Benefit Driven Design Process: An Inclusive and Transdisciplinary Approach Towards Enabling More Resilient and Thriving Outcomes

  • Angelica Rojas-Gracia


Around the world there is an increasing number of projects that use the design process to co-create outcomes beyond the provision of physical infrastructure. This chapter explores the role of the design process in supporting developments embedded in social-ecological systems (SES). Two case studies are presented as precedents to explore the Benefit Driven Design Process (BDDP). BDDP is a set of activities that recognise and use their ‘regenerative’ and ‘transformational’ capacity to support collective and individual actions towards more inclusive, resilient and beneficial interactions between the systems that converge in a project. The enabling activities identified in the case studies are then applied and adapted to a project in Nepal. The chapter concludes by discussing the potential of applying BDDPs towards the development of eco-cities.


Design process Mediators Social-ecological system Regenerative development Participation 


  1. Allpress, Brent, Robyn Barnacle, Lesley Duxbury, and Elizabeth Grierson. 2012. Supervising Practices for Postgraduate Research in Art, Architecture and Design, Educational Futures: Rethinking Theory and Practice. Vol. 57. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till. 2011. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Benne, Beatrice, and Pamela Mang. 2014. Working Regeneratively Across Scales - Insights from Nature Applied to the Built Environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 109: 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes, Fikret, and Carl Folke. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bernal, Raquel, and Camila Fernández. 2013. Subsidized Childcare and Child Development in Colombia: Effects of Hogares Comunitarios de Bienestar as a Function of Timing and Length of Exposure. Social Science & Medicine 97: 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BIAU. 2014. Archivo de La Bienal Iberoamericana de Arquitectura Y Urbanismo [Archive of the Ibero-American Architecture and Urbanism Biennale]. IX -BIAU.
  7. Buchanan, Ash, and Margaret Kern. 2017. The Benefit Mindset: The Psychology of Contribution and Everyday Leadership. International Journal of Wellbeing 7 (1): 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Charlesworth, Esther. 2014. Humanitarian Architecture: 15 Stories of Architects Working After Disaster. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. CLEAR. 2016. Lenses Facilitator Manual: How to Create Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems [Manual].
  10. Colombian Government. 2013. Early Childhood Comprenhensive Care Strategy: Political, Technical and Management Fundamentals “de Cero a Siempre.” Google Scholar
  11. Downton, Peter. 2013. Design Research Revised. Melbourne: Elizabeth James Productions.Google Scholar
  12. FONA. 2017. FONA Big Ideas Practical Solutions. Accessed March 8, 2017.
  13. Franco, Saúl, Clara Mercedes Suarez, Claudia Beatriz Naranjo, Liliana Carolina Báez, and Patricia Rozo. 2006. The Effects of the Armed Conflict on the Life and Health in Colombia. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 11 (2): 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gill, Tim. 2007. No Fear: Growing up in a Risk Averse Society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Hes, Dominique, and Chrisna du Plessis. 2015. Designing for Hope. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Impact Design Hub. 2015. The Reality of Building a Social Impact Design Project.
  17. Mang, Pamela, and Ben Haggard. 2016. Regenerative Development and Design: A Framework for Evolving Sustainability. New York: John Wiley Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mang, Pamela, and Bill Reed. 2012. Designing from Place: A Regenerative Framework and Methodology. Building Research & Information 40 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moustakas, Clark E. 1990. Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology, and Applications. London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrescu, Doina. 2005. Losing Control, Keeping Desire. In Architecture and Participation, ed. Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremy Till, 43–64. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Rodriguez, Catherine, and Fabio Sanchez. 2012. Armed Conflict Exposure, Human Capital Investments, and Child Labor: Evidence from Colombia. Defence and Peace Economics 23 (2): 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ryan, Chris. 2013. Eco-Acupuncture: Designing and Facilitating Pathways for Urban Transformation, for a Resilient Low-Carbon Future. Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (July): 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schneider, Tatjana, and Jeremy Till. 2009. Beyond Discourse: Notes on Spatial Agency. Footprint: Delft Architecture Theory Journal 4: 97–111.Google Scholar
  24. Stockholm Resilience Center. 2014. What Is Resilience? An Introduction to Social-Ecological Research.
  25. von der Borch, Danielle. 2011. Memory Needs a Place to Rest. Melbourne Institute for Experimental and Creative Art Therapy.Google Scholar
  26. Wahl, D.C., and Seaton Baxter. 2008. The Designer’s Role in Facilitating Sustainable Solutions. MIT Press Design Issues 24 (2): 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelica Rojas-Gracia
    • 1
  1. 1.Thrive Research Hub, Faculty of Architecture, Building and PlanningThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations