**3.1 Improving impact assessment**

Almost a decade ago, it was argued that no impact assessment method had been developed for biomimicry and that current ways of impact assessment followed a "reduced unsustainability" paradigm instead of following an "achieving sustainability" paradigm [4]. This "achieving sustainability" paradigm is not entirely opposed to the conventional way of performing impact assessment. However, these paradigms differ from each other as follows [4]:


Having a beneficial impact, here, refers to the impact on the environment contributing to the regeneration of that environment toward a sustainable state [4]. Internalizing such a new paradigm helps enlighten how the impacts are assessed, highlighting the product benefits to sustainability's environmental, social, and economic aspects.

#### *Including Nature-Based Success Measurement Criteria in the Life Cycle Assessment DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110401*

Recent studies found in the literature present potential to materialize such a newparadigm-based tool based on biomimetics [46], on biomimicry [40], and on cradleto-cradle (C2C, also known as regenerative design approach) [15]. These studies followed the ten biomimicry principles [45]. **Table 1** presents a comparison of these three approaches.

Moreover, Terrier et al. [46], in 2019, proposed an assistance tool to provide a quantitative performance tool for biomimetic-based designs. This tool has been developed as a complement to the ISO 1845 standard. In this tool, the ten principles of biomimicry are grouped into three dimensions of biomimetics design: Efficiency and frugality, preservation and resilience, and circularity and systemic approach. Whether this tool is based on biomimicry or biomimetics, or the authors used these terms to refer to the same, needs to be clarified. However, this tool only assesses the environmental impact of the biomimetic design based on the midpoint approach in the LCIA, not including quantifications for other aspects of sustainability, that is, economy and society. Such a tool for impact assessment of biomimetic design still follows the "reduced unsustainability" paradigm due to the questions and metrics employed [46].

Furthermore, Peralta et al. [15], in 2021, proposed an upgrade to the cradle-tocradle approach (a form of biomimicry) for sustainable designs. Since for the cradleto-cradle approach there are not yet reported normative and guidelines, considering only environmental and social aspects qualitatively without any available tool, the proposed upgrade intends to assess both positive and negative impacts by dividing the assessment into three levels, that is, evaluating the LCI at micro, meso, and macro levels. At the micro level, the calculations are based on midpoint indicators; thus, they do not account for the entire context. At the meso level, the quality of the resources (or inputs) is evaluated. Finally, at the macro level, future effects are considered, including calculations for optimal design, allowing more sustainable product versions. The latter indicates that this proposed upgrade (or methodology) finalizes with assessing the product's progress, which coincides with the "reduction of unsustainability" paradigm. Despite this, this proposed methodology advances the field by providing a quantitative tool for complementing the cradle-to-cradle approach [15].

Finally, later in the same year, among the interest in considering sustainability, a different approach based on biomimicry may have potential application toward the "achieving sustainability" paradigm. This approach, referred to as the "Biocircular model" by Beermann and Austin [40], is a conceptual nature-inspired approach built upon the sustainability consideration discrepancies among sustainable construction projects. Following the problem-based approach [47, 48], this Biocircular model is founded upon various biomimicry principles, combined with the circular economy and sustainability, leading to four supporting qualitative valuations, that is, active (A), behavior (B), housing (H), and share (S), that helps include sustainability as a target to the problem considered. Here, a complete qualitative analysis is presented for the six phases of construction projects, ending with the delivery phase, which was then supported by surveying experts in the field. Thus, as a qualitative approach that looks for the sustainability target in each phase of the construction projects individually, it coincides with the new paradigm previously mentioned. However, no quantitative criteria are provided [40]. Besides, existing indicators were contrasted with the Biocircular model approach, and none fulfilled the four supporting valuations. In contrast, four existing qualitative indicators did fulfill the supporting valuations: Reuse of construction elements [49], reuse of excavation materials for backfill [49], use of local material to reduce emissions [49], and water reuse system [50]. In a sense, this also follows the cradle-to-cradle principles.


*The color indicates potentially promising.\* Provide a detailed way for calculation (quantitative). \*\*Qualitative.*

#### **Table 1.**

*Evaluation of recent potential nature-inspired tools for impact assessment toward sustainability against the "achieving sustainability" paradigm.*

## **3.2 Biomimicry, circularity, and sustainability in buildings**

Now, a brief look into the applications of the arguments previously presented from the point of view of the built environment, specifically to sustainable construction projects such as net-zero-energy (NZE) buildings or green buildings.

*Including Nature-Based Success Measurement Criteria in the Life Cycle Assessment DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110401*

**Figure 6.** *Principles of sustainable buildings and biomimetic design applicable to the life cycle of a building.*

Although the BiomiMETRIC tool [46] has an environmental dimension, in conjunction with the principles of sustainable construction [41], principles applicable to the LCA stages of a building were identified and can be visualized in **Figure 6**. While it is true that achieving sustainability requires going beyond the environmental impact, it is notorious that LCA can maximize its scope and approach, where the use of a second life through circularity in materials and components can have great benefits [39]. In the principles for biomimetic design, circularity is complemented by systematization, and beyond environmental preservation, resilience is addressed [46], which is a more developed degree of adaptation.

Another approach not included in the sustainable principles but found in the Green Building Rating Systems (GBRT) [42] is efficiency and optimization, one of the most highlighted points when applying a biomimetic methodology to solve a problem. It should be emphasized that another challenge within the principles and their application is to maintain consistency between the different phases. In GBRT, the environmental dimension predominates with the number of indicators, while the construction and end-of-life phases have the fewest indicators [42].

In **Table 2**, matching principles were identified between [46] and [41] in order to obtain pinnacles, that is, biological entities that attend or act according to the established principles, applying the biomimetic methodology of "Living envelope" [51] complemented by the AskNature tool [52] from the Biomimicry Institute.

Based on the pinnacles found by [40], the inspirational capabilities in nature are illustrated:


#### **Table 2.**

*Pinnacles identified that meet the principles of biomimetics and sustainable construction according to area.*


In addition to the principles mentioned in **Figure 6**, design and management principles, such as quality and cooperation, were added in **Table 2** to broaden the areas of principles that do not apply to the life cycle itself but are present in its formulation, strategy, and control, and which are increasingly becoming a necessity in early design [53]. Other principles regarding decentralization, such as diversity, redundancy, and independence, were not considered, as they can be included at the qualitative level of planning and management [54].
