# Are Ecosystem Services Replaceable by Technology Yet? Bio-Inspired Technologies for Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities

## TL;DR

This paper explores whether technology can replace ecosystem services, finding that while some functions can be mimicked, many essential and cultural aspects of ecosystems remain beyond technological reach.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a comprehensive framework of 22 ecosystem services and evaluates bio-inspired technologies' capacity to replace or support them using AI-assisted analysis of 68,000 publications.

## Key findings

- Bio-inspired technologies engage with 20 of 22 ecosystem services but focus heavily on five tractable functions.
- Foundational services like pollination and soil formation are largely absent from technological efforts.
- Only 3% of technologies aim to support existing systems, with most focused on enhancement or replacement.

## Abstract

As ecological collapse accelerates under the pressures of anthropogenic climate change, adaptation strategies increasingly include technological proxies for nature’s functions. But can ecosystem services (ES) be meaningfully replaced by technology? Revisiting this urgent question first posed by Fitter (2013), we assess the extent to which bio-inspired design—particularly biomimetics—has advanced the capacity to support, enhance, or replace natural ES. We convened an interdisciplinary team to synthesize and refine a comprehensive list of 22 ecosystem services, integrating often-overlooked cultural and relational dimensions. Using this framework, we conducted a large-scale analysis of over 68,000 peer-reviewed publications from the biomimetics and bio-inspired design literature between 2004 and 2025, applying AI-assisted classification to evaluate whether, and how, these technologies map onto specific ES functions and benefits. Our findings reveal both promise and profound limitations. Bio-inspired research engages with 20 of the 22 ES, but over 78% of this work concentrates on five technologically tractable functions—biochemicals, disease regulation, waste treatment, fibre/hide/wood, and fuel. Foundational supporting and regulating services such as pollination, soil formation, and nutrient cycling are almost entirely absent. Moreover, only 3% of technologies described in the academic literature aim to support existing systems; the overwhelming emphasis on enhancement (39%) and replacement (58%) suggests a design paradigm skewed toward substitution rather than coexistence. Intangible, co-produced services—particularly those related to culture, identity, and meaning—remain outside the current reach of biomimetic design. This skew reveals a dangerous imbalance: while certain ES can be technologically approximated, the relational, emergent, and systemic qualities of ecosystems elude replication. Technological replacement must not become a substitute for preservation. Instead, bio-inspired design should be mobilized as a tool for adaptation that amplifies and protects the living systems on which human and more-than-human futures depend.