INDEX OF APPENDICES No. Document / Extract Gerrard et al, ‘Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design’ (Conservation Letters, March/April 1 2018) RMIT Centre for Urban Research, ‘Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design’ 2 Telstra v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 3 Victorian Government, Plan Melbourne Strategy 2017-2050 4 Victorian Planning Policy, Clause 12.03-1S 5 Melbourne Water, Healthy Waterways Strategy 2018-2028 6 Victorian Planning Policy, Clause 12.01-01S 7 City of Boroondara, Urban Biodiversity Strategy 2013-2023 8 Victorian Government, Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 Second Reading Speech of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2018, Hansard (19 June 2019) 9 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019 (extract) Bare v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission & Ors [2015] VSCA 197 10 Victorian Planning Provisions, Clause 19.03-03S 11 Declared Yarra River Land 12 Victorian Planning Provisions, Clause 12.03-1R 13 State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) 14 State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) (groundwater) 15 Alanvale Pty Ltd & Anor v Southern Rural Waters & Ors (Red Dot) [2010] VCAT 480 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Assessor’s Handbook: 16 Applications to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation (October 2018) Resilient Melbourne and The Nature Conservancy, Living Melbourne: Our Metropolitan 17 Urban Forest (2019) Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Habitat Hectare Assessment: 18 Fact Sheet (2016) POLICY PERSPECTIVE Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design Georgia E. Garrard1, Nicholas S. G. Williams2, Luis Mata1,JordanThomas1, & Sarah A. Bekessy1 1 Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Australia 2 School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia Keywords Abstract Biodiversity rating scheme; conservation planning; grasslands; landscape design; nature Cities are increasingly considered important places for biodiversity conserva- in cities; urban biodiversity; population viability; tion because they can harbor threatened species and because conservation sustainable urban development. in cities represents an opportunity to reconnect people with nature and the range of health and well-being benefits it provides. However, urbanization can Correspondence be catastrophic for native species, and is a well-known threat to biodiversity Georgia E. Garrard, Interdisciplinary worldwide. Urbanization impacts can be mitigated by urban design and devel- Conservation Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT opment improvements, but take-up of these practices has been slow. There University, Australia. is an urgent need to incorporate existing ecological knowledge into a frame- E-mail: [email protected] work that can be used by planners and developers to ensure that biodiversity conservation is considered in decision-making processes. Here, we distill the Received urban biodiversity literature into five principles for biodiversity sensitive ur- 21 September 2016 ban design (BSUD), ranging from creating habitat and promoting dispersal to Accepted facilitating community stewardship. We then present a framework for imple- 28 August 2017 menting BSUD aimed at delivering onsite benefits to biodiversity, and that is Editor applicable across a range of urban development types and densities. We illus- Wayne Linklater trate the application of the BSUD framework in two case studies focusing on the: (1) protection of an endangered vegetation remnant in a new low-density doi: 10.1111/conl.12411 subdivision; and (2) persistence of an endangered reptile in an established sub- urban environment. Introduction modification of natural disturbance regimes, and in- creased levels of chemical, light and noise pollution Cities are increasingly recognized as important places (Grimm et al. 2008). These changes lead to reduced for biodiversity conservation, and can harbor a diver- species and genetic diversity, biotic homogenization sity of plant and animal species, including threatened (McKinney 2006), and loss of ecological function and species (Ives et al. 2016). They are also important places ecosystem services (Radford & James 2013). Numerous for conservation from a human perspective. Exposure to emerging threats, such as those associated with the up- nature in cities delivers a remarkable range of health take of LED lighting and energy-efficient (but cavity-free) and well-being benefits, including stress reduction, re- homes, are likely to have further impacts (Stanley et al. duced mortality, and improved cognitive development in 2015). These impacts are long-lasting with little option for children (Shanahan et al. 2015). Intriguingly, biodiverse reversal, making urbanization one of the greatest drivers green spaces may deliver greater benefits than less diverse of biodiversity loss (McKinney 2006). spaces (Fuller et al. 2007; Pett et al. 2016). Biodiversity Fortunately, some of the negative impacts of urban- conservation in cities therefore presents a unique oppor- ization can be mitigated by improvements to the de- tunity to reconnect urban residents with nature and its sign and construction of new developments, or through associated benefits. retrofitting existing development (Figure 1). Numerous However, urbanization has myriad impacts on biodi- examples of urban design with positive biodiversity out- versity, including habitat loss and fragmentation, changes comes exist (e.g., Hostetler 2012; Beninde et al. 2015; to resource availability, introduction of exotic species, Ikin et al. 2015, and Table S1 online). However, uptake alteration of local climates via the urban heat island, has been slow when compared to other environmentally Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Biodiversity sensitive urban design G. E. Garrard et al. Figure 1 The biodiversity impacts of urbanization can be mitigated by sensitive urban design. (A): Residential development across the road from a protected native grassland remnant in northern Melbourne, Australia. This residential property is devoid of vegetation (save for the lawn on the nature strip), providing little habitat or resources for native species that live in the grassland across the road. Compare this to image (B) (also in Melbourne), where the nature strip has been planted with a variety of native species, including trees, shrubs and grasses. The structural diversity creates a mosaic of habitat for a range of species. (C): The roof and walls of the Jerusalem Bird Observatory have been designed to provide habitat for birds and bats. (D): The biodiverse roof at The University of Melbourne provides a diverse range of habitats, including hollow logs, grassland, and an ephemeral stream. Photo credits. A, B: Georgia Garrard; C: Architecture–WEINSTEIN VAADIA ARCHITECTS, Photography–Amir Balaban; D: Nick Williams. focused design protocols. In the absence of a practical ecological outcomes because retained patches face ongo- framework for incorporating existing urban ecological ing threats from the surrounding environment (Driscoll knowledge into urban design and development, planners et al. 2013), and the offset is unlikely to ever ade- and developers have little guidance about which design quately compensate for the losses incurred (Bekessy et al. elements to implement, or how to balance biodiversity 2010). Furthermore, offsetting ignores the place-based with other objectives. There is now an urgent need for an value of nature, and results in an unmitigated loss of na- evidential urban design protocol that links urban design ture in the places where urban residents live, work, and to biodiversity outcomes. play. We propose a framework for incorporating ecologi- In this Perspective, we outline five principles for bio- cal knowledge into urban planning, design and devel- diversity sensitive urban design (BSUD), and describe opment to achieve onsite biodiversity benefits. This ne- a framework for incorporating BSUD into urban de- cessitates a fundamental shift in thinking from current velopment decision-making. Using two case studies, we practice, where biodiversity losses are “offset” some- demonstrate the application of BSUD to greenfield and where else. Biodiversity offsetting delivers questionable existing urban environments. 2 Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. G. E. Garrard et al. Biodiversity sensitive urban design Figure 2 A framework for implementing biodiversity sensitive urban design. A framework for BSUD (2) Facilitate dispersal. Dispersal can be facilitated by adding animal movement infrastructure (Taylor & To achieve onsite biodiversity benefits, BSUD must mit- Goldingay 2012), or establishing habitat connectivity igate the detrimental impacts of urbanization, while en- corridors through private and public land (Goddard couraging community stewardship of biodiversity by fa- et al. 2010). Care should be taken to avoid inadver- cilitating positive human–nature interactions. We have tently facilitating the spread of invasive weeds and distilled relevant