A lot of the systems around us- our laws, economies and institutions- were built on assumptions that once seemed obvious. Nature could be owned. Borders determined who belonged. Economic growth signalled that things were going well.
But those assumptions are becoming harder to defend.
Redesigning for regeneration means going back to those basic questions and looking at them differently. It means building systems around the idea that people are part of the natural world, not separate from it.
Three projects from the Sparks of Regeneration cohort are exploring what that can look like in practice. They are working in very different places and on very different problems: citizenship beyond borders, the rights of Antarctica, and the outdoor economy in Alaska. But all three question the rules underneath the systems they work within.
What would change if we stopped thinking of Antarctica simply as a territory and started thinking of it as a living entity with rights?
That is the question behind the Antarctic Rights Initiative.
The Antarctic Treaty System was groundbreaking when it was established in 1959. It put territorial disputes on hold and established Antarctica as a place for peaceful cooperation and scientific research. But the system is still fundamentally built around people making decisions about Antarctica.
It is a relatively simple shift in perspective, but one with much bigger implications: what happens when nature is no longer just something we govern, but given a legitimate place in governance?
Symbaiosys starts from a different question:
What if nobody owned the land, and everyone belonged to it instead?
Symbaiosys explores new approaches to governance and economics that recognise ecosystems as participants, not resources outside the system.
The project is an imaginarium which reimagines economic and governance systems by recognising ecosystems as active participants with rights, voice, and economic value rather than externalities. Working across nature, finance, technology, and the arts, it embeds living systems into decision-making through bioregional and ecological frameworks—particularly informed by West Asia and North Africa (WANA) perspectives—supporting long-term value creation, conflict reduction, and peacebuilding in regions shaped by land and resource pressures.
The Alaska Regenerative Outdoor Visioning Project began with a question about tourism and recreation:
Can an outdoor recreation economy nourish and create lasting benefits for communities, cultures and ecosystems rather than simply inputting revenue but extracting value?
Instead of starting with a ready-made solution, the project started by listening.
More than 100 people took part, including Alaska Native and non-Native leaders from across the state, from the Arctic to the Tongass rainforest. Through those conversations, a broader picture of success began to emerge.
A healthy outdoor economy isn't just about visitor numbers or financial growth. It is also about communities that can thrive, ecosystems that remain healthy, cultures that continue and a shared sense of responsibility for the places people depend on.
Each project starts by questioning an assumption so familiar we rarely notice it. In law, nature is often treated as property. In citizenship, borders largely determine who belongs. In economics, growth often serves as shorthand for success.
Rather than reproducing those assumptions, these projects question them at the source. And that’s what makes the work regenerative. Nature, culture and communities aren't treated simply as groups to consult or interests to balance at the end of a decision-making process. They become part of the system itself, with a voice, a stake and a role in shaping what happens next.
This connects with an idea explored in the Anthology of Regenerative Futures: systems aren't really collections of separate boxes and arrows. They are living networks of relationships.
So designing for regeneration requires a different starting point, not just: What should this system produce? But also: Who is it designed to serve? Who is missing from the conversation? And what needs to remain healthy for the system, and the life within it, to thrive?
Next in this series: Patterns emerging from the incubation journey
Disclaimer: This piece reflects Unearthodox's interpretation of the cohort's work and does not claim to speak on behalf of the innovators or their communities.
