Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Identifying Opportunities and Constraint PDF
Identifying Opportunities and Constraint PDF
December, 2014
This Dissertation is the product of my own work and does not infringe the ethical
principles set out in the University’s Handbook for Research Ethics.
I agree that it may be made available for reference via any and all media by any
and all means now known or developed in the future at the discretion of the
University.
Signed
William Browning and Catie Ryan of Terrapin Bright Green, for taking me under
their wing since the Summer of 2013 and inspiring me to pursue my curiosity
further into the field of biophilic design.
Breda Clancy,
1.1 Aims
The overall aim of this proposed study is to identify opportunities and constraints
for the integration of biophilic design patterns in the built environment by
examining existing national planning policy, current UK demographics, possible
policy mechanisms and assessing the current level of knowledge among UK
based landscape architects.
This study will discuss the importance of biophilic design, the rationale
and empirical evidence behind the 14 design patterns, developed by Terrapin
Bright Green (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014) (see appendix B). This
research into design patterns and the built environment builds on the work of
This dissertation will then discuss the various scales of projects to which
biophilic design might be applied, from retrofits to renovations and new
constructions. With current levels of interest growing in the UK on wellbeing and
'natural' or 'green' exercise, with the release of the DCLG's prospectus on
Garden Cities (2014), the Landscape Institute's position statement on healthy
landscapes (2013b) and MIND's publication on 'Ecotherapy' (2013), this study
will build on such momentum and investigate possible areas of
synergy/collaboration.
To help define the scope of the study and in an effort to garner an insight
into the current level of knowledge on biophilic design, it is proposed to conduct a
workshop on biophilic design, involving UK landscape architecture professionals.
The workshop will also seek to identify what level of experience landscape
architects have of implementing biophilic design patterns.
Before engaging with the detail of a biophillic approach, it is worth noting a few
established definitions of the term and approach (for more definitions, see
appendix A) (for timeline context, see appendix E).
Biophilia
Biophilia literally means "love of life or living systems." Erich Fromm stated it as a
psychological orientation of being attracted to living things and natural processes
(Fromm, 1964). However, it was biologist E.O. Wilson who popularized the
concept in 1984 (Wilson, 1984). Born from this, biophilic design aims to restore
natural stimuli in the built environment to maintain, restore, and enhance our
physiological and psychological connections to the natural world (Kellert et al,
2008).
Biophilic Design
Biophilic design aims to restore natural stimuli in the built environment to
maintain, restore, and enhance our physiological, cognitive and psychological
connections to the natural world. It is a design ethic, which also goes by the term
Restorative Environmental Design (RED) (Kellert, 2005). Guidelines and criteria
for biophilic design have become incorporated, in some form or another in LEED
rating systems (Kieran, 2008) and the Living Cities and Living Building
Challenges(Herman Miller, 2013), respectively. The UK equivalent of these
development rating systems is BREEAM; however, no allowances are made for
the inclusion of biophilic design within this specific rating system.
This paper also comes at a crucial time, with biophilic design becoming
integrated into the LEED rating system, the Living Building and Living City
Challenges in the USA (Kieran, 2008). With no current requirement or credits
garnered from the incorporation of biophilic design in the BREEAM rating
system, the UK equivalent of the LEED rating system, this dissertation may open
up discussion for future integration of biophilic design into BREEAM.
Given the knowledge deficit about biophilic design and how to implement
it, increasing rates of urbanisation, depression (World Health Organisation,
2010), the inclusion of Birmingham City into the Biophilic Cities project (Beatley,
2014) and the call to build 40 garden cities (Policy Exchange, 2014), now is the
time to begin discussing how biophilic design patterns can be appropriately
integrated into planning policy and the design process of landscape architecture.
The patterns (see appendix B) discussed throughout this dissertation and applied
to the profession of landscape architecture within the context of the UK, were
developed by Terrapin Bright Green in their publication "14 Patterns of Biophilic
Design: Improving Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment" (Ryan et al,
2014) (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014). This dissertation offers an example of
how Terrapin Bright Green’s work can be adapted in scope to suit the
parameters of a built environment design profession, located in a specific
geographic context, serving a certain population demographic user group.
Natural Analogues
This category covers natural and synthesized objects, materials and
patterns that evoke nature (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014). These can
be representational artworks of nature, biomorphic forms and natural
materials (Kellert, 2008). Natural analogues mostly consist of non-direct
connections to nature (Green, 2010). While they register less effective
responses compared to direct contact with nature (Salingaros, 2012), they
offer strategic potential in spaces that offer limited resources for nature to
thrive.
Patterns that fall under the categories of Nature in the Space and Nature of the
Space are perhaps more compatible and more likely to be feasible in outdoor
landscape environments, than interior environments. This is due to the spatial
and area requirements of patterns such as prospect (Hildebrand, 1991), refuge,
mystery (Herzog and Bryce, 2007) and connection to natural systems (Browning,
Clancy and Ryan, 2014).
Scale
While certain patterns such as prospect and mystery will require uninterrupted
views of 30m (Hildebrand, 1991) (Herzog and Bryce, 2007), the space itself does
not necessarily have to be 30m in length, as prospective views can exist external
to the site and can be framed from within the site itself.
Visual and non-visual connections to nature, access to natural systems
and non-rhythmic stimuli depend to a degree on wildlife and the presence of
living organisms and living processes (Wilson, 2008). This can be achieved on
smaller sites by integrating into surroundings natural sites. If none exist, simpler,
less complex ecosystems may be more suitable, such as aviaries, apiaries and
fish ponds.
Specific to the pattern of presence of water, bodies of water should
occupy no more than 60% of a visual scene or space. Excessively more than
this and the presence of the body of water can trigger feelings of isolation. 60%
has been found to be the preferred amount for water to occupy within a space,
following studies on landscape preferences and specifically water (Mador, 2008)
(White et al, 2010).
It is important to note that psycho-physiological benefits of green space do
not increase as land area increases. Interestingly however, it has been recorded
that psycho-physiological benefits from green space increase with higher levels
of biodiversity (Fuller et al, 2007). This is important, as it means small spaces
can be biophilic and thus, biophilic design is achievable within high density built
environments where land is scarce (Wall and Waterman, 2010).
Frequency
As previously discussed, large scale biophilic design endeavours are not always
possible, with restrictions on developing within the green belt (DCLG, 2014a) and
space within high density urban centres becoming scarce (Wall and Waterman,
2010). Another factor to consider is the distances people will travel themselves
or allow their children to travel alone to nature, which is often less than 300m
(Natural England, 2010). Given, as the previous paragraph explained that small
spaces can trigger biophilic responses (Fuller et al, 2007) the answer lies in
creating small, high frequency biophilic spaces/environments along key routes
(to work, school, shopping) (Joye and van der Berg, 2013).
It must be stressed, that the 14 biophilic design patterns put forward by Terrapin
Bright Green (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014), are wide ranging in scope and
are not specific to any geographic location, demographic or climatic region. The
patterns are also not specific to any one profession, although there is a distinct
bias towards architecture and interior environments. However, this may be due
to people now spending up 90% of their times indoors (Louv, 2012), with the
benefits of biophilia having greater impact on stressed individuals in indoor
Currently, over 50% of the world’s population lives in urban centres and
this is expected to rise to 60% in 2030 and 70% by 2050 (WHO, 2010). Added to
this, 80% of the built environment in America and Europe standing today will be
standing in 2050, while 80% of the built environment in China and India standing
in 2050 has yet to be constructed (Doyle, 2013). Less and less time is being
3.1 UK Context
The percentage of the UK population living in urban areas is set to hit 92.2% in
2030 (Brown, 2013). However, it should be broken down to clarify what is meant
by urban, built and natural. Following the completion of the UK National
Ecosystem Assessment, the total land areas of the following have been broken
down (Watson and Alban, 2011):
It is interesting to note that urban and built-on are not the same thing. For
instance, 54% of land in England classed as ‘urban’ is green space (broken
down to include parks, allotments and recreational green space). On top of this,
private domestic gardens (18%) and water bodies (6.6%) make up 24.6% of
urban land area (Easton, 2012). This means that 78.6% of urban areas in
England are classed as being ‘natural’. Further breakdown of the figures reveals
that only 2.7% of England’s land area is in fact ‘built on’. These figures may be
slightly skewed as they do not take into account the quality of the space, its
accessibility, ownership, function and location in relation to major population
centres or the fact that some cities are more/less urban than others. While these
figures may be relieving to some to see only 7% of the UK being classed as
‘urban’, they are in fact a lot more worrying. This is due to the challenge of trying
to retrofit new and improve access to, existing natural spaces into less than 4%
of the land area (that is not built on) where 92% of the UK population live (Brown,
2009).
Yet, despite the figures stated above, problems posed by chronic stress,
cost comparisons and the fact that a recent report by CABE found that 85% of
people feel the quality of a public space “has a direct impact on their lives and on
the way they feel” (Carmona et al, 2004), cuts to funding across municipalities in
the UK for parks and recreational green space continue (Abbott, 2014). For
instance, Liverpool City Council, in 2014, cut funding for the city's parks by 50%
(Cosgrove, 2014a), despite cuts of £1million in 2012 and reductions of 20% in
2011 (Abbott, 2012). While over the next four years, Birmingham City Council,
Europe's largest municipality, plans to cut £10.4 million from green space funding
(Cosgrove, 2014b). Wigan Council meanwhile have frozen council tax levels in
exchange for citizen stewardship of green spaces, in an attempt to make ends
meet and uphold quality of public green space after their budget was slashed by
£14 million (Appleby, 2014). In total, £60 million has been slashed from park and
green space budgets since 2010 under the conservative government, with the
north and midland regions being hit hardest (Ellis, 2014). These cuts have taken
place; despite recent evidence pointing to UK cities with the lowest life
expectancies had a fifth less green space than areas with the highest life
expectancies (Roberts-Hughes, 2013). These are steps in the wrong direction for
heavily urbanized UK cities with growing populations and increasing rates of
stress related illnesses. From the sources reviewed, a clear north-south divide is
appearing in terms of investment in green space, as the City of London is in the
midst of a new pocket parks programme worth £2 million across thirty projects
(Bloomfield, 2013).
3.2 Section Conclusion: Are Biophilic Design Patterns Needed in the UK?
With current trends, over 70% of the world's population will be urbanized by
2050, with that number standing at 92.2% for Britain in 2050 (Brown, 2013). An
ageing, multicultural, urbanized population, with higher rates of depression and
stress related illnesses, exacerbated by the effects of climate change, living in an
ageing built environment (World Health Organisation, 2010). That is the scenario
presented. By discussing, developing, integrating and implementing biophilic
design patterns into national planning policy and the built environment,
landscape architects and other built environment professionals can help reduce
and eliminate the negative effects of living in a heavily populated urban
environment, while reducing pressure on an already struggling NHS (Juniper,
2013). Education on landscape preferences and the efficacy of biophilic design
patterns across cultures, ethnicities and demographics will also help create an
inclusive society that has equitable access to restorative environments and green
space. Again, this justifies the need for this dissertation.
4.2 The Localism Act 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
(2012)
The Localism Act decentralised planning powers from national and regional level
to local authorities, giving them greater power over local planning decisions and
development (DCLG, 2011). Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) developed
by local authorities and guided by adherence to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), which carries the central theme of "presumption in favour of
sustainable development" (DCLG, 2012). This translates into not hindering
development, as long as it is sustainable nor violates local environmental
protection orders. The key understanding of sustainable development, put
forward by the government under the NPPF, must integrate three pillars of
sustainability:
In 2012, the Health and Social Care Act transferred responsibility for public
health to local authorities, an important development given the shift in national
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new levy that was introduced under
the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012) and can operate in
conjunction with Section 106 agreements. The CIL allows local authorities the
choice over whether or not to charge new developments in their area. When
enacted, the CIL results in land owners and developers paying charges to the
local council, which are in turn used to fund services within the local authority
and community (most likely in relation to communities affected by the nearby
development that is being levied). These charges are determined by the local
authority by assessing the size, type and land area of the new development
along with its environmental impact (DCLG, 2013). Following clarification by the
Department for Communities and Local Government, the CIL can be used to
fund existing green spaces, an important development given the current austerity
measures and their impact on local authority green space budgets (Anderson,
2014).
Biophilic design, with its aims and benefits, directly ties in with the NPPF's aim of
creating healthy communities, through the reduction of health inequalities by
increasing opportunities for access to and interaction with natural environments
and natural stimuli, a strategy recommended by Marmot (2010) and Natural
England (2014). The NPPF also recognises the importance of green space in
delivering health and well-being to communities (DCLG, 2014a), thus making
biophilic design a key medium for achieving sustainable development, a role for
biophilic design that has been discussed previously by Kellert (2005).
5.1 Climate & Ecology in the UK and how it Impacts Upon Biophilic Design
Patterns
Climate change is also driving species across the world to change their
geographic ranges, moving around 18km further north every decade. In the UK,
the Comma Butterfly has moved 220km north over only two decades (Gray,
2011). These changes in geographic ranges will result in significant changes in
local ecosystems, with the added loss of an established sense of character and
place attached to built and natural environments associated with those
ecosystems (The Countryside Agency, 2002). It is important for designers to be
aware of this when establishing biophilic design patterns, to ensure efficacy of
the patterns utilised.
Cultural Theories
Topophilia
Topopihlia is an emotional connection to a place that has a distinct natural
and/or built character unique to that region. As a theory, it states that
people seek out and place attachment to what one knows (Tveit, Sang
and Hagerhall, 2013). The term was first used by W.H. Auden as a
'special love for peculiar places' and was applied as an architectural and
cultural theory by Gaston Bachelard, in his 1958 publication, 'The Poetics
Aesthetics of Care
This theory, prevalent in Middle Eastern and agrarian
cultures/communities, emphasizes the importance of direct and visually
evident influence of human activity on natural environments. Landscapes
that seen to be managed, manicured and maintained are preferred over
unkempt, naturalistic nature (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013). This
‘aesthetic’ is valued over ecological function, and clashes with current
landscape preferences in western countries for ‘wild’ nature, again
complicating the problem of low user rates of green space among
immigrants to western countries (Buijs, Elands and Langer, 2009).
Savannah Hypothesis
This theory proposes to explain why humans from different cultural,
geographic and ethnic backgrounds have “an odd cross-cultural
Biophobia
Biophobia is the polar opposite of biophilia yet is an integral part of it as a
concept. Biophobia is a fear of or aversion to nature, natural
environments and associated stimuli (Ulrich, 1993). Biophobia is
hypothesised to be genetic to varying degrees, but it is essentially a
learned/conditioned response. It is hypothesised, like biophilia, to have
been an evolutionary trait to avoid danger and enhance survival. This is
evident in typical biophobic responses occurring to the sight of blood,
spiders and snakes (van der Berg and Heijne, 2005). Yet, biophobic
responses are not always negative, with patterns of peril and mystery
engendering a biophilic response, through a biophobic experience
(Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014).
Prospect-Refuge Theory
This theory, first proposed by Appleton in 1975, and later built on by
Hildebrand (1991), sets out that humanity is attracted to landscape scenes
that have certain conditions, including: broad prospective views; visible
locations of refuge; presence of water; plant life and; other living non-
threatening species (Heerwagen and Orians, 1993). This theory also
states that humanity has a deep seated need to be on the edge of defined
spaces, for security and to ease perception of fear/danger. The need for
overhead cover as well is preferred, as it allows the restriction of views
into the space, but allows external views from within the space, while
providing a degree of protection to the surveyor (Hildebrand, 2008).
Ethnicity
As described in the preceding paragraphs, variations among various ethnic
groups as regards landscape preferences can be explained through cultural
theories, demonstrating that there is a learned/conditioned response to biophilic
experiences and landscape preferences (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013).
These learned, in combination with evolutionary, responses are conditioned and
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 34
modified by social, cultural and life experiences, as explained through the theory
of topophilia.
When considering this subject, it must be remembered that ethnicity
cannot explain all issues to do with green space use and ethnic groups. Other
factors, such as crime, psychological barriers, planning policy, social justice and
inequalities in green space distribution all contribute to skewing the figures of
park usage. The differences between ethnic groups are focused mostly on
landscape preferences and how they use the space and interact with nature in
ways that are compatible with their needs and cultural background (Forsyth and
Musacchio, 2005).
The previously explained theories show how landscape preferences can
affect usage and differ across ethnic groups. Yet, these low participation rates
among Middle Eastern immigrants to western countries do not occur to the same
extent in 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, but still remain lower than the rest of
the comparable, non-immigrant descendant population (Buijs, Elands and Langer
2009).
Age
Desired uses of space or how people use a space and interact with nature varies
considerably over one’s lifetime (Scopelliti and Giuliani, 2004). Younger age
groups prefer spaces with present patterns of prospect, mystery, risk, access to
natural systems and presence of water (Castonguay and Jutras, 2009), while
teenagers prefer spaces with more refuge (Chawla et al, 2014) and elderly age
groups seek spaces with refuge, clear lines of sight and manicured vegetation
and absence of mystery/risk (Takano, Nakamura and Watanabe, 2002).
In terms of effects, younger age groups benefit the most from contact with
nature, in terms of self-esteem, with this response of an enhanced state
decreasing with age. While both the very young and elderly, in terms of
improved mood, benefit the least from contact with nature (Berto, 2007).
Gender
Even across cultures and ethnic groups, there are similarities in the differences
between the genders and how they respond to natural stimuli. The reasons for
these differences are proposed to be due to our cultural evolutionary history, with
men as hunter gatherers and women as domestic carers (Kopec, 2006).
The differences are significant and can strongly influence design decisions
for the built environment and who will ultimately use the space for restoration of
capacities. In terms of how the genders use the space, compared to men,
women prefer spaces with high density crowds of people; with little or no
personal space. The reversal of these conditions, spaces with low spatial
density, has been shown to lead to a higher occurrence of negative moods in
women. The difference between the sexes and their preferences are further
shown by the fact that men report much higher restorative responses from
patterns of refuge with low overhead cover (ceilings, tree canopies, etc).
The character and density of the built and natural environments will strongly
influence what patterns can be implemented and the degree to which a
restorative response can be engendered. The two extremes of character and
density can be shown by comparing low density rural and high density urban
environments.
“In medicine, where the body is really matters, health is essentially place-based”.
– Dr. Richard Jackson (Green, 2012)
Van der Berg, Koole and Wulp (2003) stated that high levels of stress
were correlated by a greater preference for natural over urban environments.
This has positive and negative implications for biophilic design in urban
environments. In terms of positive effects, people with higher stress levels
respond with greater levels of restoration to biophilic stimuli, in comparison to
non-stressed subjects (Barton and Pretty, 2010). Thus, this factor may
compensate for the lower responses that occur when experiencing
representational nature (in comparison to real nature) (Kahn et al, 2008), which
can be more feasible to implement in urban environments than resource
demanding vegetative/natural features.
Strategies for implementing biophilic design patterns have already been broken
down to examine variable elements that can affect it in a UK context, but this is
still a wide scope. The following, is a brief section that deals with the scope and
projects types that landscape architects operate in a design role for. This section
will only skim the surface, as investigations into the applications and
opportunities for biophilic design in these areas are deserving of their own
publications to be dealt with in adequate depth. This section will:
New build
New build projects, in some respects, have the greatest potential for biophilic
design, with fewer space constraints. However, new build projects need greater
investment in terms of time, money and resources to integrate/implement new
Figure 1 (5.4.1) Clancy (2014) Eastside City Park [Photograph] in possession of: The author: Birmingham, UK.
Retrofit
Retrofit projects are essentially the introduction of new elements that did not exist
at the time of original construction into spaces with a set spatial configuration,
consisting of existing built form and features (Dunham-Jones and Williamson,
2011). Retrofit, for the purpose of this dissertation, does not mean significant
removal of existing features within in the space, but rather introducing
complimentary patterns to those already existing. The inclusion of new elements
must successfully respond to and enhance existing features within the space, i.e.
enhancing natural elements with the introduction of biophilic patterns to the point
where they induce a restorative response to users of the space. Retrofit
projects; aim to enhance the existing character of the space and surrounding
environment (example shown in Figure 2).
"Retrofitting is one of the key methods for introducing these biophilic principles
and projects in cities around the world, as practitioners are working with a built
landscape, envisioning a new green layer on top of the grey one." -Katherine
Forster (2013)
Retrofitting biophilic design patterns into existing green and public spaces
provides a cheaper alternative to biophilic new builds; however, it does have its
limitations. The most apparent of these are (Dunham-Jones and Williamson,
2011):
Space/Area
Spatial configuration
Surrounding built form
Planning restrictions
Soil quality and depth
While it has been previously discussed that small spaces can be biophilic
(Joye and van der Berg, 2013), as restorative responses rise with increases in
biodiversity, rather than increase in land area (Fuller et al, 2007); restrictions on
space (common in retrofit projects) can affect the spatial quality of a space,
hindering restorative responses.
These space restrictions translate into limitations on the levels of
vegetation that can be installed and effectively reducing access to actual nature,
further exacerbated by poor soil quality in urban areas and restrictions on root
growth (Wall and Waterman, 2010). The set spatial configuration of the space,
due to its existing built form and features on site, significantly influences whether
Figure 2 (5.4.2) West Green ‘oad Tropical Park (2013) [Photograph] at: http://now-here-
this.timeout.com/2013/11/17/west-green-road-tropical-park/ (Accessed on 01.11.14)
Renovation
This project type lies in between on the scale of ‘retrofit’ to ‘new build’.
Renovation implies the removal of significant amounts of existing built form and
features to the point where the spatial configuration of the space has changed
(unlike retrofit projects), yet its spatial relationship to the surrounding context has
not (unlike new build projects) and; then introducing new built form and elements
into a space to a new set spatial arrangement. Renovation projects may
Restoration
Restoration is a mixture of the previous three project types. These projects can
be degraded, neglected or abandoned spaces, i.e. community gardens, historic
parks and gardens. These spaces often have a strong, if degraded, character, a
sense of place. Many may have pre-existing biophilic attributes or conditions
existing, but have become damaged. Other restoration projects may focus on
restoring an ecosystem or landscape, such as river, that no longer exists or has
lost its original character. The aim of such projects is to restore the
ecosystem/landscape to its previous state (Busquets et al, 2011).
Figure 4 (5.4.4) The Lost Gardens of Heligan (2014) [Digital photograph] at:
http://www.torrhousecottages.co.uk/special-houses-gardens/ (Accessed on 01.11.14)
In some ways these projects are retrofit in nature due a strong existing
spatial configuration and on site character. While in other ways a restoration
project is like a renovation project due to the fact that many elements have
become so degraded, that they need to be replaced with a new spatial
arrangement. New build may be incorporated into this project type to ensure the
space has a relevant purpose and is able to meet the needs of the local
population. Elements of restoration to the sites’ previous condition and form are
also included to ensure the previous character is not overpowered by the
introduction of new elements (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011).
6.1 Method
Following this survey, another was issued. This time to a smaller sample
group of 13 landscape architects, who would later take part in a workshop on
biophilic design. This second survey would be used, in conjunction with the
initial survey, to gain an understanding of the current baseline knowledge and to
help determine what level of information should be presented in the workshop
(Clancy, 2014c). Following the second survey of the sample group, an
educational workshop on biophilic design was conducted, working from the
established baseline, in terms of existing level of knowledge, awareness and
misconceptions of biophilic design. The intention of this workshop was to clarify
the role of biophilic design, explain its benefits, how it can be implemented and
marketed to existing and potential clients. A small sample group was chosen for
feasibility reasons, due to time and logistical constraints, and also to facilitate
and encourage active discussion (Clancy, 2014d).
To garner a wider ranging view of landscape architects in the UK, more varied
than would be offered by the small sample group at the Pegasus Birmingham
Office, a survey was emailed to 60+ Landscape Institute registered landscape
architecture firms and practices across the UK, with a response rate of approx
60%. The survey was conducted from September 1st 2014 to September 24th
2014 (Clancy, 2014b). This was in an attempt to gain a more representative
view of the industry in the UK on biophilic design. The results of this survey
would be used in conjunction with the results of the survey and workshop
conducted with the small sample group at Pegasus Planning Group, in
Birmingham, to identify constraints and opportunities for biophilic design in UK
landscape architecture, and from this, concluding recommendations.
The survey began with an introductory paragraph, explaining biophilia and
the benefits of biophilic design, to frame the context of the survey for those
unfamiliar with the subject.
Q.1 Prior to the inductory text, did you have any previous
knowledge of biophilic design?
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Yes No
40
30
20
10
0
Yes No
30
20
10
0
Yes No
15
10
0
Yes No
30
20
10
0
Yes No
40
30
20
10
0
Yes No
Figure 14 (6.2.10) Question 1: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
1.5
0.5
Figure 15 (6.2.11) Question 2: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
The makeup of this small sample group traverses many of the hierarchical
levels within the landscape architecture profession and allows for varying
perspectives on the issue from those recently graduated, to professionals who
have 30 years of experience within the industry.
Figure 16 (6.2.12) Question 3: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
Figure 17 (6.2.13) Question 4: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
While the majority of this group (90%) have received educational and
theoretical training on how to establish a connection to nature, a third of the
group felt that this training was inadequate. This signals the identification of a
potential restraint for implementing biophilic design in UK landscape architecture:
a knowledge deficit among landscape architects on biophilic design, reflecting
the findings of the initial survey conducted between 1st and 24th September
2014 (Clancy, 2014b).
Figure 18 (6.2.14) Question 5: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
Figure 19 (6.2.15) Question 6: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
Figure 20 (6.2.16) Question 7: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
Figure 21 (6.2.17) Question 8: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
While the landscape architects within this sample group values nature
and establishing connections to it within their work, they lack understanding of
how to implement biophilic design, as shown from the data of the other questions
in this survey (Figure 21).
Figure 22 (6.2.18) Question 9: Sample group survey on biophilic design (Clancy, 2014c)
The repeating themes of the findings are (Clancy, 2014b) (Clancy, 2014c)
(Clancy, 2014d):
While much research and literature has looked at how to apply biophilic design to
the built environment or a specific space, none have looked at the larger
problems facing the wider adoption of biophilic design into the built environment
profession. Little or no literature which deals primarily with biophilic design in
landscape architecture has been produced at the time of writing either, a fact
echoed by G. Souter Brown during a personal communication with the author on
16th November 2014. These two factors impacted upon the literature review
conducted for this dissertation. However, this was negated by using wide
ranging and varying sources across numerous disciplines, including the built
environment and health professions, and establishing personal communications
with both domestic and international experts on biophilic design.
This factor is a constraint in several ways. For one, the lack of education
on the subject contributes to the lack of awareness of biophilic design among the
landscape architecture profession itself and thus will restrict the adoption of
biophilic design strategies into the design of the built environment. Secondly,
this lack of knowledge could lead to reduced efficacy. Thirdly, insufficient
knowledge on implementing biophilic design could be dangerous and damage
the reputation/image of biophilic design in the long run. For example, certain
biophilic design patterns, such as material connection to nature depend on the
Given the low profile of biophilic design in the UK, there appears to be a lack of
awareness and even poor understanding of the subject. This has been observed
at talks on biophilia and biophilic design at Ecobuild 2013 (Beatley 2013a) and
Trees, People and the Built Environment II conference (Beatley, 2014). Several
audience members at these talks posed questions to the speakers of various
talks (Grayson, 2014), often dismissing the subject of biophilia and biophilic
design as buzzwords and unnecessary. While these events did help raise the
profile of biophilic design in the UK, it was observed that many audience
members were confused by or dismissive of the subject. This is can be
hypothesised to be due to the following reasons:
Much like education is needed to bridge the knowledge gap for landscape
architects on biophilic design, so too is education needed for current and
potential clients. Marketing the benefits, the need for and the return of
investment on biophilic design patterns could help sway clients and developers
to adopting biophilic design into their new and existing developments. Using
recent reports and publications such as Terrapin Bright Green's 'The Economics
of Biophilia' (2012) and the Landscape Institute's position statements 'Profitable
Places' (2014d) and 'Public Health and Landscape' (2013b), landscape
architecture firms have sufficient data at their disposal to convince clients to
adopt biophilic design measures in the design of their new developments.
From the surveys and workshops, cost, specifically to clients and developers was
identified as a significant obstacle to implementing biophilic design. Those in the
workshop sample group felt that many clients would not risk losing potential
value from developing land to incorporate biophilic design (Clancy, 2014d). This
is despite numerous studies pointing to the economic benefits of biophilic design,
from increasing land value to increasing productivity among staff (Terrapin Bright
Green, 2012). In fact, the return of investment ratio on installing biophilic features
has been shown to be 3:1 (Ryan, 2014). Regardless, no incentives currently
exist to incorporate biophilic design into new developments that would encourage
clients into doing so.
7.5 Utilising Current Housing Growth & the Garden Cities Competition as an
Opportunity
The present housing shortage and significant growth in house building in the UK
market offers an excellent opportunity for biophilic design to be integrated into
the built environment. Some groups are even calling on the UK government to
build 240,000 homes a year to meet demand (Brinded, 2014). Other figures
state that the number of households is set to grow by 221,000 every year this
decade (Policy Exchange, 2014).
The winning entry of the Wolfson Economic Prize 2014 proposed the
development of 40 new garden cities over the next 30 years, while Nick Clegg
has stated that three new garden cities, each consisting of +15,000 homes, will
be built by 2020 (Policy Exchange, 2014). The release of the UK governments
Garden City prospectus (DCLG, 2014b) gives added political weight to this
opportunity as a medium through which to implement biophilic design. While
garden cities put an emphasis on health, well-being and access to green space,
it does not state how to do so at the site design level. Biophilic design could be a
key design tool and ethic to utilise in the creation of these garden cities. By
highlighting the gap between the planning and site design scales of garden cities
and the overlapping aims of the two subjects, biophilic design could become
integrated into the application of garden cities, raising the profile and awareness
of biophilic design in the UK.
It is also worth pointing out that garden cities were a proposed solution to
a series of problems that existed over a hundred years ago (Howard, 1902).
While many of those problems still exist, society and the world have changed.
The problems facing humanity today are different, more varied and complex than
those at the beginning of the 20th century. We now live in a country with: a
multi-cultural society; depression and stress set to become the number one
From the literature review, findings of the workshop and the surveys conducted,
it is clear that an obstacle exists in convincing clients/developers of adopting
biophilic design into their new developments (Clancy, 2014c) (Clancy, 2014d). It
is perceived by the landscape architects surveyed, that clients/developers do not
wish to incur further financial costs by implementing biophilic design despite
evidence of the economic benefits of doing so (Terrapin Bright Green, 2012).
7.9 Integration of Biophilic Design into National and Local Planning Policy
Currently, the NPPF and NPPG make no direct reference to biophilic design
(DCLG, 2014a) (see appendix C). While there are numerous references
outlining the need for green space, there are no references to how this green
space should be designed, what its content should be or how it should be
spatially configured. While current policy may promote green space and access
to nature, it does not specify policy to ensure that these measures enhance
health and well-being (DCLG, 2012).
It should be noted that developing a case study template, for producing biophilic
design case studies, has been attempted recently. The author of this
dissertation, attempted to do so while working for Terrapin Bright Green in 2013.
While a case study template was developed, that produced results and specific
metrics similar to those stated in theory and research for some biophilic design
patterns, it was difficult to record many other patterns. Terrapin Bright Green
issued the case study template to various built environment and biophilic design
professionals for review. During a personal communication via email with the
author on 29th July 2014, C. Ryan of Terrapin Bright Green revealed that
feedback received stated that the case study template "lacked the technical
guidance - particularly measurements - that would make them such valuable
tools". As such, the case study template was not published.
From the research conducted at Terrapin Bright Green and during the
course of this dissertation, it is the author's conclusion that the inconsistency of
results produced by this case study template is due to variability in the built
environment, as noted in the section 5. It may be the case that specific case
study templates will have to be developed for each type of environmental setting,
typology and climate.
Atchley, R., Atchley, P. and Strayer, D. (2012). Creativity in the Wild: Improving
Creative Reasoning through Immersion in Natural Settings. PLoS ONE. 7 (12),
P1-3.
Barton, H., Grant, M. and Guise, R. (2010). Shaping Neighbourhoods: For Local
Health & Global Sustainability. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge. P6-272.
Barton, J. and Pretty, J. (2010). What is the best dose of nature and green
exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Colchester:
University of Essex. P1-7.
Beatley, T. (2008). Towards biophilic cities: Strategies for integrating nature into
urban design. In: Kellert et al Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice
of Bringing Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p277-296.
Beatley, T. (2011b). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and
Planning. Washington: Island Press. p1-156.
Beatley, T. (2013a). Biophilia and the city, [Lecture at Ecobuild 2013], Excel
Arena. London. 5th March 2013.
Bender, T. (2008). Bringing buildings to life. In: Kellert et al Biophilic Design: The
Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. p313-324.
Benedictus, L. (2005). Every race, colour, nation and religion on earth. Available:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jan/21/britishidentity1. Last accessed 6th
September 2014.
Berman, M. et Al. (2012). Interacting With Nature Improves Cognition and Affect
for Individuals with Depression. Journal of Affective Disorders. 140 (1), p300-
305.
Biederman, I. and Vessel, E. (2006). Perceptual Pleasure & the Brain. American
Scientist. 94 (1), p249-255.
Bird, W. (2007). Natural Thinking: Investigating the links between the Natural
Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health. Sheffield: RSPB. p17-113.
Bloomfield, R. (2013). Boris Johnson wants 100 new 'pocket parks' in an aim to
make London greener. Available: http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-
news/news/boris-johnson-wants-100-new-pocket-parks-aim-make-london-
greener. Last accessed 5th September 2014.
BOP Consulting (2013). Green Spaces: The Benefits for London. London: City of
London Corporation. p6-21.
Bowler, D. et al. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits
to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 10 (1), p456-
466.
Brown, D., Barton, J. and Gladwell, V. (2013). Viewing nature scenes positively
affects recovery of autonomic function following acute-mental
stress. Environmental Science and Technology. 47 (1), p5562-5569.
Byrne, J. and Rupprecht, C. (2014). Our cities need more green spaces for rest
and play — here’s how. Available: http://theconversation.com/our-cities-need-
more-green-spaces-for-rest-and-play-heres-how-28271. Last accessed 5th
September 2014.
CABE (2006). Buildings and Spaces: Why design matters. London: CABE. P2-
50.
Chorley, M. (2014). Cameron under pressure over threat of £2billion black hole in
NHS budget. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
2661467/Cameron-pressure-threat-2billion-black-hole-NHS-budget.html. Last
accessed 7th September 2014.
Cosgrove, S. (2014a). Liverpool mayor confirms further 50 per cent funding cut
for city's parks. Available: http://www.hortweek.com/liverpool-mayor-confirms-
further-50-per-cent-funding-cut-citys-parks/parks-and-gardens/article/1228205.
Last accessed 5th September.
Cosgrove, S. (2014d). "Cut waste and bureaucracy" and raid reserves to pay for
parks, councils told. Available: http://www.hortweek.com/cut-waste-bureaucracy-
raid-reserves-pay-parks-councils-
told/landscape/article/1300880?HAYILC=RELATED. Last accessed 1st
September 2014.
Cosgrove, S. (2014e). Council’s moot parks disposals as cuts push green space
services to the brink. Available: http://www.hortweek.com/councils-moot-parks-
disposals-cuts-push-green-space-services-brink/arboriculture/article/1300546.
Last accessed 1st September 2014.
Crockett, D. (2014). Nature Connection Will Be the Next Big Human Trend.
Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/daniel-crockett/nature-connection-will-
be-the-next-big-human-trend_b_5698267.html. Last accessed 1st September
2014.
de Kort, Y. et al. (2006). What's wrong with virtual trees? Restoring from stress in
a mediated environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 26 (1), p 309-
320.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Localism Act 2011.
London: Department for Communities and Local Government. p109-144.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2011). The Natural Choice:
Securing the Value of Nature. London: Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs. p3-66.
Department of Health (2012). Health and Social Care Act 2012. London:
Department of Health. p181-200.
Doyle, A. (2013). In radical refit, buildings to generate more power than they use.
Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-buildings-
idUSBRE91B0VC20130212. Last accessed 25th July 2013
Ellis, M. (2014). Tory spending cuts leaving children with nowhere to play as
parks fall into disrepair. Available: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-
spending-cuts-leaving-children-3923859#.U-iC2vldV8E. Last accessed 1st
September 2014
Elmendorf, W. et al. (2005). Urban Park and Forest Participation and Landscape
Preference: A Comparison between Blacks and Whites in Philadelphia and
Atlanta, U.S. International Society of Arboriculture. 31 (6), p318-326.
Faber Taylor, A. and Kuo, F. (2009). Children With Attention Deficits Concentrate
Better After Walk in the Park. Journal of Attention Disorders. 12 (5), p402-409.
Forster, K. (2013). Biophilic Design: Could Ottawa’s Rockcliffe Lands be the first
biophilic redevelopment in Canada? Available:
http://spacing.ca/ottawa/2013/12/02/11245/. Last accessed 7th September 2014.
Frisk, P. (2008). The greening of the brain. In: Kellert et al Biophilic Design: The
Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. p307-312.
Fromm, E. (1964). The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil. New York:
Harper & Row. P13-143.
Frumkin, H. (2008). Nature contact and human health: Building the evidence
base. In: Kellert et al Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of
Bringing Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p107-118.
Garvin, C. and Kallianpurkar, N. (2012a). How Biophilia Can Improve Our Lives -
Part I. Available: http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/biophilia-can-
improve-lives.html. Last accessed 5th September 2014.
Garvin, C. and Kallianpurkar, N. (2012b). How Biophilia Can Improve Our Lives -
Part II. Available: http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/how-biophilia-
can-improve-our-lives-part-ii.html. Last accessed 5th September 2014.
Garvin, C. and Kallianpurkar, N. (2012c). How Biophilia Can Improve Our Lives -
Part III. Available: http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/how-biophilia-
can-improve-our-lives-part-iii.html. Last accessed 5th September 2014.
Garvin, C. and Kallianpurkar, N. (2012d). How Biophilia Can Improve Our Lives -
Part IV. Available: http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/how-biophilia-
can-improve-our-lives-part-iv.html. Last accessed 5th September 2014.
Gill, S. et al. (2007). Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green
Infrastructure. Built Environment. 33 (1), p115-133.
Grayson, N. (2014). Birmingham Biophilic City, [Lecture at Trees, People and the
Built Environment II], University of Birmingham. Birmingham. 1st April 2014.
Hartig, T. et al. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23, p109-123.
Harvey, F. (2011). Climate change driving species out of habitats much faster
than expected. Available:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/18/climate-change-species-
habitats. Last accessed 4th September 2014.
Herman Miller (2013). Nature-Based Design: The New Green. Michigan: Herman
Miller. p1-7.
Hildebrand, G. (1991). The Wright Space: Pattern and Meaning in Frank Lloyd
Wright's Houses. Seattle: University of Washington Press. p11-173.
Housley, E. and Wolf, K. (2013). Feeling Stressed? Take a time out in nature.
Seattle: Naturesacred.org. p2-11.
Joye, Y., van den Berg, A. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical
analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 7 (4) p1000-1016.
Joye, Y. and van der Berg, A. (2013). Restorative Environments. In: Steg et al
Environmental Psychology: An Introduction. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
p57-66.
Juniper, T. (2013). What has nature ever done for us? How money really does
grow on trees. London: Profile Books. p245-265
Kahn, P. et al. (2009). The Human Relation With Nature and Technological
Nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 18 (1), p37-42.
Kellert, S. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In: Kellert and
Wilson The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington D.C.: Island Press. p42-72.
Kellert, S. (2005). Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-
Nature Connection. Washington D.C.: Island Press. p1-183.
Kloog, I. et al. (2008). Light at Night Co-distributes with Incident Breast but not
Lung Cancer in the Female Population of Israel. Chronobiology International:
The Journal of Biological and Medical Rhythm Research. 25 (1), p65-81.
Kloog, I. et al. (2010). Night-time light level co-distributes with breast cancer
incidence worldwide. Cancer Causes Control. 21 (12), p2059-2068.
Kloog, I. et al. (2011). Does the Modern Urbanized Sleeping Habitat Pose a
Breast Cancer Risk? Chronobiology International. 28 (1), p76-80.
Kruuse, A. (2011). GRaBS Expert Paper 6: The green space factor and the
green points system. London: Town and Country Planning Association. p1-12.
Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. (2001). Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does
Vegetation Reduce Crime. Environment and Behaviour. 33 (1), p343-367.
Laumann, K., Garling, T. and Stormark, K. (2003). Selective attention and heart
rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 23 (1), p125-134.
Landscape Institute. (2014b). Land Trust calls for long term green spaces
funding. Available: http://www.landscapeinstitute.co.uk/news/Land-Trust-calls-
for-long-term-green-spaces-funding. Last accessed 1st September 2014.
Loftness, V. and Synder, S. (2008). Where Windows Become Doors. In: Kellert,
Heerwagen & Mador Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science & Practice of
Bringing Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p119-131.
London Evening Standard. (2014). Health linked to city green spaces. Available:
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/health-linked-to-city-green-spaces-
9094738.html. Last accessed 1st September 2014.
Louv, R. (2008). Children and the success of biophilic design. In: Kellert et
al Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to
Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p205-212.
Louv, R. (2012) The Nature Principle: Reconnecting with Life in a Virtual Age.
New York: Algonquin Books. p9-275
Mador, M. (2008). Water, biophilic design and the built environment. In: Kellert et
al Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to
Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p43-58.
Lee, A. and Maheswaran, R. (2010). The health benefits of urban green spaces:
A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health. 33 (2), p212-222.
Marmot, M. (2010). Fair Society Healthy Lives - The Marmot Review. London:
Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010. p125-189.
Martens, D., Gutscher, H. and Bauer, N. (2011). Walking in 'wild' and 'tended'
urban forests: The impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 31 (1), p36-44.
Mayer, H. et al. (2008). Human thermal comfort in summer within an urban street
canyon in Central Europe. Meteorologische Zeitschrif. 17 (3), p241-250.
Mehta, R., Zhu, R. and Cheema, A. (2012). Is Noise Always Bad? Exploring the
Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative Cognition. Journal of Consumer Research.
39 (4), p784-799.
MIND (2013). Feel better outside, feel better inside: Ecotherapy for mental
wellbeing, resilience and recovery. London: MIND. p7-32.
Morris, S. (2014). Birmingham joins San Francisco and Oslo in global green
cities club. Available:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/apr/03/birmingham-san-francisco-oslo-
global-green-biophilic-cities-club. Last accessed 15th August 2014.
Motoyama, Y. and Hanyu, K. (2014). Does public art enrich landscapes? The
effect of public art on visual properties and affective appraisals of
landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 40 (1), p14-25.
National Urban Forestry Unit (2005). Trees Matter! Bringing lasting benefits to
people in towns. London: Trees for Cities. p2-15.
Newman, P. and Matan, A. (2013). The Biophilic City. In: Newman & Matan
Green Urbanism in Asia: The Emerging Green Tigers. Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing. p99-133.
Nielson, T. and Hanson, K. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a
Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health and Place
13 (4), 839–850.
Nordh, H. et al. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the
possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 8 (1), p225-235.
Orr, D. and Pyle, R. (2008). The extinction of natural experiences in the built
environment. In: Kellert et al Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice
of Bringing Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p213-224.
Parraga, C., Troscianko, T. and Tolhurst, D. (2000). The human visual system is
optimised for processing the spatial information in natural visual images. Current
Biology. 10 (1), p35-38.
Parsons, R. (1998). The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and
immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 18 (1), p113-139.
Policy Exchange. (2014). 40 new garden cities needed to meet housing demand,
say Prize finalists. Available: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-
centre/press-releases/category/item/40-new-garden-cities-needed-to-meet-
housing-demand-say-prize-finalists. Last accessed 6th September 2014.
Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B. and Sowden, P. (2013). Bird sounds and their
contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 36 (1), p221-228.
Reid, L. and Hunter, C. (2013). Exploring the potential for a 'double dividend':
Living Well and Living Greener. In: Coles and Millman Landscape, Well-Being
and Environment. London: Routledge. p7-19.
Roberts-Hughes, R. (2013). City Health Check: How design can save lives and
money. London: Royal Institute of British Architects. p6-43.
Sharkey, J. (2013). Dark sky movement helps you see the stars. Available:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/6/dark-sky-
movementhelpsyouseethestars.html. Last accessed 7th September 2014.
Soule, M. (1993). Biophilia: Unanswered questions. In: Kellert and Wilson The
Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington D.C.: Island Press. p441-454.
Souter-Brown, G. (2014). Landscape and Urban Design for Health and Well-
Being. London: Routledge. p14-305.
Steg, L., van der Berg, A. and de Groot, J. (2013). Environmental Psychology:
History, Scope & Methods. In: Steg et al Environmental Psychology: An
Introduction. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons. p1-11.
Swinford, S. (2014). People living near green spaces should pay a 'park
levy'. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11044044/People-
living-near-green-spaces-should-pay-a-park-levy.html. Last accessed 4th
September 2014.
Taylor, A., Frances E. Kuo, and W. Sullivan. “Views of Nature and Self-
Discipline: Evidence from Inner city children.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology. Vol. 22. No. 1-2: 49-63. Web. 2001
The Countryside Agency (2002). Climate change and natural forces - the
consequences for landscape character. Sheffield: The Countryside Agency. p1-
24.
Tran, M. (2014). Clean up your local park and get a council tax rebate, suggests
think-tank. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/20/clean-up-
local-park-council-tax-rebate-green-guardians-policy-exchange. Last accessed
4th September 2014.
Tveit, M., Sang, A. and Hagerhall, C. (2013). Scenic Beauty: Visual Landscape
Assessment and Human Landscape Perception. In: Steg et al Environmental
Psychology: An Introduction. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. . p37-46.
Ulrich, R. (1984). View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery
. Science. 224 (1), p420-421.
Ulrich, R. et al. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban
environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11 (1), p201-230.
Ulrich, R. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes. In: Kellert and
Wilson The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington D.C.: Island Press. p73-137.
Ulrich, R. (2008). Biophilic theory and research for healthcare design. In: Kellert
et al Biophilic Design: The Theory , Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to
Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. . p87-106.
van den Berg, A., Koole, S. and Wulp, N. (2003). Environmental preference and
restoration: (How) are they related? . Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23,
p135-146.
van der Berg, A. and Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: An exploration
of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
25 (1), p261-272.
van der Berg, A. and Konijnendilk, C. (2013). Ambivalence towards nature and
natural landscapes. In: Steg et al Environmental Psychology: An Introduction.
Chichester: BPS Blackwell. p67-76.
van der berg, A., Joye, Y. and de Vries, S. (2013). Health Benefits of Nature. In:
Steg et al Environmental Psychology: An Introduction. Chicester: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. . p47-56.
Volker, S. and Kistemann, T. (2011). The impact of blue space on human health
and well-being – Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A
review. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 214 (1),
p449-460.
Smolders, Y. and de Kort, Y. (2014). Bright light and mental fatigue: Effects on
alertness, vitality, performance and physiological arousal. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 39 (1), p1-15.
Ward Thompson, C. et al. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in
deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape and
Urban Planning. 105 (3), p221-229.
White, M. et al. (2010). Blue Space: The Importance of Water for Preference,
Affect and Restorativeness ratings of Natural and Built Scenes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 30 (4), p482-493.
Wells, N. and Evans, G. (2003). Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress Among
Rural Children. Environment and Behaviour. 35 (1), p311-330.
White, M. et al. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference,
affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 30 (4), p482-493.
White, M. et al. (2013). Feelings of restoration from recent nature visits. Journal
of Environmental Psychology. 35 (1), p40-51.
Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard:
Harvard Publishing. p3-145
Wilson, E. (2008). Biophilia in practice: Buildings that connect people with nature.
In: Kellert et al Biophilic Design: The Theory , Science and Practice of Bringing
Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. . p325-334.
Wolf, K. “Trees in the small city retail business district: comparing resident and
visitor perceptions.” Journal of Forestry 103, 390–395. 2005.
Yue, X., Vessel, E. and Biederman, I. (2007). The neural basis of scene
preferences. NeuroReport. 18 (6), p525-529.
Appendix A: Glossary
All of the following patterns below (Table 1) are taken from the '14 Patterns of
Biophilic Design: Improving Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment, by
Terrapin Bright Green (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014).
4. Presence of Water
Methods of Due to the dominance of artificial light in indoor settings and the
Application negative effects it has on health, productivity and cognition
(Loftness and Snyder, 2008), this pattern is more specific to the
interior environment and so is the realm of interior
designers/architects and building architects. Due to the nature of
the landscape and public realm, this pattern has little in terms of
applications to offer landscape architecture.
Objective The objective of this pattern is to that allow users to make visual
connections to nature through the use of designed elements of
representational nature in the built environment (Browning and
Cramer, 2008).
Cause Despite the human brain being able to decipher what is actual
and what is representational nature (Hagerhall, Purcell and
Taylor, 2004), evidence indicates that this pattern triggers similar
biophilic responses caused by actual nature due to the mimicking
of fractal patterns and use of semantic associations that appear in
nature (Salingaros, 2012).
11. Prospect
12. Refuge
Objective This pattern seeks to create spaces within the built environment
that provides protection and enables restoration to take place.
The pattern seeks to limit visual access into the space while
maximizing prospective views from within the space towards the
13. Mystery
14. Peril
Effect While this pattern causes some level of stress in individuals (van
der Berg, Joye and de Vries, 2013), it also triggers strong
dopamine responses (Zald et al. 2008). The degree of response
is dependent upon the user’s age and gender (Wang and Tsien,
2011) (Kopec, 2006).
Wright Space: Pattern and Meaning in Frank Lloyd Wright's Houses (Hildebrand,
1991)
This publication popularized prospect refuge theory among the architecture
profession. The author, Hildebrand, also elaborated on the theory by introducing
several new concepts of complexity, mystery and order, helping form the basis of
these patterns and their utilization by Terrapin Bright Green and further
application in biophilic design.
With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature (Kaplan and
Kaplan, 1998)
This book again expanded upon the work on patterns laid out by Alexander and
other concepts, such as prospect and refuge. This was the first publication
geared towards the application of patterns to landscape and thus a pivotal
publication recognizing the importance of landscape architecture in creating
restorative environments.
Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning (Beatley,
2011)
This is perhaps the first publication that acknowledged the role landscape
architecture has to play in creating restorative environments. This publication
also addressed the professions of urban design and planning, which to a large
degree have been neglected in the conversation on creating biophilically
designed environments. This publication was a precursor to the 'Biophilic Cities
Project'.
What has Nature Ever Done for Us? How Money Really Does Grow on Trees
(Juniper, 2013)
Due to the high profile of the author, Tony Juniper, (as a former director of
Friends of the Earth and the fact that the book went on to become a Sunday
Times bestseller) this publication raised awareness among the general UK
population about the benefits of interaction with natural stimuli, its benefits on
health and well-being and the possible economic gains and savings for the NHS
by increasing funding for parks and improving access to nature. The simplified
explanation of the human nature connection in this book effectively
communicated the need for access to nature to a wider audience.
Landscape and Urban Design for Health and Well-Being: Using Healing, Sensory
and Therapeutic Gardens (Souter-Brown, 2014)
This is the first publication to tackle the role of biophilic design in landscape
architecture. While no direct, consistent references are made to biophilic design,
the publication does examine how the human-nature connection can be utilised
in the built environment through the professions of landscape architecture and
urban design. It is the first publication to deal with specific detail design issue
relating to biophilic design at the site scale, from a landscape architecture
perspective.
1828
The term 'landscape architecture' is coined by Gilbert Laing Meason.
1863
Frederick Law Olmstead is the first person to use 'landscape architecture'
as a professional title.
1898
Garden City Movement initiated by Sir Ebenezer Howard
1900
20% of the world's population lives in urban areas
1929
The Landscape Institute is founded as the Institute of Landscape
Architects.
1940
The Design Council is founded as 'The Council of Industrial Design'.
1946
New Towns Act 1946 is introduced, strongly influenced by the garden
cities movement of the early 1900s.
1950
Urban growth peaks with a population expansion of 3% per year.
79% of the UK population live in urban areas.
13% of the population of China lives in urban areas.
1960
78.4% of the UK population live in urban areas.
Environmental psychology emerges as a discipline over the next decade
building on the previous twenty years of 'architectural psychology'.
1964
Erich Fromm coins the term 'Biophilia' and further defined it in 1973 as
"the passionate love of life and of all that is alive."
1969
Ian McHarg publishes Design with Nature.
1970
77.1% of the UK population live in urban areas.
Distances children can travel unaccompanied by parents, i.e. explore
natural environments, is 90% greater than a generation later.
1975
Jay Appleton publishes 'The Experience of Landscape'.
1977