re-articulate the ‘strong vs. weak’ distinction as a ‘fixed–flexible’ continuum. In this way,
we avoid the normative connotation that the terms ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ carry, as reflected in
the notions of strong and weak sustainability [45], thereby giving a more reflective space
for such deliberations. Here, we take into consideration the roles of the human designer
and non-human nature within the design process, where the fixed conception reflects an
active role for the human designer and a passive role for nature, and the flexible conception
implies a more active role for both.
By introducing this second dimension to the framework, each mapped example is
reassessed in terms of the conception of mimesis inherent to the particular design, and
the kind of interaction between the designer and nature and is thus shifted vertically to
be repositioned within the new range. This reassessment, however, requires an extensive
review of the design process for each example that takes on a heightened analytical sensi-
tivity towards this discussion of mimesis. In order to illustrate our framework, we present
the model in Figure 3, in which we apply this approach to only two examples, which are
discussed below, leaving the rest open for further deliberation.
In particular, we shift Neri Oxman’s Silk Pavilion upwards due to the way she refers
to this project as a way to reflect on how a “collaboration between us [humans] and
these wonderful creatures [silkworms] could assist in structural optimization on a larger
scale” [40]. The collaborative approach Oxman applied to her work is embodied in a
designerly interaction, through which nature, in this case the silkworm, is given agency.
In other words, both Oxman and the silkworms played active roles in the design process—
their performances embedded in a materially discursive interaction with each other. We
thus argue that her work embodies a more flexible conceptualisation of mimesis such that
her design becomes an evolving process of thinking analogously with material nature,
while the scope of the biomimetic promise remains within the more techno-centric realms.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 9 of 13
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 9 of 13

Figure 3. Biomimicry for Sustainability Framework with two examples (in yellow) assessed based
Figure 3. Biomimicry for Sustainability Framework with two examples (in yellow) assessed based on
on both dimensions. General criteria for each category included. The black and white examples
both
have dimensions. General
not been assessed criteria to
in relation forthe
each category
vertical included.
range, The black
as indicated by theand white
dotted examples have
line.
not been assessed in relation to the vertical range, as indicated by the dotted line.
In particular, we shift Neri Oxman’s Silk Pavilion upwards due to the way she refers
The example of Flectofin, on the other hand, is shifted down as the design process
to this project as a way to reflect on how a “collaboration between us [humans] and these
employed a fixed imitation of nature, by which “a valvular pollination mechanism was
wonderful creatures [silkworms] could assist in structural optimization on a larger scale”
derived and abstracted from the kinematics found in the Bird-Of-Paradise flower” for the
[40]. The collaborative approach Oxman applied to her work is embodied in a designerly
development of a hingeless flapping device [41] (p. 1). Here, human epistemic sufficiency
interaction, through which nature, in this case the silkworm, is given agency. In other
to ‘know’ and thereby reproduce nature is assumed, by which the design aim becomes the
words, both Oxman and the silkworms played active roles in the design process—their
scientific identification, categorisation, abstraction and deployment of ‘natural design’ for
performances embedded in a materially discursive interaction with each other. We thus
the benefit of human civilisation [5]. In this example, the flower is a passive participant
argue that her work embodies a more flexible conceptualisation of mimesis such that her
in the design process, whose contribution to the final design is actively mediated by the
design becomes an evolving process of thinking analogously with material nature, while
human designers. Thus, Flectofin is mapped as an example of ‘biomimicry for net-zero
the scope of the biomimetic promise remains within the more techno-centric realms.
optimisation’ that employs a fixed conception of mimesis.
The example of Flectofin, on the other hand, is shifted down as the design process
Ultimately, we do not argue whether a fixed or flexible conception of mimesis is more
employed a fixed imitation of nature, by which “a valvular pollination mechanism was
or less likely to lead to sustainable designs. Rather, we argue that it offers a novel category
derived and abstracted from the kinematics found in the Bird-Of-Paradise flower” for the
of analysis, by which deliberations regarding the relationship between biomimicry and
development of a hingeless flapping device [41] (p.1). Here, human epistemic sufficiency
sustainability can further unfold in more transformational directions. Based on our review,
to ‘know’ and thereby reproduce nature is assumed, by which the design aim becomes
however, there is a lack of design deliberations, experiments and developments that move
the scientific identification, categorisation, abstraction and deployment of ‘natural design’
toward the top, right corner of the diagram, since employing a flexible conception of
for the benefit of human civilisation [5]. In this example, the flower is a passive participant
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 10 of 13

mimesis and ideating biosynergistic designs are not straightforward tasks. Nevertheless,
these challenges offer pathways for biomimetic design work to move toward continuous
processes of reflexivity and learning about how we can realign ourselves with nature.
It is important to note that, in this paper, the framework is used as a tool for retro-
spective analysis, based on literature of completed designs. For this reason, the analysis
brought forward by the second dimension hinged on the materials of communication
and the respective discursive understandings of the design processes. This extended our
attention to the language employed in the literature, which refers to ongoing research in
the ways in which biomimicry is communicated by practitioners (see [7]). Nevertheless,
we maintain that the framework can also be used to stimulate critical reflections on the
roles played by humans and nature and the characterisation of their interactions during a
design process.
By turning an analytical eye toward the role and agency of nature within a biomimetic
design process, practitioners can critically reflect on their designs and employ holistic and
participatory perspectives on human–nature relations, in an effort to realise biomimicry’s
promise of sustainability. We thus present this framework as a possible direction for further
theorisation of biomimicry and its application to sustainability challenges. By constructing
this two-dimensional plane, we hope to contribute to a more reflective space for emerging
literature on biomimetics that aims to expand its focus on the technical translation of
biological functions to also include explicit considerations of the ontological implications
of biomimetics.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper contributes to the understanding of the connections between biomimicry
and sustainability, with a particular focus on the built environment, in an effort to motivate
a more reflective approach to biologically inspired innovation. In response to the contested
promise of sustainability within biomimicry discussions as well as the contested concept of
sustainability itself, we provide an overview of these debates in the literature, bringing to
light the various classifications of biomimicry and the fundamental assumptions underlying
the conceptualisations of sustainability, nature, and mimesis. In order to operationalise the
nuanced relationship between biomimicry and sustainability, we introduce a ‘Biomimicry
for Sustainability’ framework that integrates and synthesises these debates, ultimately
serving as a point of departure for more active and deeper discussions regarding future
biomimetic practice.
Regarding further development of the framework, alternative possibilities for the
choice of dimensional ranges as well as the introduction of perhaps a third dimension
can be considered. In particular, further considerations of scale can be taken in order to
explore, for instance, possible correlations regarding the mimicry level of nature (i.e., form,
process, ecosystem) as there is much debate in the literature surrounding the relationship
between the various levels of biomimicry and sustainability promises. Pedersen Zari [22,25]
and MacKinnon et al. [7], for example, argue that ecosystem level biomimicry leads to
more sustainable designs, distinguishing between mimicry of ecosystem functions and
ecosystem processes. Additionally, the scale or scope of the biomimetic innovation placed
within the framework (i.e., component, product, service, system) can be investigated
as an additional parameter for analysis regarding biomimetic designs as responses to
sustainability challenges. Finally, the scope of human participation within the design
process can be explored in order to stimulate conversations regarding transformational
shifts within and across disciplines as well as society at large.
Along with the need of biomimicry’s philosophical elaboration and development, as
identified in the literature and considered above, there are also calls for more experimenta-
tion, since little discussion is offered as to how these deeper elaborations of the concept can
be applied in practice [3,4,6,23,43]. Active experimentation with the biomimetic process
would further these conceptual developments by opening up a space for a form of method-
ological double-loop learning that positions biomimicry not only as the objective but as the
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 11 of 13

object of study as well. Such experimentation and elaboration can be further complemented
with literature, outside of the scope of biomimetic practice, from authors like Donna Har-
away [46] and Anna Tsing [47], that bring to the forefront discussions of multispecies
interactions, naturecultures, and interspecies relationships. In this way, biomimetic design
experimentation can be situated as a catalyst practice for thinking through nature–culture
dichotomies and driving sustainability transitions.
Before we can claim definitively whether biomimicry is an important key to delivering
transformative change, we must consider the following questions, which we pose as input
for future research agendas:
1. How can biomimicry be qualified in the development of sustainable design?
The Biomimicry for Sustainability framework (Figure 3) introduced in this paper
offers a possible direction for future research in addressing this question—calling for the
development of analytical tools to cultivate more reflective biomimetic practices.
2. How can a design process give agency to nature?
In other words, how can a flexible conception of mimesis be practically employed in
a biomimetic process? In addition to reflective practices, future research should address
experimental approaches that can expose a novel re-envisioning of the metaphysics of
nature, which we argue, in line with Mathews [4,43], is key to sustainability. Such experi-
mental practices, however, must also be considered in holistic terms, so that biomimicry can
become a vehicle of change on larger, societal scales; thus, we pose the following question:
3. How can localised biomimetic design experimentation contribute to ongoing pro-
cesses of common world-making and broader sustainability transitions?
Ultimately, responses of design disciplines, like biomimicry, to sustainability chal-
lenges must address the deepening entanglement of human and biosphere processes and
the growing call to redesign human–nature relations. To do so, we maintain that conceptual
deliberations and design experimentation are needed to actively reflect on the design aims
and process as well as the roles of the designer(s) and nature. Thus, we have introduced
the Biomimicry for Sustainability framework and posed the questions above to open up
space for more active and deeper discussions regarding future biomimetic practice in the
context of sustainability and transformational change.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, L.I., L.T. and I.U.; methodology, L.I., L.T. and I.U.; writing—
original draft preparation, L.I., L.T. and I.U.; visualization, L.I., L.T. and I.U.; supervision, B.H. and
H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in [48].
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Aalborg University for supporting the pub-
lication costs. This research was realised as part of the MSc’s thesis project in Sustainable Design
Engineering at Aalborg University under the supervision of Birgitte Hoffmann and Hanaa Dahy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Taylor Buck, N. The Art of Imitating Life: The Potential Contribution of Biomimicry in Shaping the Future of Our Cities. Environ.
Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 120–140. [CrossRef]
2. Fayemi, P.E.; Wanieck, K.; Zollfrank, C.; Maranzana, N.; Aoussat, A. Biomimetics: Process, tools and practice. Bioinspiration
Biomim. 2017, 12, 011002. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Wahl, D.C. Bionics vs. Biomimicry: From Control of Nature to Sustainable Participation in Nature. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2006,
87, 289–298.
4. Mathews, F. Towards a Deeper Philosophy of Biomimicry. Organ. Environ. 2011, 24, 364–387. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 12 of 13

5. Mead, T.; Jeanrenaud, S. The elephant in the room: Biomimetics and Sustainability? Bioinspired Biomim. Nanobiomater. 2017, 6,
113–121. [CrossRef]
6. Fisch, M. The Nature of Biomimicry: Toward a Novel Technological Culture. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2017, 42, 795–821.
[CrossRef]
7. MacKinnon, R.; Oomen, J.; Pedersen Zari, M. Promises and Presuppositions of Biomimicry. Biomimetics 2020, 5, 33. [CrossRef]
8. Blok, V.; Gremmen, B. Ecological Innovation: Biomimicry as a New Way of Thinking and Acting Ecologically. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 2016, 29, 203–217. [CrossRef]
9. Chirazi, J.; Wanieck, K.; Fayemi, P.-E.; Zollfrank, C.; Jacobs, S. What Do We Learn from Good Practices of Biologically-Inspired
Design? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 650. [CrossRef]
10. Helms, M.; Vattam, S.S.; Goel, A.K. Biologically inspired design: Process and products. Des. Stud. 2009, 30, 606–622. [CrossRef]
11. Yen, J.; Weissburg, M. Perspectives on biologically inspired design: Introduction to the collected contributions. Bioinspiration
Biomim. 2007, 2, E01. [CrossRef]
12. ISO 18458:2015-05; Biomimetics—Terminology, Concepts and Methodology. Beuth: Berlin, Germany, 2015.
13. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make Things; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
14. Kennedy, E.; Fecheyr-Lippens, D.; Hsiung, B.K.; Niewiarowski, P.H.; Kolodziej, M. Biomimicry: A Path to Sustainable Innovation.
Des. Issues 2015, 31, 1–5. [CrossRef]
15. Vattam, S.S.; Helms, M.E.; Goel, A.K. A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des.
Anal. Manuf. 2010, 24, 467–481. [CrossRef]
16. Speck, O.; Speck, D.; Horn, R.; Gantner, J.; Sedlbauer, K.P. Biomimetic bio-inspired biomorph sustainable? An attempt to classify
and clarify biology-derived technical developments. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2017, 12, 0110004. [CrossRef]
17. Benyus, J. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature; Harper Collins Publishers: New York City, NY, USA, 1997.
18. Helmrich, C.; Chester, M.V.; Hayes, S.; Markolf, S.A.; Desha, C.; Grimm, N.B. Using Biomimicry to Support Resilient Infrastructure
Design. Earth’s Future 2020, 8, 1–18. [CrossRef]
19. Uchiyama, Y.; Blanco, E.; Kohsaka, R. Application of Biomimetics to Architectural and Urban Design: A Review across Scales.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9813. [CrossRef]
20. López, M.; Rubio, R.; Martín, S.; Croxford, B. How plants inspire façades. From plants to architecture: Biomimetic principles for
the development of adaptive architectural envelopes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 692–703. [CrossRef]
21. Pawlyn, M. Biomimicry in Architecture, 2nd ed.; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2016.
22. Pedersen Zari, M. Can Biomimicry Be a Useful Tool for Design for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation? In Biotechnologies
and Biomimetics for Civil Engineering, 1st ed.; Fernando, T.P., Labrincha, J.A., Diamanti, M.V., Yu, C.P., Lee, H.K., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 81–113.
23. Goldstein, J.; Johnson, E.R. Biomimicry: New Natures, New Enclosures. Theory Cult. Soc. 2015, 32, 61–81. [CrossRef]
24. Reed, P.A. Paradigm Shift: Biomimicry. Technol. Teacher 2004, 63, 23–27.
25. Pedersen Zari, M. Regenerative Urban Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
ISBN 9781315114330.
26. Robinson, J. Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Development. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 369–384.
[CrossRef]
27. Connelley, S. Mapping Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. Local Environ. 2007, 12, 259–278. [CrossRef]
28. Callicot, J. Non-Anthropocentric Value Theory and Environmental Ethics. Am. Philos. Q. 1984, 21, 299–309.
29. O’Neill, J. The Varieties of Intrinsic Value. Monist 1992, 75, 119–137. [CrossRef]
30. O’Neill, J.; Spash, C. Conceptions of Value in Environmental Decision-Making. Environ. Values 2000, 9, 521–535. [CrossRef]
31. Du Plessis, C. Towards a Regenerative Paradigm for the Built Environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 7–22. [CrossRef]
32. Robinson, J.; Cole, R. Theoretical Underpinnings of Regenerative Sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. Int. J. Res. Dev. Demonstr. 2015, 43,
133–143. [CrossRef]
33. Ives, C.D.; Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H.; Dorninger, C.; Klaniecki, K.; Fischer, J. Reconnecting with Nature for Sustainability.
Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1389–1397. [CrossRef]
34. Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of Experience: The Loss of Human-Nature Interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 94–101.
[CrossRef]
35. Reed, B. Shifting from “Sustainability” to Regeneration. Build. Res. Inf. 2007, 35, 674–680. [CrossRef]
36. Ceschin, F.; Gaziulusoy, I. Design for Sustainability: A Multi-Level Framework from Products to Socio-Technical Systems, 1st ed.;
Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2020; Volume 1.
37. Versatile Fastener Inspired by Burrs–Innovation–AskNature. Available online: https://asknature.org/innovation/versatile-
fastener-inspired-by-burrs/ (accessed on 22 May 2021).
38. Birds, Bullet Trains and Biomimicry—The GIST. Available online: https://the-gist.org/2020/01/birds-bullet-trains-biomimicry/
(accessed on 23 March 2021).
39. Oxman, N.; Laucks, J.; Kayser, M.; Duro-Royo, J.; Gonzales-Uribe, C. Silk pavilion: A case study in fiber-based digital fabrication.
Verla 2014, 248–255.
40. Vitra Design Museum. Live Talk with Neri Oxman. YouTube. Published online 20 September 2020. Available online: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=rqvR51uEfsA (accessed on 11 January 2022).
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37 13 of 13

41. Lienhard, J.; Schleicher, S.; Poppinga, S.; Masselter, T.; Milwich, M.; Speck, T.; Knippers, J. Flectofin: A Hingeless Flapping
Mechanism Inspired by Nature. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2011, 6, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Miller, T. Constructing Sustainability Science: Emerging Perspectives and Research Trajectories. Sustain. Sci. 2013, 8, 279–293.
[CrossRef]
43. Mathews, F. Biomimicry and the Problem of Praxis. Environ. Values 2019, 28, 573–599. [CrossRef]
44. Versatile Water Treatment Garden Inspired by Wetlands–Innovation–AskNature. Available online: https://asknature.org/
innovation/versatile-water-treatment-garden-inspired-by-wetlands/ (accessed on 22 May 2021).
45. Hediger, W. Reconciling “weak” and “strong” sustainability. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 1999, 26, 1120–1144. [CrossRef]
46. Haraway, D. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness; Prickly Paradigm Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003.
47. Tsing, A. Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species. Environ. Humanit. 2012, 1, 141–154. [CrossRef]
48. Ilieva, L.; Ursano, I.; Traista, L.; Hoffmann, B.; Dahy, H. Biomimicry as a Sustainable Design Methodology—Introducing the
‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ Framework. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 37. [CrossRef]