sustainability

Article Evaluating the Practice and Outcomes of Applying Regenerative Development to a Large-Scale Project in Victoria, Australia

Dominique Hes ID , André Stephan * ID and Sareh Moosavi

Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected] (D.H.); [email protected] (S.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-3-8344-5929

Received: 27 November 2017; Accepted: 6 February 2018; Published: 9 February 2018

Abstract: Regenerative development is one of the critical pathways or processes towards an ecological worldview and a built environment in synergy with the natural environment. This vision aims to restore and support environmental, social and economic flows from a systems perspective. While regenerative development has been discussed in theory and applied to some projects, very few studies have analysed the processes that support its emergence. Our study investigates the design process of an ongoing development project, “Seacombe West” in Victoria, Australia. It evaluates the design outputs, using the LENSES Framework (Living Environments in Natural, Social, and Economic Systems) which is specifically designed to facilitate the emergence of regenerative development thinking. The project included a series of four workshops that led to a set of guidelines that in turn were used to design a masterplan. We evaluate the resulting guidelines, the masterplan, and the experience of the participants through an online survey (70% response rate) and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Our results show that using LENSES encouraged systems thinking and helps facilitate a transdisciplinary approach towards regenerative development. This evaluation provides insights into how regenerative development can emerge in projects and how the potential for net benefit can be embedded.

Keywords: net regenerative regional development; ecological worldview; LENSES Framework; transdisciplinary design

1. Introduction There has been a call from many areas of research and practice for a different approach to sustainable development in the built environment. This has occurred because many of the social and ecological indicators that underpin our civilisation are being eroded. In other words, we are generally failing at our current approach to sustainability. Led by thinkers in the built environment such as Lyle [1], McDonough and Braungart [2], Birkeland [3], Cole [4], Mang and Reed [5] and du Plessis [6,7], the call has gone out for approaches that facilitate built environment outcomes that move beyond marginal improvements and shift our focus towards creating vitality and net benefit. Projects that begin to heal the damage done in the past and consider creating vital relationships that lead to resilience. Regenerative development can be seen as a process to facilitate this type of approach to contributive development [5,8–11]. Regional development (which occurs in rural or semi-rural communities, outside of major urban centres) presents a clear opportunity where regenerative development can be applied. The case study investigated in this paper aimed to become a net positive living environment, defined as “a setting that is thriving, healthy, and resilient because its ecological, social, and economic systems are continually nourished” ([12], p. 2), using a regenerative development defined as “the process of cultivating the capacity

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460; doi:10.3390/su10020460 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 2 of 24 and capability in people, communities, and other natural systems to renew, evolve, and thrive” ([12], p. 2). Though in its infancy in application, Regenerative Development draws on the fields of knowledge required to better understand the “unique social, cultural and ecological opportunities and constraints of place” ([4], p. 48), including history and natures wisdom [13], and provides alternative ways to look at development. Regenerative development focuses on symbiosis with nature, in contrast to most other forms of development which can focus on other aspects. Critically, regenerative development aims to work within a system to enable the potential of the system to emerge; to co-evolve the aspects of the system so that it can constructively adapt to change and evolve towards increasing states of health and abundance. This typically involves a shift in mindset that puts thinking about potential before problem-solving [5]. Currently, there are examples of the application of regenerative development ideas but these tend to be reflections on projects and their outcomes [5]. Examples include case studies found on practitioner pages such as Regenesis and the Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) at Colorado State University. While these provide insights into the outputs of regenerative development projects, there is a need to better understand the process that supports regenerative thinking and contrasting it to “business as usual”. In other words, how do we operationalise these abstract concepts of creating ecological, social and economic benefits to achieve a living environment?

1.1. Aim and Scope The aim of this paper is to assess the process of applying regenerative thinking and reflect on the outcomes for the participants and the design of the masterplan of a 680-hectare project, “Seacombe West”, in Gippsland, Victoria, Australia, 217 km southeast of Melbourne. The framework that was used to facilitate the design of the Living Environment was the LENSES (Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems) framework. This paper discusses how this case study and its three-months design process drove the ability to move towards regenerative development. This was achieved by comparing the 2003 failed masterplan with the outcome of the LENSES Framework application; evaluating the effectiveness of the LENSES Framework to guide the outcome towards a healthier and more ecological built environment (through a survey); investigating how both the approach and the framework, together with transdisciplinary collaboration provided a pathway and a model to support future projects (through semi-structured interviews and the survey); and lastly, assessing if there were significant lessons, enablers and benefits drawn from the process. As such we outline the process of designing for building upon the potential of the site, detail the application of the LENSES Framework, present the results of the design, and report on the interviews and surveys undertaken with the participants involved in the design process. The scope of this paper is depicted in Figure 3. To summarise, this project is a step along the way to understanding how transdisciplinary collaborations can create net benefit. It provides a potential foundation for future evaluation and research around the project. The investigation into the design process was guided by the following key questions:

• Is the process used in this project justified in terms of investment in time, energy and resources? • Does it have the potential to achieve Regenerative Regional Development? • What worked well? • What could have been improved? • What were the key enablers?

1.2. Case Study Area Seacombe West is located 217 km southeast of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. The proposed 680 hectares (6.8 km2) development is located south of Lake Wellington (or Lake Murla in the Indigenous Gunai language), which is one of the three major interconnected lakes that form the Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 3 of 24

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25 Gippsland Lakes systems (Figure1). The lakes cover 340 km 2 and are separated from the Bass Strait by aby linear a linear sand sand shore shore that that forms forms the Ninety the Ninety Mile Beach.Mile Beach. The lakes The lakes are fed are by fed seven by seven rivers rivers that carry that water carry 2 fromwater a from catchment a catchment area of area 20,000 of km20,0002 [14 km]. The [14]. Gippsland The Gippsland Lakes systemLakes system is listed is as listed a Ramsar as a Ramsar site under site theunder Ramsar the Ramsar Convention Convention of 1982 of in 1982 recognition in recognit of itsion outstanding of its outstanding coastal wetlandcoastal wetland value and value natural and featuresnatural features [15] and [15] is also and covered is also covered by other by wetland other wetland and bird and protection bird protection agreements. agreements. The site The is site now is seennow asseen meeting as meeting six out six of theout nineof the nomination nine nomination criteria recognisingcriteria recognising its representative its representative wetland habitatswetland athabitats an international at an international level [16]. level [16]. EqualEqual to the the site’s site’s natural natural significance, significance, the the Gippsland Gippsland Lakes Lakes embody embody diverse diverse cultural cultural and socio- and socio-economiceconomic values values in the State in the of State Victoria of Victoriaby generati byng generating economic economicactivities in activities the form in of the agriculture, form of agriculture,fishing, boating fishing, and boating tourism. and There tourism. is an There increasing is an increasing pressure pressureon urban on nodes urban and nodes small and fishing small fishingcommunities communities from population from population growth, growth, recreational recreational fishing and fishing boating, and boating,as well as as holiday well as tourism. holiday tourism.The Gippsland The Gippsland Lakes also Lakes present also a long present Indigenous a long Indigenoushistory well historybefore the well European before the settlement European in settlementthe 1830s. The in the Gippsland 1830s. The Lakes Gippsland “fall within Lakes the “fall boundaries within theof the boundaries area occupied of the by area the occupied Tatungalung by theclanTatungalung of the Gunai/Kurnaiclan of the people”Gunai/Kurnai (Parkspeople” Victoria (Parks 2009a). Victoria Sadly, 2009a).Indigenous Sadly, history Indigenous in Gippsland historyin is Gippslandone of massacre is one [17], of massacre displacement [17], displacement and disconnection. and disconnection. The involvement The involvementof a local elder of in a localthe project elder inwas the therefore project was seen therefore as critical seen to be as able critical to have to be their able tovoice have contribute their voice to contributethe outcomes. to the outcomes. TheThe lakeslakes werewere permanentlypermanently connectedconnected toto thethe seasea atat LakesLakes EntranceEntrance inin 18891889 throughthrough anan artificialartificial channel.channel. The The introduction introduction of of the artificial artificial entranceentrance drastically altered thethe existingexisting freshwaterfreshwater hydrology,hydrology, causingcausing chronicchronic salinisationsalinisation andand significantsignificant changeschanges inin waterwater levelslevels withinwithin the lakes [[18].18]. LakeLake WellingtonWellington is is the the least least saline saline of the of threethe three lakes [lakes19]. However, [19]. However, its biodiversity its biodiversity has rapidly has declined rapidly overdeclined the last over decades the last [17 decades]. The salinity [17]. The at the salinity Seacombe at the West Seacombe site has West also increasedsite has also due increased to reductions due into lakereductions inflow causedin lake byinflow agriculture caused and by agriculture the development and the of numerousdevelopment dams of withinnumerous the lake’sdams catchment.within the Afterlake’s each catchment. flooding, After a layer each of flooding, salt is often a layer left onof thesalt land.is often As left a result, on the the land. site As can a noresult, longer the serve site can its pastno longer ecological serve or its farming past ecological functions. or farming functions.

FigureFigure 1.1. TheThe GippslandGippsland LakesLakes catchmentcatchment areaarea andand thethe locationlocation ofof thethe sitesite onon thethe south-easternsouth-eastern shoresshores ofof LakeLake WellingtonWellington (Lake (LakeMurla Murla).). Adapted Adapted from from Love Love Our Our Lakes Lakes [ 20[20]] and and Google Google Maps Maps®®..

TheThe proposedproposed developmentdevelopment intendsintends toto workwork withwith thethe changedchanged salinesaline conditionsconditions andand provideprovide stablestable habitatshabitats while while regenerating regenerating the ecologicalthe ecolog functionsical functions of the degraded of the ecosystems.degraded ecosystems. A multifaceted A developmentmultifaceted development based on a range based of on sustainability a range of sust principlesainability was principles the starting was point.the starting The application point. The ofapplication regenerative of regenerative development development thinking to thethinking project’s to the development project’s development aimed to enhance aimed theto enhance ecological, the socialecological, and economic social and performance economic performance of the site. of the site.

2.2. EvaluatingEvaluating thethe RegenerativeRegenerative DesignDesign ProcessProcess ThisThis sectionsection presentspresents thethe methodmethod usedused toto evaluateevaluate thethe LENSESLENSES Framework,Framework, itsits abilityability toto supportsupport regenerativeregenerative designdesign approach, and li livingving environment environment outcomes. outcomes. It It star startsts by by reflecting reflecting on on the the aim aim to toachieve achieve net net benefit. benefit. The The following following sections sections detail detail the the overall overall research research method method and the seriesseries ofof workshopsworkshops conductedconducted asas wellwell asas howhow thethe outcomesoutcomes ofof thethe designdesign charrettecharrette werewere evaluated.evaluated. Finally, thethe onlineonline surveysurvey andand thethe semi-structuredsemi-structured interviewsinterviews usedused toto evaluateevaluate thethe experienceexperience ofof participantsparticipants areare presented.presented. No definition will completely capture what is needed to create benefits for a project. What the above definition for Regenerative Development (see Section 1) tries to encapsulate is the ability to create mutually supportive relationships—ecosystems nourished by social systems, nourished by

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 4 of 24

No definition will completely capture what is needed to create benefits for a project. What the above definition for Regenerative Development (see Section1) tries to encapsulate is the ability to create mutually supportive relationships—ecosystems nourished by social systems, nourished by economic systems, nourished by ecosystems, and so forth. This is achieved through understanding what aspects of the social, ecological and economic systems flow through the project. Regenerative development through the LENSES Framework takes these aspects and considers their constituting flows. Flows are what brings a place to life (e.g., air, water, nutrients, etc.). Regenerative development asks project teams to look at how their designs can create opportunities for these flows to connect and support increased vitality, viability and adaptability. The difference of water in a pipe and water meandering through the site is a commonly used example to describe these three notions. Both the pipe and the stream are flows of water, but only one creates the potential for relationship with the systems around it. This relationship can be negative—where, for example, the water is used as a place to dump waste, is polluted, over fished, or used to irrigate the land around it to the point that it cannot self-sustain. Alternatively, the relationship can be positive—with water providing cooling, habitat, recreation, beauty, or a place for social activities. Viability is the ability to work, to survive and live successfully [21], while vitality is strength and the capacity for survival and the continuation of a meaningful and purposeful existence. In the water example, the water is healthy, clean, with consistent capacity (it is viable), so it provides a vital contribution to the ability of other flows in the system to be healthy—people, animals, plants and other living organisms. Both viability and vitality contribute to the system’s ability to be adaptable, creating positive feedback loops that support the whole to be stronger. Measuring the capacity to enhance vitality, viability and adaptability is critical and needs to be further developed, as many of the things that are most valued (e.g., increased social cohesion and love of a place because of a waterway) cannot always be quantified or measured. Therefore, when looking at the design of a living environment, it is not just about the quantification of increased species, social measures, food production, ecosystem services, etc. It is about the ability for a project to thrive and continue to evolve into the future, and for unexpected opportunities to emerge. Much of this can only be evaluated retrospectively and through story and experience. Specifically, for this case study, the main aims of this Living Environment are:

• to partly restore the fresh water habitat that supports over 80 species of water birds, which no longer stop at the site; • to contribute socially; • to safeguard pest free areas for indigenous species; • to build a safe harbour for visitors to the lake; • to contribute to the vitality of the local economy; • to build human habitat with minimal impact; • to cover the operational energy demand through renewable energy sources; • to produce food locally; and • to provide a model for future development that challenges the development practice.

To achieve these aims, a transdisciplinary approach was used in the design process, a critical aspect of regenerative development. As Jahn, et al. [22] defined, a transdisciplinary approach is:

“a critical and self-reflexive research approach that relates societal with scientific problems; it produces new knowledge by integrating different scientific and extra-scientific insights; its aim is to contribute to both societal and scientific progress; integration is the cognitive operation of establishing a novel, hitherto non-existent connection between the distinct epistemic, social–organizational, and communicative entities that make up the given problem context”. ([22], p. 8) Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 5 of 24

As Hoffmann, et al. [23] noted:

“the definition emphasizes the importance of integration at epistemic, social-organizational, and communicative levels in order to reach both societal and scientific progress”.[24]

In other words, transdisciplinarity can be considered as working collaboratively and scientifically to produce solutions that transform all involved. Everyone engaged with the project can expect to learn from every other participant—be they professor, elder or child; architect, engineer or scientist; artist, or the site itself.

2.1. The LENSES Framework The LENSES Framework was used to document the flows for this project and design opportunities for flows to interact and relate. The aim of this framework is “to facilitate tangible, actionable and contextually based solutions that support and create healthy, natural, social and economic system” ([25], p. 113). As depicted in Figure2, the LENSES Framework is represented by a circular disk that consists of a series of overlaid lenses, each representing a level of information. The outermost lens (the Foundation Lens) outlines the guiding principles of the project. The intermediate lens (in blue) is the Flows Lens and represents the range of flows across the project. These can be physical or abstract. Both the flows and the guiding principles of the project were defined by the stakeholders during Workshops 1–3 (see Figure3). The blank allows for the emergence of additional flows/guiding principles to be added. In the centre of the framework is the Vitality Lens which contains the two spheres of degenerative and regenerative design and prompts the workshop participants to think about how to create opportunities for interaction between flows, create benefit for a flow, and to think about that in context of the key guiding principles. The lenses were made into an interactive artefact used by participants to prompt their creativity. This visual representation of the framework and the fact that it was based on the principles and flows of the place, helped participants structure their thinking during the workshops. Beyond its visual representation, the LENSES Framework condenses the essence of the project in terms of flows and intentions. This greatly facilitated working in groups made of many disciplines and points of view, and allowed innovative ideas to emerge and be developed that were beyond the expectationsSustainability 2018 of, 10 the, x projectFOR PEER team. REVIEW 6 of 25

Figure 2. Visual representation of the LENSES Framew Framework,ork, adapted adapted to to the the Seacombe Seacombe West West project. project. Note: ( a) is the foundation lens which summarises the essence of the project, its key objectives; (b) is the flowsflows lens which summarises the flows flows that br bringing a place to life while the Vitality lens; ( c) is a prompt to always develop relationships betweenbetween thethe flowsflows andand the place to as to achieve the objectives and create increased vitality and viability in the sy system;stem; colours are the original colours of the LENSES framework and do not serve a particularparticular function beyond contrasting.

Figure 3. Overall process of the project and scope of this paper. Note: colours are the original colours of the LENSES framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.

2.2. Overall Research Method The authors led and organised a series of workshops with the key stakeholders of the project in order to facilitate regenerative thinking from the early stages of design. The results of each workshop were carried forward to the next, as depicted in Figure 3. The fourth and final workshop consisted of a design charrette over 2 days, with 40 participating experts in fields including water management, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, construction, governance, biology, sociology, economics, visual and performing arts. Indigenous, government, local community and youth representatives were also present. This workshop was facilitated by Professor Brian Dunbar, one of the creators of LENSES. It generated design guidelines, concepts, opportunities and ideas that were provided to the design team for consideration in designing the masterplan. As shown in Figure 3, this paper evaluates (1) the transfer of regenerative thinking from Workshop 4 to the design guidelines; and (2) the translation of these guidelines into the masterplan.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 25

Figure 2. Visual representation of the LENSES Framework, adapted to the Seacombe West project. Note: (a) is the foundation lens which summarises the essence of the project, its key objectives; (b) is the flows lens which summarises the flows that bring a place to life while the Vitality lens; (c) is a prompt to always develop relationships between the flows and the place to as to achieve the objectives Sustainabilityand create2018, increased10, 460 vitality and viability in the system; colours are the original colours of the LENSES6 of 24 framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.

Figure 3. Overall process of the project and scope of this paper. Note: colours are the original Figure 3. Overall process of the project and scope of this paper. Note: colours are the original colours colours of the LENSES framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting. of the LENSES framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.

2.2. Overall Research Method Beyond Seacombe West, the LENSES Framework has been used to drive regenerative outcomes in projectsThe as authors diverse led as townand organised planning, a building series of design,workshops education, with the personal key stakeholders growth and of organisational the project in development.order to facilitate This regenerative supports its thinking polyvalence. from the Yet ea itrly is not stages the of only design. tool orThe framework results of each for supporting workshop regenerativewere carried typeforward thinking; to the there next, are as othersdepicted (e.g., in Fi EcoBalance,gure 3. The Living fourth Building and final Challenge, workshop Perkins+Will consisted of Framework,a design charrette REGEN over (not 2 active)).days, with Within 40 participating the context of experts other frameworks in fields including supporting water the management, development ofengineering, sustainable landscape buildings andarchitecture, communities, architecture the LENSES, construction, Framework governance, helps identify biology, which sociology, tools will supporteconomics, the outcomesvisual and that performing the project seeks.arts. Indi Forgenous, example, government, at the building local level, community these tools and can beyouth the Livingrepresentatives Building Challenge,were also present. LEED, BREEAM This workshop or Green was Star. facilitated As such forby Profe Seacombessor Brian West theDunbar, certification one of toolthe creators investigated of LENSES. is One PlanetIt generated Living. design The aimguidel ofines, using concepts, LENSES opportunities is not certification, and ideas nor reporting,that were itprovided is a way to to the facilitate design initial team thinkingfor consideration and planning in designing about the the potential masterplan. of a place by looking deeply at theAs flows shown that in could Figure bring 3, greaterthis paper vitality evaluates to the systems.(1) the transfer As such, of categories regenerative (e.g., thinking energy, water, from internalWorkshop environmental 4 to the design quality, guidelin materials,es; and waste, (2) the etc.) translation are not defined of these as guidelines they are in into tools the such masterplan. as LEED, Green Star, One Planet Living and BREEAM. They emerge by engagement with the land, its people, and its history. The LENSES Framework also uses the process of identifying what brings a place to life in order to define principles for achieving certain outcomes for a place. Using the identified flows and defined principles, certification tools are identified and used if desired by the user group. Further the LENSES Framework does not set targets for each flow or category (e.g., Hammarby Model energy reduction by 50%). The aim of a regenerative development is to identify, to the greatest extent possible, the potential for system evolution. It acknowledges that any development impacts the land and has direct and indirect environmental effects, but asks how to best use these to create social and ecological restoration, as well as increase vitality and viability of the project area and the greater system in which it is nested. Therefore the LENSES Framework was chosen for its ability to capture what we considered the key elements needed to develop a design in a regenerative manner and produce living environments. Plaut, Dunbar, Wackerman and Hodgin [25] provide a detailed explanation of the framework and readers are referred there for more information. In this paper, we have also used the flows lens as an analytical tool to qualitatively evaluate the design guidelines that emerged from Workshop 4, as presented in Section 3.1. Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 7 of 24

2.2. Overall Research Method The authors led and organised a series of workshops with the key stakeholders of the project in order to facilitate regenerative thinking from the early stages of design. The results of each workshop were carried forward to the next, as depicted in Figure3. The fourth and final workshop consisted of a design charrette over 2 days, with 40 participating experts in fields including water management, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, construction, governance, biology, sociology, economics, visual and performing arts. Indigenous, government, local community and youth representatives were also present. This workshop was facilitated by Professor Brian Dunbar, one of the creators of LENSES. It generated design guidelines, concepts, opportunities and ideas that wereSustainability provided 2018, 10 to, x FOR the PEER design REVIEW team for consideration in designing the masterplan. 7 of 25 SustainabilityAs shown 2018, 10, x in FOR Figure PEER REVIEW3, this paper evaluates (1) the transfer of regenerative7 of thinking25 from Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25 WorkshopThis evaluation 4 to will the test design whether guidelines; using a regene and (2)rative the thinking translation through of the these LENSES guidelines Framework into to the masterplan. facilitateThis evaluation the workshops will test whether(see Section using 3.3) a regenesupportsrative guidelines thinking that through match the the LENSES systems Framework thinking onto ThisThis evaluationevaluation will will test test whether whether using usinga regene arative regenerative thinking through thinking the throughLENSES Framework the LENSES to Framework whichfacilitateSustainability it theis 2018 based. workshops, 10, x FORFurthermore, PEER (see REVIEW Section discussing 3.3) supports if these guidelines guidelines that are match in turn the reflectedsystems thinkingin the 7final of on 25 facilitate the workshops (see Section 3.3) supports guidelines that match the systems thinking on tomasterplanwhich facilitate it is canbased. the help workshops Furthermore, reveal if ou (seetputs discussing Sectionfrom the if 3.3workshopsthese) supports guidelines were guidelines takenare in on turn board thatreflected by match the designin the teamfinal systems thinking which it is based. Furthermore, discussing if these guidelines are in turn reflected in the final onormasterplanThis if which aevaluation business-as-usual it can is helpwill based. testreveal mentalitywhether Furthermore, if outputs using prevailed. from a regene discussing the workshopsrative thinking if these were through taken guidelines on the board LENSES are by in the Framework turn design reflected team to in the final facilitatemasterplan the can workshops help reveal (see if ouSectiontputs 3.3)from supports the workshops guidelines were that taken match on board the systems by the designthinking team on masterplanor if a business-as-usual can help reveal mentality if outputs prevailed. from the workshops were taken on board by the design team or whichor if a business-as-usualit is based. Furthermore, mentality discussing prevailed. if these guidelines are in turn reflected in the final if2.3. a business-as-usual Description of Workshops mentality prevailed. 2.3.masterplan Description can of help Workshops reveal if outputs from the workshops were taken on board by the design team or2.3. if Description aThis business-as-usual section of Workshopsoutlines mentality each of prevailed.the workshops, including the two-day design charrette. Table 1 2.3.chronologically DescriptionThis section presents ofoutlines Workshops the each workshops of the workshops, and main eventsincluding of the the project. two-day design charrette. Table 1 chronologicallyThis section presents outlines the each workshops of the workshops, and main events including of the the project. two-day design charrette. Table 1 2.3.chronologically Description of presents Workshops the workshops and main events of the project. This sectionTable 1. Description outlines eachof the workshops’ of the workshops, aims, participants, including activities the and two-dayfinal outputs. design charrette. Table1 chronologicallyThis sectionTable 1. presentsoutlines Description each the of of workshopsthe the workshops’ workshops, and aims, including main participants, events the activities two-day of the and project. design final outputs. charrette. Table 1 chronologicallyWorkshop/EventTable presents 1. DescriptionAim the workshops of the Stakeholdersworkshops’ and main aims, eventsActivities participants, of the project.activities and Outputsfinal outputs. 2015Workshop/Event IdentifyAim the Land Stakeholders owners UsedActivities the Vitality Lens to Key Outputs principles: Prework—at2015Workshop/Event theTable site 1.principlesIdentifyAimDescription the of the ofLand Stakeholders the owners workshops’ discussUsedActivities aims, the the Vitality participants,shift from Lens to activitiesInterdependenceKey Outputs principles: and final outputs. Table 1. Description of the workshops’ aims, participants, activities and final outputs. Prework—at2015 the site projectprinciplesIdentify the of the Land owners degenerativediscussUsed the the Vitality shift to from Lens to StewardshipInterdependenceKey principles: Prework—at the site projectprinciples of the degenerativediscuss the shift to from StewardshipInterdependence Workshop/Event0 Aim Aim Stakeholders Stakeholders regenerativeActivities Activities design; and Respecting Outputs limits Outputs project regenerativedegenerative design; to and RespectingStewardship limits 20150 IdentifyIdentify the the Land ownersLand ownerstheUsed Foundation the VitalityUsed theLens Lens Vitality to to LensPartnershipKey toprinciples: Key principles: 0 theregenerative Foundation design; Lens andto PartnershipRespecting limits Prework—at the the site site principlesprinciples of the of the developdiscuss the andiscuss shiftinitial from the shift fromTransparencyInterdependence andInterdependence the Foundation Lens to Partnership projectproject understandingdevelopdegenerative andegenerative initial to of to regenerativeeducationTransparencyStewardship andStewardship understandingdevelop an initial of educationTransparency and 0 regenerativedesign; developmentdesign; and and the FoundationRespecting limitsRespecting limits understanding of education principles.regenerativethe FoundationLens development toLens develop to anPartnership initial Partnership regenerative development January 2016 Team formation Group of Sharedprinciples.develop the anunderstanding potentialinitial of the of regenerativeReceivedTransparency grant andTransparency and education principles. January 2016 Team formation researchers Group of projectSharedunderstanding forthedevelopment anpotential internal of of the principles. Receivededucation grant January 2016 Team formation Group of Shared the potential of the Received grant January 2016 Team formationresearchers Group ofresearchprojectregenerative for grant.Shared an development internal the potential of the Received grant researchers project for an internal February 2016 Cultural Design researchersteam Teamresearchprinciples. taken grant.project through for an internalDeeper understanding and research grant. WorkshopFebruaryJanuary 2016 2016 1—at the AwarenessCultural Team formation Design Group ofteam IndigenousTeamShared taken theresearch potential historythrough grant.and of the inclusionDeeperReceived understanding grantof indigenous and February 2016 Cultural Design team Team taken through Deeper understanding and FebruaryUoMWorkshop 2016 1—at the TrainingAwarenessCultural researchersDesign teamdesign;Indigenousproject forand,Team an history the internal takenway and to through be lore/history.inclusion of indigenousStartedDeeper usingunderstanding and Workshop 1—at the Awareness Indigenous history and inclusion of indigenous WorkshopUoM 1—at the TrainingAwareness sensitivedesign;research and, grant.andIndigenous the effective way to history be thelore/history. and Indigenous design; Startedinclusion timeline using as of indigenous UoM TrainingTraining design; and,and, the the way way to be to be sensitivelore/history. Startedlore/history. using Started using February1 2016 Cultural Design team communicatorssensitiveTeam taken and through effective to the basistheDeeper Indigenous for understanding the history timeline of and as communicatorssensitive andand effective effective to the communicatorsbasisthe Indigenous for the historythe timeline Indigenous of as timeline as Workshop1 1—at the Awareness Indigenous community.history and placeinclusion activities of indigenous (see 1 communicatorsto the to Indigenous the community.basis for the historybasis of for the history of place UoM Training Indigenousdesign; and, community. the way to be Workshopplacelore/history. activities 2). Started (see using Indigenous community. place activities activities(see (see Workshop 2). February 2016 Understand Design team Threesensitive hour and introduction effective to SharedWorkshopthe Indigenous understanding 2). timeline of as Workshop 2). FebruaryWorkshop1 2016 2016 2 at the LENSESUnderstandUnderstand and Design Designteam teamregeneration Threecommunicators hour Three introduction (Vitality) to hour the introductionand to theSharedbasis potential for to understanding the historyofShared the site of understandingofand of the February 2016 Understand Design team Three hour introduction to Shared understanding of WorkshopUoM 2 at the the RegenerativeLENSESLENSES and and theregenerationIndigenous LENSESregeneration community. process, (Vitality) and and (Vitality) theplace regenerativepotential and activities the of potential (seethe design site and of the site and the Workshop 2 at the LENSES and regeneration (Vitality) and the potential of the site and UoM educationRegenerativeRegenerative startedthe LENSES theLENSES Flows process, Analysis process, and andprocesstheWorkshop startedregenerative 2). regenerative design design process UoM Regenerative the LENSES process, and the regenerative design February2 2016 educationUnderstandeducation Design team throughstarted Three hour the a thehistory Flowsintroduction Flows Analysistimeline Analysis to processShared through understanding a of education throughstarted the a historyhistory Flows timelineAnalysis activityprocess Workshop2 2 at the LENSES and activityregeneration (Flows (Vitality) across time). and the potential of the site and 2 through a(Flows history acrosstimeline time). FebruaryUoM 2016 SiteRegenerative Design team Aactivitythe whole LENSES (Flows day process, visit across of theand time). Abilitythe regenerative to connect design to the activity (Flows across time). FebruarySite visit 2016 familiarisationSiteeducationSite familiarisation andDesign researchers Designteam teamsite—visitedAstarted whole the dayA Flows whole 4visit areas Analysisof day ofthe the visit ofissuesAbilityprocess the of to the connect site,Ability input to the tointo connect to the February 2016 Site Design team A whole day visit of the Ability to connect to the Site2 visit familiarisation and researchersand researcherssitesite—visitedthrough and collectedasite—visited history 4 areas dronetimeline of the 4 areas theissues of Flows the of site the Lens site, issues input of into the site, input into Site visit familiarisation and researchers footagesiteactivitysite—visited and (Flowscollected and 4 collected areasacross drone of time). the drone theissues footage Flows of the Lens site, the input Flows into Lens site and collected drone the Flows Lens MarchFebruary 2016 2016 CommunitySiteCommunity inputCommunityDesign Communityteam SitefootageA whole visit, dayfollowedSite visit visit, of by followedthe a Ability by a to connectAbility to the to connect to the footage WorkshopMarchSite visit 2016 3 onsite inputCommunityfamiliarisationand and site site visit, (aroundCommunityand researchers(around 20 20two-and-a-half-hourSitesite—visited visit, followedtwo-and-a-half-hour 4 areas by of a the issuesAbility of to the connect site,issues input to the of into the site, input into March 2016 Community Community Site visit, followed by a Ability to connect to the Workshop 3 onsite visit,inputdrawing drawingand site from bothparticipants)(aroundparticipants) 20 workshoptwo-and-a-half-hoursite and collectedworkshop around: drone “What around: is theissues “What Flows of is the Lens site, the input Flows into Lens Workshop 3 onsite inputthe and key site flows (around 20 two-and-a-half-hourimportant to the community”?issues of the site, input into 3 fromvisit, drawingboth the participants) importantworkshopfootage toaround: the “What is the Flows Lens fromvisit, bothdrawing the participants) importantworkshop toaround: the “What is the Flows Lens March3 2016 keyCommunity flows Community community”?Site visit, followed by a Ability to connect to the 3 from both the important to the MarchWorkshop 2016 3 onsite Communitykeyinput flows and site and Community,(around 20 Repetitioncommunity”?two-and-a-half-hour of the above Abilityissues of to the connect site, input to the into key flows community”? WorkshopMarch 2016 3 at the governmentCommunityvisit, drawing and governmentCommunity,participants) withRepetitionworkshop an additional around:of the above three“What is issuesAbilitythe Flows of to the connectLens site, input to the into March 2016 Community and Community, Repetition of the above Ability to connect to the localWorkshop3 council 3 at the input,governmentfrom both drawing the andgovernment design hourwithimportant anworkshop: additional to the “What three are theissues Flows of the Lens—this site, input into localWorkshop council 3 at the frominput,keygovernment flows both drawing the team—12andgovernment design thehourcommunity”?with critical anworkshop: additional flows “Whatand three are finalisedtheissues Flows of the Lens—this Foundationsite, input into local council input, drawing and design hour workshop: “What are the Flows Lens—this March3 2016 keyfromCommunity flows both the and participantsteam—12Community, relationshipstheRepetition critical offlows thewe needandabove to Lens,finalisedAbility and to the connectthe Foundation Flows to Lensthe keyfrom flows both the participantsteam—12 relationshipsthe critical flows we needand to Lens,finalised and the the Foundation Flows Lens Workshop3 3 at the government government developwith an additionalto ensure the three place issues of the site, input into 3 key flows participants relationships we need to Lens, and the Flows Lens local council input, drawing and design hasdevelophour the workshop: potential to ensure “Whatto the thrive”? place are the Flows Lens—this develop to ensure the place 2016 April/May Introducefrom both the Designteam—12 team has Developedthe criticalthe potential flowsdesign andto concepts thrive”? Initialfinalised design the Foundation ideas has the potential to thrive”? 20163 April/May outcomes Introducekey flows of first Designparticipants team and Developedrelationships finalising design we principles need concepts to InitialLens, and design the ideasFlows Lens 2016 April/May Introduce Design team Developed design concepts Initial design ideas 3outcomes workshops of first to anddevelop flows.finalising to ensure principles the place outcomes of first and finalising principles the3 workshops design team to andhas theflows. potential to thrive”? 3 workshops to and flows. 2016 April/May the Introduce design team Design team Developed design concepts Initial design ideas the design team outcomes of first and finalising principles

3 workshops to and flows.

the design team

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25

This evaluation will test whether using a regenerative thinking through the LENSES Framework to facilitate the workshops (see Section 3.3) supports guidelines that match the systems thinking on which it is based. Furthermore, discussing if these guidelines are in turn reflected in the final masterplan can help reveal if outputs from the workshops were taken on board by the design team or if a business-as-usual mentality prevailed.

2.3. Description of Workshops This section outlines each of the workshops, including the two-day design charrette. Table 1 chronologically presents the workshops and main events of the project.

Table 1. Description of the workshops’ aims, participants, activities and final outputs.

Workshop/Event Aim Stakeholders Activities Outputs 2015 Identify the Land owners Used the Vitality Lens to Key principles: Prework—at the site principles of the discuss the shift from Interdependence project degenerative to Stewardship 0 regenerative design; and Respecting limits the Foundation Lens to Partnership develop an initial Transparency and understanding of education regenerative development principles. January 2016 Team formation Group of Shared the potential of the Received grant researchers project for an internal research grant. February 2016 Cultural Design team Team taken through Deeper understanding and Workshop 1—at the Awareness Indigenous history and inclusion of indigenous UoM Training design; and, the way to be lore/history. Started using sensitive and effective the Indigenous timeline as 1 communicators to the basis for the history of Indigenous community. place activities (see Workshop 2). February 2016 Understand Design team Three hour introduction to Shared understanding of Workshop 2 at the LENSES and regeneration (Vitality) and the potential of the site and UoM Regenerative the LENSES process, and the regenerative design education started the Flows Analysis process 2 through a history timeline activity (Flows across time). February 2016 Site Design team A whole day visit of the Ability to connect to the Site visit familiarisation and researchers site—visited 4 areas of the issues of the site, input into site and collected drone the Flows Lens Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 8 of 24 footage March 2016 Community Community Site visit, followed by a Ability to connect to the Workshop 3 onsite input and site (around 20 two-and-a-half-hour issues of the site, input into visit, drawing participants) Tableworkshop 1. Cont. around: “What is the Flows Lens 3 from both the important to the Workshop/Event key Aim flows Stakeholderscommunity”? Activities Outputs March 2016 CommunityCommunity and and Community,Community, RepetitionRepetition of the above of the aboveAbility with to connectAbility to the to connect to the Workshop 3 at the governmentgovernment input,governmentgovernment with an additionalan additional three threeissues hour of the site,issues input of into the site, input into locallocal council input,drawing drawing from bothand designand designhour workshop:workshop: “What “What are arethe theFlows Lens—thisthe Flows Lens—this fromthe both key the flows team—12team—12 the criticalcritical flows and flows and relationshipsfinalised the Foundationfinalised the Foundation 3 key flows participantsparticipants relationshipswe needwe need todevelop to Lens, to ensure and the FlowsLens, Lens and the Flows Lens the place has the potential to develop to ensure the place has the potentialthrive”? to thrive”? 2016 April/May Introduce Introduce Design Designteam team Developed Developed design concepts design conceptsInitial design ideasInitial design ideas outcomesoutcomes of first of first and finalisingand principles finalising principles Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25 3 workshops3 workshops to to the and flows.and flows. thedesign design teamteam April 2016 DevelopDevelop design design 40 industry40 industry Developed and Developed regenerative regenerative Participants ideas identifiedParticipants identified Workshop 4 at the the directionsdirections with with and researchresearch ideas integratedintegrated across across building,opportunities andopportunities gaps in and gaps in UoM—2 days 40 experts, experts building, infrastructure, the knowledge to further UoM—2 days days 40 40experts, experts, industryexperts experts building, infrastructure, ecosystem,the knowledge theto further knowledge to further industryand community and ecosystem,water, water, land, land, governance, inform the researchinform agenda the research agenda 4 community governance,community community & & innovation. innovation. innovation. April–May 2016 Collect 40 industry Filled in an online survey Participants feedback on April–May 2016 2016 CollectCollect participants40 industry40 industry Filled and in anFilled online in survey an online surveyParticipants feedbackParticipants on feedback on Online Survey participants and research consisting of 10 questions the workshops Online Survey Survey participantsfeedback and researchresearch consistingconsisting of 10 questions of 10 questionsthe workshops that the workshops feedback experts experts that covercover their experience their experience of of the Workshops. Online survey of the Workshops.the Workshops.

August 2016 2016 CollectCollect key key Client, chiefClient, chiefFilmed semi-structuredFilmed semi-structured Key stakeholder’sKey feedback stakeholder’s feedback Interviews stakeholderstakeholder architectarchitect and andinterviewsinterviews with the with theon the workshopson the workshops feedbackfeedback chief landscapechief landscape stakeholders.stakeholders. Interviews Interviews architectarchitect architect Note. UoM:Note. University UoM: University of Melbourne. of Melbourne.

Workshop 2 gathered the design team at the University of Melbourne in order to introduce its membersWorkshop to the 2LENSES gathered Framework. the design It allowed team atth thee design University team to ofget Melbourne acquainted inwith order the to introduce itsregenerative members development to the LENSES framework Framework. and LENSES It allowed as well the as design generate team a tocommon get acquainted base with the regenerativeunderstanding development of the potential framework of the site. and LENSES as well as generate a common base understanding of theWorkshop potential 3 ofincluded the site. two sessions. One with the community and indigenous elders on the site and the other with the community, industry and the government in the closest town. These sessions and Workshopthe other with 3 includedthe community, two sessions.industry and One the withgovernment the community in the closest and town. indigenous These sessions elders on the site were critical to create the final masterplan. The two locations were chosen to generate maximum and the other with the community, industry and the government in the closest town. These sessions outreach to potential stakeholders. These two sessions of workshop 3 followed a similar format, each wereworking critical with tothe createparticipants the finalto think masterplan. about the hist Theory of two the locationssite and the werearea and chosen how the to site generate had maximum outreachchanged. toThis potential allowedstakeholders. identifying and These refining two what sessions flows ofshould workshop be considered. 3 followed These a similar flows format, each workingprovided withthe foundation the participants for workshop to think4. about the history of the site and the area and how the site Workshop 4 consisted of a two-day design charrette and is outlined in more detail. Critically, had changed.Workshop This4 consisted allowed of a identifyingtwo-day design and charrette refining and what is outlined flows in should more detail. be considered. Critically, These flows the two days started with an outline of the limitations of the mainstream linear and mechanical providedthe two days the foundationstarted with an for outline workshop of the 4. limitations of the mainstream linear and mechanical worldview approach to development. This was balanced by showing how over the last 30 years Workshop 4 consisted of a two-day design charrette and is outlined in more detail. Critically, projects have started to emerge to challenge this linearity such as BedZED, Eva Lanxmeer [10], and themany two of daysthe eco-city, started Living with anBuilding outline Challenge of the limitationstype projects. ofRegenerative the mainstream development linear was and mechanical worldviewintroduced approachas a way of to working development. in this new This worldview was balanced (see for by example showing Goldsmith how over [26], the Rees last [27], 30 years projects haveCapra started [28], Sterling to emerge [29] and to challengeBourne [30]). this linearity such as BedZED, Eva Lanxmeer [10], and many of the eco-city, Living Building Challenge type projects. Regenerative development was introduced as a way The participants were divided into groups matching a domain of the Seacombe West project: of working in this new worldview (see for example Goldsmith [26], Rees [27], Capra [28], Sterling [29] 1. Built Environment—housing, building design, site plan; and1. BourneBuilt Environment—housing, [30]). building design, site plan; 2. Ecosystems—analysing, regenerating the natural systems; The participants were divided into groups matching a domain of the Seacombe West project: 3. Land; Water—design, considerations for regen development; 4. Governance; People; Money; Culture—thrive, live, play, govern; and 1.4. BuiltGovernance; Environment—housing, People; Money; Culture—thrive, building design,live, play, site govern; plan; and 5. Inspiration—thriving economy, culture, music, art, entrepreneurship. 2. Ecosystems—analysing, regenerating the natural systems; The project was introduced to these groups, including the principles of the foundation lens 3. Land;The project Water—design, was introduced considerations to these groups, for incl regenuding development; the principles of the foundation lens identified in workshop 3. Three groups (1, 2 and 5) were asked to imagine the project failing in 10 4.years Governance; in the future and People; describe Money; the reasons Culture—thrive, behind this failure. live, The play, other govern; two groups and (3 and 4) were 5.asked Inspiration—thriving to imagine the project’s success economy, and culture,its drivers. music, The two art, groups entrepreneurship. then swapped and built on the work of the previous group. This led to a discussion of how one could imagine supporting successes and Theminimising project the was reasons introduced for failure. to these groups, including the principles of the foundation lens identifiedThe five in workshopgroups were 3. then Three asked groups to consider (1, 2 and the principles 5) were asked underpinning to imagine the design the project of the failingsite in 10 years and the flows lens was introduced. Each group was asked to determine the key flows that could bring benefit to their domain, and then to look at an existing rubric of shifting the flows from degenerative to regenerative. These rubrics are a key tool of the LENSES Framework that allow participants to imagine what achieving more than sustainable development could entail. There are 11 rubrics for the flows of beauty, money, ecosystems, water, energy, materials, transport, education and so forth. In

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 9 of 24 in the future and describe the reasons behind this failure. The other two groups (3 and 4) were asked to imagine the project’s success and its drivers. The two groups then swapped and built on the work of the previous group. This led to a discussion of how one could imagine supporting successes and minimising the reasons for failure. The five groups were then asked to consider the principles underpinning the design of the site and the flows lens was introduced. Each group was asked to determine the key flows that could bring benefit to their domain, and then to look at an existing rubric of shifting the flows from degenerative to regenerative. These rubrics are a key tool of the LENSES Framework that allow participants to imagine what achieving more than sustainable development could entail. There are 11 rubrics for the flows of beauty, money, ecosystems, water, energy, materials, transport, education and so forth. In the charrette, the use of the rubrics allowed the groups to start brainstorming ideas and design initiatives that could create beneficial relationships for the flows. Critical to the process, and as a result of the calibre of the participants and their experience, ideas generated have a higher potential for success—success in terms of providing vital, viable and resilient outcomes. For example, the proposed approach for developing the waterways was a result of having Victoria’s leading fish ecosystems scientist working with a leading sea grass ecologist, hydrologist, geomorphologist and carbon sequestration experts. The following day started with a recapitulation of what everyone had covered the day before. Each group was then asked to revisit the LENSES artefact and think about the principles and flows considering their group’s domain. Additionally, participants were asked to move between groups to cross-pollinate ideas. The groups were then asked to explore the interesting edge opportunities—for example what happens where land meets waterway; what happens where residential area meets community or retail; what about the edges of commercial and education. The rest of the day was spent on developing ideas to the level of resolution that the design team could take forward with a key focus being identifying areas of uncertainty and further research requirements. Each of the five groups then presented the results which are evaluated in Section 3.1 as per the method discussed in Section 2.4.

2.4. Evaluating the Outcomes of the Design Charrette The design guidelines from the design charrette are evaluated in this paper using the Flow Lens of the LENSES Framework. In order to conduct this assessment, the design guideline outputs of each of the five groups of the design charrette (see Section 2.3) were collected. These included both the “poster” that each group presented at the end of the workshop, as well as the recorded video of their presentation. Figure4 is an example of the posters presented. It has been kept in this form to accurately depict the actual physical outputs produced during the workshop. These outputs were analysed to extract the main ideas and themes. These were then used to map which flows in the Flow Lens were covered by the design guidelines of each group. To also evaluate if these design guidelines affected the design team and their thinking on the final masterplan, the latter was compared to an earlier masterplan from 2003. The previous masterplan did not involve any regenerative development thinking nor facilitation and therefore provides a benchmark against which the proposed masterplan can be compared. This comparison is conducted across the categories of layout, staging, goals, underpinning thinking and housing strategies. In addition to evaluating the outcomes of the workshops, the experience of the participants is also assessed by evaluating responses to an online survey and semi-structured interviews, as described in Section 2.5. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25

the charrette, the use of the rubrics allowed the groups to start brainstorming ideas and design initiatives that could create beneficial relationships for the flows. Critical to the process, and as a result of the calibre of the participants and their experience, ideas generated have a higher potential for success—success in terms of providing vital, viable and resilient outcomes. For example, the proposed approach for developing the waterways was a result of having Victoria’s leading fish ecosystems scientist working with a leading sea grass ecologist, hydrologist, geomorphologist and carbon sequestration experts. The following day started with a recapitulation of what everyone had covered the day before. Each group was then asked to revisit the LENSES artefact and think about the principles and flows considering their group’s domain. Additionally, participants were asked to move between groups to cross-pollinate ideas. The groups were then asked to explore the interesting edge opportunities—for example what happens where land meets waterway; what happens where residential area meets community or retail; what about the edges of commercial and education. The rest of the day was spent on developing ideas to the level of resolution that the design team could take forward with a key focus being identifying areas of uncertainty and further research requirements. Each of the five groups then presented the results which are evaluated in Section 3.1 as per the method discussed in Section 0

2.4. Evaluating the Outcomes of the Design Charrette The design guidelines from the design charrette are evaluated in this paper using the Flow Lens of the LENSES Framework. In order to conduct this assessment, the design guideline outputs of each of the five groups of the design charrette (see Section 2.3) were collected. These included both the “poster” that each group presented at the end of the workshop, as well as the recorded video of their presentation. Figure 4 is an example of the posters presented. It has been kept in this form to accurately depict the actual physical outputs produced during the workshop. These outputs were Sustainabilityanalysed2018 to extract, 10, 460 the main ideas and themes. These were then used to map which flows in the Flow10 of 24 Lens were covered by the design guidelines of each group.

Figure 4. Poster of the design guidelines of the Built Environment group, produced at the end of Figure 4. Poster of the design guidelines of the Built Environment group, produced at the end of Workshop 4—Design Charrette (source: Authors). Workshop 4—Design Charrette (source: Authors).

2.5. Evaluating the Experience of Participants This section describes how the experience of the participants was evaluated. It first presents the online survey used, followed by the semi-structured interviews.

2.5.1. Online Survey To assess the participants’ perception of the LENSES Framework as a facilitation tool that enabled regenerative thinking, an online survey was devised and distributed. The survey comprises a set of ten questions, which are listed in AppendixA. In summary, the survey included:

• questions regarding the role of the participants and their attendance; • Likert-scale (7 options, see Table A1) questions on personal gain from the workshops, the benefit to the project from the workshops and the participants’ understanding of regenerative development; • open-ended questions that cover personal gain, defining regenerative development, the benefits of LENSES and the potential improvement to the facilitation process with LENSES: and • Likert-scale (5 options, see Table A1) with 9 sub-questions evaluating the performance of LENSES on a range of indicators.

The survey was opened to participants from the end of the design charrette (Workshop 4, 12 April 2016) until 31 May 2016 (50 days). Participants were encouraged to take the survey and were reminded twice by email, an established booster to response rates [31]. Although, participation in the survey was facultative, 28 responses were collected out of 40 stakeholders involved in the workshops (most of whom were present during the design charrette—Workshop 4). The resulting response rate of 28/40 = 70% is much higher than average response rates to online surveys as reported by Nulty [31] (33%) and Baruch and Holtom [32] (38.9–54.7%). However, the sample size was not very large and this is further discussed in Section4. All survey questions were approved by an ethics committee and Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 11 of 24 all participants were informed of the project, data collection and survey participation through a plain language statement distributed during the workshops as well as face-to-face explanations.

2.5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews The online survey was complemented by semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. The aim of the interviews was to extract additional information regarding the workshops and the use of the LENSES Framework. In this regard, the interviews should be regarded as supplementary data that is used to reinforce certain trends observed in the survey, instead of another source of data that is thoroughly analysed. For this reason, the results section does not include a separate analysis of the responses to interviews. These are used to bring the voice of the participants into the discussion, through the use of quotes. The list of questions used in the interviews is provided in AppendixB. The interviews targeted the client, the chief architect and the chief landscape architect of the project. All interviews were conducted on the 11 August 2016 at The University of Melbourne and were recorded on video for further analysis.

3. Results This section presents the main two analyses of the regenerative process: (1) the effect of the LENSES Framework on the design process; and (2) how this process was perceived among the stakeholders. Focusing on how the framework was used and how it informed the design process, we identify the main design guidelines that resulted from Workshop 4, the design charrette, and link them to different flows in the LENSES Framework. Secondly, we compare the original masterplan from 2003 with the one resulting from the regenerative process. Finally, results from the online survey of participants are presented.

3.1. Summary of Design Inputs as a Result of the LENSES Process Results from the analysis of the design guidelines proposed by the six different groups participating in Workshop 4 showed a broad coverage of flows in almost every group. Out of the 15 flows developed with all the stakeholders for this projects LENSES artefact, the identified flows that were covered by each group for a given theme ranged from 5/15 (33%) to 13/15 (87%) with an average of 9.6 flows (64%) covered across the six teams (the median is 9.5 and the standard deviation 2.4). The analysis showed that LENSES facilitated the integration of flows that are not generally considered together in a development project, e.g., knowledge, money, ecosystems, people, transport and water. Table2 synthesises the design guidelines resulting from each theme and the associated flows from the LENSES Framework. The analysis reveals a strong tendency for incorporating systems thinking across all groups. This is shown through the breadth of aspects (green flows) covered by each group and the proposed guidelines. This type of thinking is characteristic of regenerative development. It is important to note that the “People, Governance, Money and Culture” group highlighted the need for equity in the project, including affordability. The development should be socially inclusive, enabling people with different income levels to live there and avoid becoming a place for the elite. Furthermore, the group highlighted the need for the landscape to enable an understanding of indigenous history instinctively, to champion this history. This would be complemented by an indigenous centre staffed by indigenous people, hopefully residing on site. The design guidelines above are not unique. They echo what some other leading projects in the field might propose. The difference might lie in the fact that these guidelines are not generic and universal but are developed from the flows and foundation lenses for this particular site, by a specific group of participants, at a certain point in time. The guidelines are based on what history, data and the local stakeholders have told the team and its interpretation by a large group of people from different disciplines and backgrounds in conversation with this data. Sustainability 20182018,, 1010,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 11 11 ofof 2525

3. Results This section presents the main two analyses of thethe regenerativeregenerative process:process: (1)(1) thethe effecteffect ofof thethe LENSES Framework on the design process; and (2) how this process was perceived among the stakeholders.stakeholders. FocusingFocusing onon howhow thethe frameworkframework waswas usused and how it informed the design process, we identifyidentify thethe mainmain designdesign guidelinesguidelines thatthat resultedresulted fromfrom WorkshopWorkshop 4,4, thethe designdesign charrette,charrette, andand linklink themthem toto differentdifferent flowsflows inin thethe LENSESLENSES Framework.Framework. Secondly,Secondly, wewe comparecompare thethe originaloriginal masterplanmasterplan fromfrom 20032003 withwith thethe oneone resultingresulting fromfrom thethe regenerativeregenerative process.process. Finally,Finally, resultsresults fromfrom thethe onlineonline surveysurvey of participants are presented.

3.1. Summary of Design Inputs as aa ResultResult ofof thethe LENSESLENSES ProcessProcess Results from the analysis of the design guidelines proposed by the six different groups participating in Workshop 4 showed a broad coverage ofof flowsflows inin almostalmost everyevery group.group. OutOut ofof thethe 1515 flowsflows developeddeveloped withwith allall thethe stakeholdersstakeholders forfor thisthis prprojects LENSES artefact, the identified flows that were covered by each group for a given theme ranged fromfrom 5/155/15 (33%)(33%) toto 13/1513/15 (87%)(87%) withwith anan averageaverage of 9.6 flows (64%) covered across the six teams (the median is 9.5 and the standard deviation 2.4). The analysis showed that LENSES facilitated the integration of flows that are not generally considered Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 12 of 24 togethertogether inin aa developmentdevelopment project,project, e.g.,e.g., knowledge,knowledge, money,money, ecosystems,ecosystems, people,people, transporttransport andand water.water. Table 2 synthesises the design guidelines resulting from each theme and the associated flows from thethe LENSESLENSES Framework.Framework. Table 2. Main design guidelines emerging from the design charrette. Table 2. MainMain designdesign guidelinesguidelines emergiemerging from the design charrette. Group/Theme Main Design Guidelines Considered Flows (in Green) Group/Theme Main Design Guidelines Considered Flows (in Green)

ImproveImprove thethe qualityquality ofof thethe entireentire sitesite throughthrough landland Improve the quality of the entire site through land works, works, including elevating land for development, including elevating land for development, creating waterways creatingcreating waterwayswaterways andand separatingseparating freshfresh fromfrom and separating fresh from saline water and stabilising edges salinesaline waterwater andand stabilisingstabilising edgesedges withwith landscapinglandscaping with landscaping elements to prevent erosion. Inland fresh Land and elements to prevent erosion. Inland fresh water Land and Water water bodies (see also Ecosystems) would support local Water bodies (see also Ecosystems) would support local ecosystems and biodiversity. Potential solar power ecosystems and biodiversity. Potential solar power desalination plants with excess freshwater would feed back desalination plants with excess freshwater would into the lake to help reduce salinity. Develop a thriving feedfeed backback intointo thethe lakelake toto helphelp reducereduce salinity.salinity. boating community. Develop a thriving boating community.

Enhance and regenerate the current ecosystem by Enhance and regenerategenerating the a currentrange ofecosystem microclimates by generatingthrough a range of microclimatesdifferent through wind exposures different and wind land exposures masses (e.g., and land masses (e.g.,islands,islands, islands, secludedsecluded secluded spaces,spaces, spaces, elevatedelevated elevated redred gumsgums red gums andand and others), creatingothers), fresh creating water fresh lakes water and lakes billabongs and billabongs within the site, minimisingwithin salt the intrusions site, minimising through saltsalt micro-barrages intrusionsintrusions throughthrough micro-barrages with fish gates and creating Ecosystems withEcosystems fish gates and creating isolated islands as refuge for fauna and flora.isolated Thisisolated would islandsislands be asas done refugerefuge in conjunctionforfor faunafauna andand with flora.flora. ThisThis would be done in conjunction with producing food producing food throughwould be submerged done in conjunction algae and with aquaponics producing food as through submerged algae and aquaponics as well well as enhancingthrough knowledge submerged transfer algae through and aquaponics living labs, as well as enhancing knowledge transfer through living interactive workshopsas enhancing and nature knowledge interpretation transfer through trails. living labs, interactive workshops and nature SustainabilityDevelop an2018 integrated, 10, xlabs, FOR interactive PEER citizen REVIEW science workshops culture. and nature 12 of 25

interpretation trails. Develop an integrated citizen Sustainability 2018, 10, xinterpretation FOR PEER REVIEW trails. Develop an integrated citizen 12 of 25 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25 sciencescience culture.culture. Use a fractal design that is centred on a common Use a fractal design that is centred on a common Use a fractal designUsehouse thata fractal and is space centred design where that on apublicis common centred amenities on house a common are and house and space where public amenities are space where publichouseprovided. amenities and Designspace are where modular provided. public prefabricated, Designamenities modular are carbon provided. Design modular prefabricated, carbon prefabricated, carbonprovided.positive positive homes Design homesthat modular are thatmade prefabricated, are locally made from locally carbon local Built Built positive homes that are made locally from local fromBuilt local materialspositivematerials where homes where possible. that possible. are This made This would locally would encourage from encourage local job Environment EnvironmentBuilt materials where possible. This would encourage creationEnvironment and localmaterialsjob industries. creation where and Devise possible.local industries. a car-free This would Devise environment encourage a car-free Planning EnvironmentPlanning job creation and local industries. Devise a car-free withPlanning cycling lanes,jobenvironment boatcreation sharing, and with localpublic cycling industries. buses lanes, andboatDevise sharing, a car-free Planning environment with cycling lanes, boat sharing, solar-powered boats.environmentpublic Design buses andwith buildings solar-powered cycling as lanes, catalysts boatboats. sharing, forDesign public buses and solar-powered boats. Design development of ecosystempublicbuildings buses as niches. catalystsand solar-powered for development boats. Designof buildings as catalysts for development of buildingsecosystem as niches. catalysts for development of ecosystem niches. ecosystem niches.

Use a modular and scalable centralised plant that Use a modular and scalable centralised plant that Usesimultaneously a modular and treats scalable energy, centralised waste, water, plant that Use a modular andsimultaneously scalable centralised treats energy, plant waste, that water, simultaneouslygreenhouse gas treatsemissions energy, and waste, other environmentalwater, simultaneously treatsgreenhouse energy, gas waste, emissions water, and greenhouse other environmental gas Built greenhouseflows. Implement gas emissions a range ofand processes, other environmental including Built emissionsBuilt and otherflows. environmental Implement a range flows. of processes, Implement including a range EnvironmentBuilt flows.recycling, Implement composting, a range urine of processes,diversion, includinga range of Environment ofEnvironment processes, includingrecycling, recycling, composting, composting, urine diversion, urine diversion,a range of EnvironmentSystems recycling,renewable composting, energy technologies, urine diversion, waste carbon a range of Systems a rangeSystems of renewablerenewable energy energy technologies, technologies, waste waste carbon carbon Systems renewabledioxide and energy heat used technologies, to grow food waste in carbon dioxide and heatdioxide used to and grow heat food usedin to greenhouses.grow food in Share all dioxidegreenhouses. and heat Share used all todata grow openly food to in enhance data openly to enhancegreenhouses. knowledge Share all transfer. data openly to enhance greenhouses.knowledge transfer. Share all data openly to enhance knowledge transfer. knowledge transfer.

Ensure the presence of innovation and equity in Ensure the presence of innovation and equity in Ensurethe community. the presence Develop of innovation an innovative and equity investment in the community. Develop an innovative investment Ensure the presencethemodel community. of focused innovation on Develop experience and equityan innovative and in crowdfunding, the investment People model focused on experience and crowdfunding, community.People Developmodelteaching an focused innovativethrough on events,experience investment video and games modelcrowdfunding, and focused an GovernancePeople teaching through events, video games and an People onGovernance experience andteachingannual crowdfunding, festival through of events,ideas teaching all video within through games a bottom-up and events, an GovernanceMoney annual festival of ideas all within a bottom-up Governance videoMoney games andannualparticipatory an annual festival festival governance of ideas of all ideas approach. within all a within bottom-up Enable a an CultureMoney participatory governance approach. Enable an Money Culture bottom-upCulture participatoryparticipatoryinstinctive governance understanding governance approach. approach. of the Indigenous Enable Enable an an history Culture instinctive understanding of the Indigenous history instinctive understandinginstinctiveand contribution understanding of the to Indigenous the site of by the the history Indigenous simple and history and contribution to the site by the simple contribution to theandexperience site contribution by theof the simple toplace. the experience site by the simple of the place. experience of the place. experience of the place. Develop a sense of stewardship within the Develop a sense of stewardship within the Developcommunity a sense with of a mainstewardship focus on within contributing the to community with a main focus on contributing to communitythe place, caring with fora main the land,focus family on contributing and for life to as the place, caring for the land, family and for life as thewell place, as fostering caring fora collective the land, sense family of and responsibility. for life as well as fostering a collective sense of responsibility. wellThis aswould fostering be supplemente a collectived sense by an of experiential responsibility. This would be supplemented by an experiential Thislearning, would a living be supplemente academy andd by transdisciplinary an experiential Vision and learning, a living academy and transdisciplinary Vision and learning,collaborations a living including academy the and community transdisciplinary and a Visioninspiration and collaborations including the community and a inspiration collaborationsrange of stakeholders, including such the ascommunity universities, and art a inspiration range of stakeholders, such as universities, art rangecentres, of government,stakeholders, local such industries as universities, and others. art A centres, government, local industries and others. A centres,particular government, emphasis is local made industries on inclusivity, and others. A particular emphasis is made on inclusivity, particularchampioning emphasis Indigenous is made culture on inclusivity, and developing championing Indigenous culture and developing championingtolerance of all Indigenous cultures. Exports culture wouldand developing be tolerance of all cultures. Exports would be

toleranceknowledge, of allexperience cultures. and Exports local would products. be

knowledge, experience and local products. knowledge, experience and local products. The analysis reveals a strong tendency for incorporating systems thinking across all groups. This The analysis reveals a strong tendency for incorporating systems thinking across all groups. This is shownThe analysis through reveals the breadth a strong of tendency aspects (greenfor incorporating flows) covered systems by thinkingeach group across and all the groups. proposed This is shown through the breadth of aspects (green flows) covered by each group and the proposed isguidelines. shown through This type the of breadth thinking of is aspectscharacteristic (green of flows) regenerative covered development. by each group It is and important the proposed to note guidelines. This type of thinking is characteristic of regenerative development. It is important to note guidelines.that the “People, This type Governance, of thinking Money is characteristic and Culture” of regenerative group highlighted development. the need It is importantfor equity to in note the that the “People, Governance, Money and Culture” group highlighted the need for equity in the thatproject, the including“People, Governance,affordability. MoneyThe development and Culture” shou groupld be sociallyhighlighted inclusive, the need enabling for equity people in with the project, including affordability. The development should be socially inclusive, enabling people with project,different including income levels affordability. to live there The anddevelopment avoid beco shoumingld a be place socially for the inclusive, elite. Furthermore, enabling people the group with different income levels to live there and avoid becoming a place for the elite. Furthermore, the group differenthighlighted income the levelsneed tofor live the there landscape and avoid to beco enabmingle ana place understanding for the elite. Furthermore,of indigenous the history group highlighted the need for the landscape to enable an understanding of indigenous history highlighted the need for the landscape to enable an understanding of indigenous history

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

Use a fractal design that is centred on a common house and space where public amenities are provided. Design modular prefabricated, carbon positive homes that are made locally from local Built materials where possible. This would encourage Environment job creation and local industries. Devise a car-free Planning environment with cycling lanes, boat sharing, public buses and solar-powered boats. Design buildings as catalysts for development of ecosystem niches.

Use a modular and scalable centralised plant that simultaneously treats energy, waste, water, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental Built flows. Implement a range of processes, including Environment recycling, composting, urine diversion, a range of Systems renewable energy technologies, waste carbon dioxide and heat used to grow food in greenhouses. Share all data openly to enhance knowledge transfer.

Ensure the presence of innovation and equity in the community. Develop an innovative investment model focused on experience and crowdfunding, People teaching through events, video games and an Governance Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 annual festival of ideas all within a bottom-up 13 of 24 Money participatory governance approach. Enable an Culture Sustainability 2018, 10, xinstinctive FOR PEER REVIEWunderstanding of the Indigenous history 13 of 25 and contributionTable to the site 2. Cont. by the simple instinctively, to championexperience this of history. the place. This would be complemented by an indigenous centre staffed Group/Themeby indigenous people, Main hopefully Design residing Guidelines on site. Considered Flows (in Green) The design guidelinesDevelop aabove sense ofare stewardship not unique. within They the echo what some other leading projects in the fieldDevelop might apropose. sensecommunity of stewardshipThe difference with withina main might fo thecus lie community onin contributingthe fact withthat to a these guidelines are not generic and universalmain focus but are on contributingdevelopedthe place, caringfrom to the thefor place, theflows land, caring and family foundation for and the for land, lifelenses as for this particular site, by a specific family and for lifewell as as well fostering as fostering a collective a collective sense of senseresponsibility. of group of participants, at a certain point in time. The guidelines are based on what history, data and responsibility. ThisThis would would be be supplemented supplemented by by an an experiential experiential thelearning, local stakeholders a livinglearning, academy have a livingtold and transdisciplinarythe acade teammy andand transdisciplinary its interpretation by a large group of people from Vision and Vision and differentcollaborations disciplines includingcollaborations and backgrounds the community including in conversationthe and community a range with ofand athis data. inspiration inspiration stakeholders,As such, the such guidelinesrange as universities,of stakeholders, can sometimes art such centres, asbe universities, aspirati government,onal art or even unrealistic. However, by setting thelocal bar industriesvery high, andcentres,guidelines others. government, can A particular drive local the emphasisindustries design te and isam made others.to innovate on A or seek alternative solutions in orderinclusivity, to fulfil championing (someparticular of) the Indigenousemphasis potential is made cultureof the on andsiteinclusivity,. developingThis way, even after budget, time constraints, feasibilitytolerance and of allother cultures.championing factors Exports come Indigenous into would play, culture be the knowledge, remaining and developing design still has the capacity to evolve and improveexperience in the and future, localtolerance following products. of all cultures.regenerative Exports development would be principles.

From these observations,knowledge, experience it seems thatand localthe LENSES products. Framework can fulfil its aim of facilitating regenerative design workshops by supporting the emergence of systems thinking. This finding is The analysis reveals a strong tendency for incorporating systems thinking across all groups. This As such, thefurther guidelines supported can sometimesby the comparison be aspirational of masterplans, or and even the unrealistic. analysis of survey However, results. by setting the is shown through the breadth of aspects (green flows) covered by each group and the proposed bar very high, guidelines can drive the design team to innovate or seek alternative solutions in order 3.2.guidelines. Comparison This to type the 2003 of thinking Masterplan is characteristic of regenerative development. It is important to note to fulfil (some of)that the potentialthe “People, of Governance, the site. This Money way, and even Culture” after group budget, highlighted time constraints, the need for feasibility equity in the and other factors comeproject, intoThe play, includingcomparison the affordability. remaining of the 2003 The design masterplan development still (Figure has shou the 5)ld capacitywith be sociallyits 2016 to inclusive, counterpart evolve andenabling (Figure improve people 6) shows inwith the significant differences in the staging, goals and underpinning thinking of the project (Table 3). The future, following regenerativedifferent income development levels to live there principles. and avoid becoming a place for the elite. Furthermore, the group 2016highlighted masterplan, the deliveredneed for bythe thelandscape design team,to enab receivedle an theunderstanding design guidelines of indigenous emerging history from From these observations,Workshop 4. The it staging seems of that the thenew LENSESmasterplan Framework proposes an iterative can fulfil process its aim through of facilitating testing a regenerative designnumber workshops of concepts bybefore supporting phasing the thebuilding emergence works. This of staging systems strategy thinking. reflects an This experimental finding is further supporteddesign by the thinking comparison model: testing of masterplans, ideas on the site and and the evaluating analysis the ofresponse, survey using results. feedback loops to enhance the subsequent stages as the development unfolds. This underpins an approach that takes 3.2. Comparison tointo the account 2003 Masterplan adaptation measures, meaning that unpredicted outcomes will be integrated in the management and future development of the site, thus helping to support the resilience of the project The comparisonover time. of the 2003 masterplan (Figure5) with its 2016 counterpart (Figure6) shows significant differencesIn in the the earlier staging, masterplan, goals the and goals underpinning were mainly developed thinking around of the projectsocio-economic (Table 3gains,). The while 2016 the new masterplan is underpinned by restoration and enhancement of ecological and social systems masterplan, deliveredand how by the development design team, can received result in theviable, design vital guidelinesand integrated emerging systems. fromA number Workshop of the 4. The staging of theguidelines new masterplan provided from proposes Workshop an iterative 4 seem to process be taken throughinto account testing in the a underpinning number of conceptsdesign before phasing thethinking, building notably works. in terms This of enhancing staging strategyecosystems reflects and contributing an experimental to a healthier design environment. thinking model: testing ideasAnother on aspect the site is the and similarity evaluating in the thehousing response, strategy: using the current feedback masterplan loops proposes to enhance “carbon the positive” buildings compared to energy-efficient passive housing in the 2003 masterplan. As both of subsequent stagesthese as housing the development strategies are unfolds.somewhat Thisat the underpinstop-end of what an is approach available on that the market takes intoin both account 2016 adaptation measures,and 2003, meaning it could thatbe argued unpredicted that technological outcomes solutions will bedo integratednot seem to be in significantly the management affected by and future developmenta regenerative of the site, approach. thus helping The most to technologically support the advanced resilience solution of the available project at over a certain time. point in time will typically be selected. Table 3. Comparison of the 2003 and 2016 masterplans of Seacombe West. Table 3. Comparison of the 2003 and 2016 masterplans of Seacombe West.

AspectAspect 2003 Masterplan 2003 Masterplan 2016 Masterplan Layout See Figure 5 See Figure 6 Layout See Figure5 See Figure6 Stage 1: The island between the eastern entrance and the new town centre. “Best blocks first in best Stage 1: The islanddressed” between thinking the eastern entrance andStaging the new townStage centre. 2 & subsequent “Best blocks stages: first to in best dressed” thinkingsteadily move away from Stage 1 Stage 2 & subsequent stages: to steadily move Staging dependent largely on rate of sales. away from StageStage 1 dependent 3: including largely the resort on rateand golf Start with with one one aspect, aspect, the the safe safe harbour harbour and and 200 200 non- of sales. course will then follow permanentnon-permanent homes, homes, initial initialcivil work civil for work safe for harbour safe Stage 3: including the resort and golf course will harbour and ability to test the concept of raising then follow the land to support restoration of past ecosystem. This will then inform how the site can evolve based on learned lessons. Ecological restoration, ecological reserve, staging to Create a boating-led development, similar to the allow ongoing learning, fresh and saline water areas. kind of developments at the eastern end of the Innovation in finance, ownership and community. Goals Lakes system such as Paynesville. Out of 11 goals, Increasing investment of nutrients and soil building the last one was to provide wildlife refuges. throughout the site. Washing away the salt over time. Design of more resilient ecosystems. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

and ability to test the concept of raising the land to support restoration of past ecosystem. This will then inform how the site can evolve based on learned lessons. Create a boating-led development, Ecological restoration, ecological reserve, staging to similar to the kind of developments allow ongoing learning, fresh and saline water areas. at the eastern end of the Lakes system Innovation in finance, ownership and community. Goals such as Paynesville. Out of 11 goals, Increasing investment of nutrients and soil building Sustainability 2018, 10the, 460 last one was to provide wildlife throughout the site. Washing away the salt over14 time. of 24 refuges. Design of more resilient ecosystems. Farm land which was of poor quality for agriculture or environment butTable 3. Cont. was suitable for a canal development Asking what can the development do to help the Aspectto meet boating demand 2003 Masterplan in early whole region achieve a 2016 higher Masterplan level of resilience. Layout2000s. Redress the salinity See Figure issue5 Asking if restoration is enough,See Figure looking6 instead to Underpinning resultingFarm land from which Lake was water of poor quality for create vital viable systems. Attempt to consider all the Asking what can the development do to help the agriculture or environment but was suitable for a thinking inundation, as well as using funds to flows acrosswhole the region site achieve and where a higher they level go of beyond resilience. its canal development to meet boating demand in Asking if restoration is enough, looking instead to provideearly 2000s.Wildlife Redress Reserve the salinity to preserve issue resulting boundaries as well as asking how to create benefit. Underpinning create vital viable systems. Attempt to consider all endangeredfrom Lake watersmall inundation,marsupials. as well as usingLook at ecological systems as a model—such as thinking the flows across the site and where they go beyond funds to provide Wildlife Reserve to preserve Creating employment and creatingits niches. boundaries as well as asking how to create benefit. endangered small marsupials. Creating investment into financially depressed Look at ecological systems as a model—such as employment and investment into financially creating niches. Wellingtondepressed Shire. Wellington Shire. Housing EnvironmentallyEnvironmentally sustainable sustainable design design passive, ModularModular prefabricated prefabricated transportable transportable houses, houses, life cycle Housing strategy strategy passive,resource resource efficient. efficient. carbon positivelife cycle carbon positive

FigureFigure 5.5. MasterplanMasterplan ofof 20032003 forfor thethe SeacombeSeacombe WestWestproject. project.

In the earlier masterplan, the goals were mainly developed around socio-economic gains, while the new masterplan is underpinned by restoration and enhancement of ecological and social systems and how the development can result in viable, vital and integrated systems. A number of the guidelines provided from Workshop 4 seem to be taken into account in the underpinning design thinking, notably in terms of enhancing ecosystems and contributing to a healthier environment. Another aspect is the similarity in the housing strategy: the current masterplan proposes “carbon positive” buildings compared to energy-efficient passive housing in the 2003 masterplan. As both of these housing strategies are somewhat at the top-end of what is available on the market in both 2016 and 2003, it could be argued that technological solutions do not seem to be significantly affected by a regenerative approach. The most technologically advanced solution available at a certain point in time will typically be selected. Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 15 of 24 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25

Figure 6. Masterplan of 2016 for the Seacombe West project. Source: [33]. Figure 6. Masterplan of 2016 for the Seacombe West project. Source: [33]. 3.3. Online Survey 3.3. Online Survey The 28 participants that completed the online survey included 3 architects (11%), 7 engineers (25%),The 6 28 scientists participants (21%), that 2 community completed themembers online (7%) survey andincluded 10 others 3 (36%) architects who (11%),mostly 7included engineers (25%),consultants 6 scientists (4/10) (21%),and academics 2 community (3/10). The members large majority (7%) and of respondents 10 others (36%) participated who mostly in the includeddesign consultantscharrette (86%) (4/10) and and 14% academics participated (3/10). in Workshop The large majority2. Most responses of respondents were provided participated between in the 1 designand charrette17 May (86%)2016 (75%). and 14% participated in Workshop 2. Most responses were provided between 1 and 17 MayRespondents 2016 (75%). indicated that the attended workshop(s) was/were useful (61% of responses—5/7 onRespondents the Likert scale) indicated or essential that (25% the attended of responses—6/7 workshop(s) on the was/were Likert scale)useful to(61% their ofpersonal responses—5/7 benefit on(question the Likert 3). scale) The average or essential score(25% was of 5.1/7 responses—6/7 with a standard onthe deviation Likert scale)of 0.96 to and their a median personal of benefit 5/7, (questionrevealing 3). that The respondents average score did feel was they 5.1/7 benefite with ad standardpersonally deviation from attending of 0.96 the and workshop(s). a median ofThe 5/7, revealingfree comments that respondents in question did 4 feel revolved they benefited mostly around personally the frominterdisciplinary attending the nature workshop(s). of the design The free commentscharrette inand question the positive 4 revolved exposure mostly to aroundthe LENSES the interdisciplinary Framework. Figure nature 7 summarises of the design the charrette most andrecurrent the positive words exposure of this comment. to the LENSES Framework. Figure7 summarises the most recurrent words of this comment.The respondents felt that the project gained useful (5/7 on the Likert scale) to essential (6/7 on the Likert scale) value from the workshops (question 5). On average, they rated the added value 5.5/7 The respondents felt that the project gained useful (5/7 on the Likert scale) to essential (6/7 on the with a standard deviation of 0.79 and a median of 5.5/7. This shows that most participants valued the Likert scale) value from the workshops (question 5). On average, they rated the added value 5.5/7 contribution of the LENSES Framework to the Seacombe West project. with a standard deviation of 0.79 and a median of 5.5/7. This shows that most participants valued the Most respondents indicated that they understood regenerative development in question 6 (14% contribution of the LENSES Framework to the Seacombe West project. a little (4/7), 39% enough (5/7) and ~46% a lot (6/7)). The average score was 5.32/7 with a standard a deviationMost respondents of 0.72 and a indicated median of that 5/7. they When understood asked about regenerative defining rege developmentnerative development in question in 6 their (14% littleown (4/7), words39% (questionenough (5/7)7), someand ~46%of thea most lot (6/7) recurring). The averagekeywords score used was included 5.32/7 environment with a standard (11 deviationresponses), of 0.72positive and (8 aresponses), median of system 5/7. (7 When responses) asked and about human defining (5 responses). regenerative All of these development keywords in theirdo belong own words to the (questionoverall regenerative 7), some development of the most recurringlexicon [8,10]. keywords Figure 8 used summarises included responsesenvironment to (11question responses), 7. positive (8 responses), system (7 responses) and human (5 responses). All of these keywords do belong to the overall regenerative development lexicon [8,10]. Figure8 summarises responses to question 7.

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 16 of 24 SustainabilitySustainability 2018 2018, ,10 10, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 16 16 of of 25 25

FigureFigureFigure 7. 7.7. Word Word cloud cloudcloud summarising summarisingsummarising the thethe responses responsesresponses to toto survey surveysurvey participants participantsparticipants to toto question questionquestion 4: 4:4: What WhatWhat did diddid you youyou gaingaingain from fromfrom attending? attending?attending? (Sou (Source:(Source:rce: Authors Authors and andand Wordle). Wordle).Wordle).

FigureFigureFigure 8. 8.8. Word WordWord cloud cloudcloud summarising summarisingsummarising the thethe responses responsesresponses of ofof survey surveysurvey participants participantsparticipants to toto question questionquestion 7: 7:7: In InIn your youryour own ownown words,words,words, how howhow would wouldwould you youyou describe describedescribe regenerative regenerativeregenerative development? development?development? (Source: (Source:(Source: Authors AuthorsAuthors and andand Wordle). Wordle).Wordle).

Answers to question 8 (see Figure 9) show that the majority of the respondents thought AnswersAnswers to questionquestion 8 8 (see (see Figure Figure9) show 9) show that thethat majority the majority of the respondents of the respondents thought positively thought positively about the LENSES Framework capacity to support the design of a Living Environment positivelyabout the LENSESabout the Framework LENSES Framework capacity to capacity support theto support design ofthe a Livingdesign Environmentof a Living Environment with most of with most of the scores being 3 or above (out of 5) across the different aspects evaluated. The internal withthe scores most of being the 3scores or above being (out 3 or of above 5) across (out the of different5) across aspectsthe different evaluated. aspects The evaluated. internal consistency The internal of consistency of the responses, represented by the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, is excellent, with α = consistencythe responses, of the represented responses, by repr theesented Cronbach by Alpha the Cronbach coefficient, Alpha is excellent, coefficient, with isα excellent,= 0.98. The with lowest α = 0.98. The lowest average score (3/5) was attributed to the capacity of future-proofing the development 0.98.average The scorelowest (3/5) average was attributedscore (3/5) to was the attributed capacity of to future-proofing the capacity of thefuture-proofing development the while development the highest while the highest score (4/5) was linked to both its capacity to develop a shared understanding of the whilescore the (4/5) highest was linkedscore (4/5) to both was itslinked capacity to both to developits capacity a shared to develop understanding a shared understanding of the potential of the for potential for regenerative development and its support for cross-disciplinary collaboration. The potentialregenerative for developmentregenerative development and its support and for its cross-disciplinary support for cross-disciplinary collaboration. The collaboration. largest standard The largest standard deviation (1.14), or the question on which most respondents disagreed, was largestdeviation standard (1.14), ordeviation the question (1.14), on whichor the mostquesti respondentson on which disagreed, most respondents was observed disagreed, for question was 8f observed for question 8f regarding the capacity of the LENSES Framework to facilitate/accelerate observedregarding for the question capacity 8f of regarding the LENSES the Frameworkcapacity of tothe facilitate/accelerate LENSES Framework decision-making. to facilitate/accelerate This is decision-making. This is 34% higher than the lowest standard deviation, observed for question 8b decision-making.34% higher than theThis lowest is 34% standard higher deviation,than the lowest observed standard for question deviation, 8b targeting observed the for capacity question of the8b targeting the capacity of the LENSES Framework to identify key relationships. targetingLENSES Frameworkthe capacity toof identifythe LENSES key relationships.Framework to identify key relationships. When asked about the benefits of using the LENSES Framework (question 9), a strong focus was WhenWhen asked asked about about the thebenefits benefits of using of using the LENS theES LENSES Framework Framework (question (question 9), a strong 9), focus a strong was made on its ability to discuss the topic broadly, providing a more “holistic approach” (respondents madefocus on was its madeability on to itsdiscuss ability the to topic discuss broadly, the topic providing broadly, a more providing “holistic a moreapproach” “holistic (respondents approach” 10 and 22). The most used words by the respondents included different (7), flows (5), thinking (5), 10(respondents and 22). The 10 most and 22).used The words most by used the wordsrespondents by the included respondents different included (7), flowsdifferent (5), (7),thinkingflows (5),(5), understanding (4) and relationships (4), highlighting some of the key features of regenerative understandingthinking (5), understanding (4) and relationships(4) and relationships (4), highlighting(4), highlighting some someof the of key the keyfeatures features of of regenerative regenerative development (see Section 1 and Figure 10). These reaffirm the high scores received in question 8 on developmentdevelopment (see (see Section Section 1 and Figure 10).10). These reaf reaffirmfirm the high scores received in question 8 on the ability of LENSES to develop a shared understanding through a cross-disciplinary collaboration. thethe ability ability of of LENSES LENSES to to develop develop a a shared shared understa understandingnding through through a a cross-disciplinary cross-disciplinary collaboration. collaboration. In contrast, the major limitation of the process and what could be improved in the view of most InIn contrast, contrast, the the major major limitation limitation of of the the process process an andd what what could could be be improved improved in in the the view view of of most most respondents (question 10), was the amount of time provided to better understand the LENSES respondentsrespondents (question (question 10), 10), was was the the amount amount of of ti timeme provided provided to to better better understand understand the the LENSES LENSES Framework. This is highlighted by the word time appearing in 10 different responses. That view was Framework.Framework. This This is is highlighted highlighted by by the the word word timetime appearingappearing in in 10 10 different different responses. responses. That That view view was was echoed in the interview with the client who answered the interview question 8 about how to improve echoedechoed in in the the interview interview with with the the client client who who answer answereded the the interview interview question question 8 8 about about how how to to improve improve the workshops by: “I think we all would have loved to have more time, but as consultants we’re all short of thethe workshops workshops by: by: “ “I Ithink think we we all all would would have have loved loved to to have have more more time, time, but but as as consultants consultants we’re we’re all all short short of of time so that makes it hard”. timetime so so that that makes makes it it hard hard”.”.

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 17 of 24 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25

Figure 9. Answers to Question 8 of the online survey on a scale from 1 to 5: “Can you score how well FigureFigure 9. Answers 9. Answers to to Question Question 8 8 of of thethe online survey survey on on a scale a scale from from 1 to 1 5: to “Can 5: “Can you score youscore how well how well you felt the following parts of the workshop, including the LENSES Framework, worked?”. youyou felt felt the the following following parts parts of of the the workshop, workshop, including the the LENSES LENSES Framework, Framework, worked?”. worked?”.

Figure 10. Word cloud summarising the responses of survey participants to Question 9: “What do Figure 10. Word cloud summarising the responses of survey participants to Question 9: “What do Figureyou 10.feelWord were the cloud key summarising benefits to using the the responses LENSES ofprocess? survey”. participants to Question 9: “What do you feelyou were feel the were key the benefits key benefits to using to using the LENSES the LENSES process?”. process?”. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion 4. DiscussionIn this section, we discuss (1) the shift in thinking fostered by the process; (2) the project In this section, we discuss (1) the shift in thinking fostered by the process; (2) the project outcomes including the development of the participants; (3) the LENSES Framework; and (4) further outcomesIn this section, including we the discuss development (1) the shift of the in particip thinkingants; fostered (3) the LENSES by the process; Framework; (2) the and project (4) further outcomes research. includingresearch. the development of the participants; (3) the LENSES Framework; and (4) further research. 4.1. Shift in Thinking 4.1. Shift4.1. Shift in Thinking in Thinking Regenerative Development is development that supports the health and vitality of a region RegenerativeRegenerative Development Development isis developmentdevelopment that that supports supports the the health health and andvitality vitality of a region of a region through mutually beneficial relationships between all the stakeholders and flows of the system. through mutually beneficial relationships between all the stakeholders and flows of the system. throughThrough mutually the understanding beneficial of relationships the history and between potential all of the place, stakeholders and through and the flows understanding of the system. ThroughThrough the the understanding understanding of of the the history history and potent potentialial of of the the place, place, and and through through the understanding the understanding of the flows in the LENSES Framework, the Seacombe West project was able to better harness its developmental potential and to consider multiple benefits and flows simultaneously in the concept development stage. As can be seen from the comparison of the two masterplans and the feedback Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 18 of 24 from participants, the process and understanding of Regenerative Development have been a driver for the outcome of the masterplan design. In particular, the 2016 masterplanning process benefited from iterative reinforcement of the intention to develop potential, supporting the vitality and viability of the land, and working together across disciplines to increase the depth of understanding of the system. Comparing the 2003 masterplan to the 2016 masterplan shows how the shift in thinking and masterplanning process contributed to different outcomes, even if this case study should be considered indicative only. For example, the 2016 masterplan shows a greater emphasis on understanding the ecological and social opportunities of the development. Specifically, the integration of systems thinking through the consideration of multiple flows can lead to a development where rich thriving socio-ecological systems emerge and evolve. In other words, the masterplan seems to have shifted from socio-technical thinking (mechanistic worldview) to more socio-ecological thinking (ecological worldview). This is evidenced by incorporating specific locations for ecological typologies: reintroducing freshwater wetlands and freshwater lake, strengthening and valuing salt marshes and the saline aquatic environment. Further evidence includes the integration of specific locations for ecological purposes into the design, such as the 500 ha nature reserve. By looking after the underlying soil, water and nutrient systems, the development can be attuned to nature evolving its own niches. The capacity to co-evolve with nature is also considered through the intention of the development to support research to monitor these systems. The other key way Regenerative Development approach and the LENSES Framework contributed to the project is enabling the masterplan and the development to adapt via feedback loops as the project evolves. The decisions embedded in the design ideas were made based on the consensus of experts, but it is not until the project is implemented and observed that its performance can be effectively determined. Thus, the design leaves room for iterations and possible future changes to the project, based on the actual outcomes of the first phase to be built. The challenge in this is the ongoing commitment and relationship that the design team and land owners will need to have as the project unfolds, and the willingness to change if design initiatives are not working. This also includes the commitment to invest the time to create an integrated design process and not to move back to disciplinary silos in the detailed design documentation and delivery stages. This is particularly challenging considering that many of the design benefits, particularly ecological outcomes, may take a long time to become evident. Ensuring that there is a core group of people who hold its vision is critical to maintaining a project’s intentions over time, as evidenced by similar projects. Another important discussion for such a long-term project is how financial institutions can support such a process. Within this project, a percentage of the profits of the development was proposed to be reinvested in its ongoing evolution. The other financially relevant strategy was the intention for a percentage of the sale price of each property to contribute towards a community management process for waste, water and energy. How these ideas are implemented in this project is part of the long-term research component. Thus, the challenges and potential of ecological needs, social commitment and financial mechanisms have been considered in terms of how they can enable each other within the whole system. It is important to clarify that the emergence of these regenerative aspects are correlated with the use of LENSES but direct causation cannot be unequivocally established. Should another facilitation tool be used with the same participants and a talented facilitator, many similar outcomes could emerge. Using a control group might provide some more robust evidence of direct causation between the use of LENSES and the observed outcomes, but replicating the expert knowledge and group composition can be extremely hard to achieve. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of LENSES to facilitate regenerative projects (against other tools).

4.2. Project Outcomes and Participant Development The 2016 masterplan shows the interrelated nature of the outcome of the design charrette through the work of different groups and their domain (Built Environment—Housing/building Design/ Site Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 19 of 24

Plan; Ecosystems—Analysing/regenerating the natural systems; Land; Water—Design/considerations for regen development; Governance; People; Money; Culture—Thriving live, play, govern; and Inspiration—Thriving economy, culture, music, art, entrepreneurship). Each domain impacted and facilitated the others through continual sharing between the groups via the “pollinators”—individuals from each group who would visit the other groups and ensure that the initiatives were connected and cross-fertilised. Such actions for integration are typical of a regenerative project: it is through the effectiveness, viability and vitality of each of the domains that the whole system thrives as something greater than the sum of its parts. For example, governance affects ecosystems, water and energy, the houses and the ability for the community to thrive. However, this can have negative repercussions. An example can be drawn from the recent experience in Victoria Australia, where a decade-long drought resulted in a policy to stop watering street trees [34]. This led to the reduced vitality and death of these trees, resulting in increased water and energy use in related urban areas due to an increased urban heat island effect [35] and negative impacts on people’s health [36,37]. Flow-on effects in a system work both ways. The results of Workshop 4 and the comparison of the resulting masterplan in 2016 to the original masterplan of 2003 suggest the potential for integration of holistic benefits and creating the potential for increased viability of the area [12,33]. This is highlighted by the stakeholders’ comments such as: “[LENSES] really helps us look at not only just the building of the development, but all the other aspects such as the environment and the social outcomes and how the whole development will operate into the future. And so it gives a much deeper and fuller understanding of the project”. In addition, the majority of the participants reported that they felt there was value and benefit from the regenerative process and the LENSES Framework to the project outcomes (see Figure8), emphasising on how it impacted them and their ability to verbalise what regenerative development is. The participants’ own gains were therefore an equally important outcome of this research (see Figure7). Many participants now carry with them the experience of working towards more holistic outcomes by focusing on the potential of the place rather than solving its problems. For example, “hearing a range of views and opinions and being able to step back and appreciate the project as a whole rather than being focused on only one particular aspect” was highlighted by one of the participants. The project outcomes and the feedback from the participants support the view that regenerative development was applied and better understood. The uses of LENSES seems to have facilitated this outcome.

4.3. Performance of the LENSES Framework and Contribution to Future Theory The process of Regenerative Development centres on working within a system to enable the potential of the system to emerge and co-evolve, bringing together the participants and facilitating their ability to build on each other’s ideas. Continuing from the discussion above, there is evidence that the LENSES Framework facilitated the emergence of such a regenerative approach. This case study revealed a potential beyond that imagined by the clients or designers. In the words of the chief architect: “by providing different contexts to look at different topics in different groups of stakeholders, there were some intermingling of ideas that I wouldn’t have necessarily expected to be thought of in those ways”. As such, ideas co-evolved towards a vision for a thriving place for all stakeholders of that region. This was facilitated by providing a platform for those in the project to think beyond their disciplinary silos, as was noted by one of the stakeholders in the interviews: “The LENSES process, I believe, is probably quite an interesting way of trying to focus people who have specific expertise [ ... ] onto [common] topics, and [ ... ] breaking down communication barriers [ ... ]”. This was also demonstrated in the survey results; referring to question 8h, no one indicated that the framework “did not” support cross-disciplinary collaboration, while over 75% of the respondents said that it “significantly” or “very much” supported collaboration. One of the reasons behind this was the ability to create a shared understanding of the project. This can be seen in question 8d where all respondents said that the LENSES Framework contributed to Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 20 of 24 a shared understanding with over 80% stating that this was “significantly” or “very much” the case. This ability to have a common story, a common purpose to a project, has been shown to be critical in the success of complex projects, where the aim is to produce results beyond common practice [10,38]. The LENSES Framework supported this by focusing the participants’ attention on telling the story through the key principles of the project, and allowing these to interact with the flows and intention to create benefit. This brought intention, creativity, experience and the place together. The survey results showed that participants wanted more time to understand regenerative development, to understand the LENSES Framework and to resolve and refine ideas and create concrete opportunities. Yet for most projects, the time spent on this activity would not be seen as productive. However, assessing/considering projects across their design, development, construction and handover is critical. The work of Reed and The 7group [39] has shown that integrated project design, where more emphasis is put on the initial holistic concept design that includes all stakeholders, tends to result in projects that are completed faster at a lower cost. Lastly, it is important to note that the participants scored the LENSES Framework lowest on its ability to future-proof the project. While the participants did not have an opportunity to justify their scores, a speculative reason for this may be a reflection of the project being at such a preliminary stage. It may also be related to the lack of time spent debriefing the project around next steps and how the guidelines would feed into the design, development and construction aspects. Another cause could be what each participant understands by “future proofing” or that this concept was not identified as an intended outcome of the workshop. It is also possible that the LENSES Framework lacks in this particular area.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research As in any research, this study has limitations. The results are valid for the case study project of Seacombe West and may or may not be transferable as they are. The role of the actual workshop facilitator in delivering a regenerative alternative is significant and has not been evaluated in this paper. The bias resulting from the composition of participating stakeholders should also be further evaluated. For example, the strong presence of academics in Workshop 4 might have supported the systematic inclusion of knowledge transfer propositions across all groups. The approach would need to be replicated on a number of projects to identify broader patterns by increasing the overall sample size of projects and of participants evaluated. In addition, the noted differences observed between the 2003 and 2016 masterplans could be due to factors other than the design guidelines proposed at the end of the workshops. The answer of the head architect (who presided the 2016 masterplan to question 6 of the semi-structured interview (Do you think the LENSES process was effective in delivering a project with the potential to create social and ecological benefit, see AppendixB) does supports the effectiveness of LENSES. It reads as follows:

“Sure. Back to the idea about whether lenses is effective or not, I think consciousness about what we’re trying to do is a critical element to actually being able to design things that are productive. So to the extent that lenses put upfront and centre the social and ecological attributes that we were trying to achieve, also to a great extent benchmark them against other aspirations, I think that’s a very successful way in ensuring that these elements are incorporated into the ultimate design”.

However, the composition of the design team, the questions asked and the general design culture at that time could have also led to the differences observed between the 2003 and the 2016 masterplans. In addition, the implementation of the ideas that were generated during these workshops is actually what matters most. A longitudinal study monitoring the project over time, what ideas were implemented, in what conditions and why, would help shed more light on the long-term benefits of such decision-making process. This constitutes an avenue for future research. Despite these limitations, this study is one of the first to analyse the process underpinning the emergence of a regenerative design for a large-scale project. The analytical approach used in Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 21 of 24 assessing the design process and outcomes provides a methodological contribution for future planning, implementation and assessment of regenerative projects.

5. Conclusions This paper started by posing several questions, reflecting on the design process of Seacombe West project in Victoria, and our research on the effectiveness of using the regenerative development approach using the LENSES Framework to provide more holistic, integrated, living environments.

1. Is the process used in this project justified in terms of investment in time, energy and resources?

It is still too early in the timeline of the project to determine the effectiveness of the process on producing the full development. Given that it is impossible to have a controlled scenario, the justification of its use in the investment of time, energy and resources is more a matter of the stories produced and feedback received overtime than what can be measured. The interviews, survey and outcome of the masterplanning process do support the effectiveness of LENSES. This is most visible in the participants’ demand to spend more time on the project.

2. Does the LENSES Framework have the potential to achieve Regenerative Regional Development?

The involvement of a broad range of experts in the workshops has led to a range of ideas that could improve the potential to apply regenerative development in a project, increasing vitality, viability and capacity to evolve. However, the participants also felt that LENSES did not perform as well as in other areas when it came to “future proofing the development”. How much the built project will actually achieve regenerative goals will depend on a range of factors, including how many of the ecosystemic ideas are taken on board during implementation.

3. What worked well? What could have been improved?

From the research discussed in this paper it would seem that the LENSES Framework was a useful way to collaborate and to achieve a more interdisciplinary and integrated masterplan. As discussed, other facilitation tools might have led to similar outcomes. From the feedback presented, improvements could be made towards enhancing the users’ ability to see the value of the process to envision options for future proofing the outcome. An investigation on how to do so may be warranted.

4. What were the key enablers?

The enablers that allowed this project to apply the regenerative development process and the LENSES Framework were the willingness of the landowners and project participants to participate and to explore the potential of this project together. The willingness of 40 people to give up two days of their normal day-to-day activities to participate in a workshop was also a significant enabler, which was critical to its outcome. Another reflection on a key enabler is the importance of sharing the stories, case studies and experience to support people seeing the potential of a project beyond standard practice. In conclusion, the process of applying the LENSES Framework in Seacombe West has resulted in a model that is now being applied in three other projects: a Melbourne University precinct; a surfing community water treatment plant in New Zealand; and a two-year research and education program on place-making, including 20 redesigned places around Australia. All these projects are capitalising on lessons learned in applying LENSES in the Seacombe West project, namely understanding regenerative development and creating the various lenses in consultation with key stakeholders. This is a tribute to this research which aimed at understanding the process behind the emergence of regenerative development in order to better apply it.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Michelle Fisher and Lewis Lo for their help in editing this paper. This project has been supported by the University of Melbourne’s Carlton Connect Initiatives Fund (CCIF). Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 22 of 24

This program seeks to support interdisciplinary, externally-engaged research impact. It was also supported by the land owners James and Harry Troedel and the design and research teams. The authors would also like to thank all participants across all workshops as well as Professor Brian Dunbar from Colorado State University, USA, for his valuable assistance in facilitating the workshops. Finally, the authors are indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback, notably in improving the discussion and nuancing the results. Author Contributions: Dominique Hes and André Stephan conceived and designed the workshops; Dominique Hes and André Stephan conducted the workshops; André Stephan, Sareh Moosavi and Dominique Hes analysed the data; André Stephan, Dominique Hes and Sareh Moosavi wrote the paper. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire This appendix presents the questions of the online survey. A description of the three Likert-scales used is provided in Table A1.

Table A1. Likert scales used in the online survey.

Likert Scale 5 Likert Scale 7a Likert Scale 7b Not at all Waste of time Totally confused A little None A little confused Fairly A little Barely Significantly Some interest A little Very much Useful Enough Essential A lot This changes everything Everything I need to know

The questions are given below in bold and the answer format between hyphens afterwards.

1. What is your role? (select from: Architect, Engineer, Scientist, Community Member, Indigenous Representative, Government Member, Other (specify) 2. Which workshops did you participate in? (select one or more from workshops 2–4) 3. How much value do you feel YOU gained personally from attending this/these workshop(s)? (Likert Scale 7a) 4. What did you gain from attending? (Free answer) 5. How much value do you feel the PROJECT gained from this/these workshop(s)? (Likert Scale 7a) 6. How well do you think you understand regenerative development? (Likert Scale 7b) 7. In your own words what do you think regenerative development is? (Free answer) 8. On a scale from 1 to 5, can you score how well you felt the following parts of the workshop, including the LENSES Framework worked? (Likert Scale 5)

a. Identifying the key flows b. Identifying the key relationships c. Identifying appropriate solutions and design directions d. Developing shared understanding of the potential of regenerative development e. Facilitating a more integrated concept masterplan f. Facilitating/Accelerating decision-making g. Future proofing the development h. Supported cross disciplinary collaboration i. Led to a story of place 9. What do you feel were the key benefits to using the LENSES process? (Free answer) 10. What do you feel were the key areas for improvement in using the workshop, including the LENSES Process? (Free answer) Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 23 of 24

Appendix B. Semi-Structured Interview Questions The questions used in the semi-structured interviews are listed below, by order:

1. In your own words how would you describe regenerative development?—if not mentioned prompts around social and ecological aspects 2. Which workshops did you participate in? 3. What is your interest in participating in the workshops? 4. What aspects that came out of the workshop do you think were surprising? 5. How would you describe the LENSES process in comparison to a traditional workshop approach? 6. Do you think the LENSES process was effective in delivering a project with the potential to create social and ecological benefit? 7. What were the things you think worked really well in the workshops? 8. What things do you feel could have used improvement?

References

1. Lyle, J.T. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1994; p. xiv, 338p. 2. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle : Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1st ed.; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. 193. 3. Birkeland, J. Positive Development: From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles through Built Environment Design; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2008; p. xxii, 408p. 4. Cole, R.J. Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 39–53. [CrossRef] 5. Mang, P.; Reed, B. Designing from place: A regenerative framework and methodology. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 23–38. [CrossRef] 6. Du Plessis, C. Shifting Paradigms to Study Urban Sustainability; World Sustainable Building Conference (WSB11): Helsinki, Finland, 2011; pp. 4–17. 7. Du Plessis, C. Using the long lever of value change. In Motivating Change: Sustainable Design and Behaviour in the Built Environment; Crocker, R., Lehmann, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 92–108. 8. Cole, R.J. Regenerative design and development: Current theory and practice. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 1–6. [CrossRef] 9. Du Plessis, C. Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 7–22. [CrossRef] 10. Hes, D.; du Plessis, C. Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; p. 248. 11. Robinson, J.; Cole, R.J. Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2014, 43, 133–143. [CrossRef] 12. Plaut, J.M.; Dunbar, B.; Gotthelf, H.; Hes, D. Regenerative Development through Lenses: Building Health and Vitality in Natural, Social, and Economic Systems. Available online: http://www.clearabundance.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/EDG-Aus.-Inst.-of-Arch-Final-compressed.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2018). 13. Benyus, J.M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, 1st ed.; Morrow: New York, NY, USA, 1997; p. 308. 14. Roberts, A.M.; Pannell, D.J.; Doole, G.; Vigiak, O. Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the gippsland lakes, australia. Agric. Syst. 2012, 106, 11–22. [CrossRef] 15. Ramsar. The Ramsar Convention and Its Mission. Available online: http://ramweb-uat.neox24.ch/about/ the-ramsar-convention-and-its-mission (accessed on 13 June 2017). 16. Department of the Environment and Energy. Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar/criteria-identifying-wetlands (accessed on 12 April 2017). 17. Parks Victoria. Lake Wellington Wetlands Management Plan; Parks Victoria: Melbourne, Australia, 2008; p. 70. 18. Boon, P.I.; Cook, P.; Woodland, R. The gippsland lakes: Management challenges posed by long-term environmental change. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2016, 67, 721–737. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 24 of 24

19. Webster, I.; Parslow, J.; Grayson, R.; Molloy, R.; Andrewartha, J.; Sakov, P.; Tan, K.S.; Walker, S.; Wallace, B. Gippsland Lakes Environmental Study: Assessing Options for Improving Water Quality and Ecological Function; Gippsland Coastal Board: Melbourne, Australia, 2001. 20. Love Our Lakes. Living Here: Keep Our Lakes Healthy and Think about Where Your Stormwater Goes. Available online: http://www.loveourlakes.net.au/living-here/ (accessed on 14 June 2017). 21. Oxford Dictionaries. Viability. Available online: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/viability (accessed on 27 April 2017). 22. Jahn, T.; Bergmann, M.; Keil, F. Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79, 1–10. [CrossRef] 23. Hoffmann, S.; Pohl, C.; Hering, J.G. Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 678–692. [CrossRef] 24. Klein, J.T. Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research; Repko, A., Newell, W., Szostak, R., Eds.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 283–298. 25. Plaut, J.M.; Dunbar, B.; Wackerman, A.; Hodgin, S. Regenerative design: The lenses framework for buildings and communities. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 112–122. [CrossRef] 26. Goldsmith, E. The Way: An Ecological World-View, 1st Shambhala ed.; Random House: Boston, NY, USA, 1993; p. xxii. 442p. 27. Rees, W.E. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation? In The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities; Satterthwaite, D., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 1999. 28. Capra, F. The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of Sustainability, 1st ed.; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. xix, 300p. 29. Sterling, S. Whole Systems Thinking as a Basis for Paradigm Change in Education: Explorations in the Context of Sustainability. Ph.D Thesis, University of Bath, Bath, UK, 2003. 30. Bourne, E.J. Global Shift: How a New Worldview Is Transforming Humanity; Noetic Books; New Harbinger Publications: Petaluma, CA, USA; Oakland, CA, USA, 2008; p. viii, 337p. 31. Nulty, D.D. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2008, 33, 301–314. [CrossRef] 32. Baruch, Y.; Holtom, B.C. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum. Relat. 2008, 61, 1139–1160. [CrossRef] 33. Hes, D.; Stephan, A.; Moosavi, S. Net regenerative regional development: Implementation in the masterplanning stage of a 680 hectares case study. In Fifty Years Later: Revisiting the Role of Architectural Science in Design and Practice: 50th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association; Zuo, J., Daniel, L., Soebarto, V., Eds.; The Architectural Science Association and The University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia, 2016; pp. 845–854. 34. May, P.B.; Livesely, S.J.; Shears, I. Managing and monitoring tree health and soil water status during extreme drought in melbourne, victoria. Arboric. Urban For. 2013, 39, 10. 35. Livesly, S.; Caffin, M.; Dawkins, A.; Lu, A.; Hes, D. Effect of vegetation around buildings on space conditioning energy and water consumption. In Sustainable Buildings-B11; Hong Kong Green Building Council (HKGBC): Helsinki, Finland, 2011. 36. Chen, D.; Wang, X.; Thatcher, M.; Barnett, G.; Kachenko, A.; Prince, R. Urban vegetation for reducing heat related mortality. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 192, 275–284. [CrossRef][PubMed] 37. VAGO. Heatwave Management: Reducing the Risk to Public Health; Victorian Auditor-General’s Office: Melbourne, Australia, 2014; p. 74. 38. Mang, P.; Haggard, B. Regenerative Development and Design: A Framework for Evolving Sustainability; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. 39. Reed, B.; The 7 group. The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; p. xiv, 398p.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).