Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S2095263521000479 Main
1 s2.0 S2095263521000479 Main
1 s2.0 S2095263521000479 Main
ScienceDirect
REVIEW
Architectural Design and Engineering, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Received 22 April 2021; received in revised form 4 July 2021; accepted 29 July 2021
KEYWORDS Abstract In the last ten years, ‘nature’ and biophilic design have received widespread atten-
Biophilic design; tion in architecture, especially in response to growing environmental challenges. However,
Biophilic open questions and controversies remain regarding conceptualizing and addressing ‘nature’
architecture; in practice and research. This study conducts a literature review to discuss biophilic design
Sustainability; as a theoretical framework to interpret ‘nature’ in architecture. The following questions are
Sustainable answered: (1) How has the concept of biophilic design emerged, and how can it be defined?
architecture; (2) In what ways can biophilic design contribute to the goals of sustainable architecture? (3)
Sustainable What are the key design strategies in biophilic design? This review identifies and compares
Development Goals the key frameworks of biophilic design and explains their major elements. We then analyse
(SDGs); the benefits (e.g., enhance health, well-being, productivity, biodiversity, and circularity) of
Nature-based biophilic design in achieving sustainability, as framed through the UN Sustainable Development
solutions Goals. The results indicate that biophilic design is more complex and richer than the mere
application of vegetation in buildings; it broadens the variety through encompassing different
types of nature from physical, sensory, metaphorical, morphological, material to spiritual.
Moreover, knowledge gaps are identified to motivate future research and critical reflections
on biophilic design practices.
ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf
of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: w.zhong@tue.nl, weijiezhong72@gmail.com (W. Zhong).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006
2095-2635/ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
1.1. A brief historical overview of ‘nature’ in architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
1.2. Environmental awareness and emergent sustainable architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
1.3. From the theory of biophilia to biophilic design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
1.4. Study overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.1. Identification of relevant publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.2. Analysis and synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.2.1. Comparative analysis of different taxonomies of ‘nature’ in biophilic design . . . . . . . . 118
2.2.2. Comparative analysis of biophilic design and sustainable architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3. Framing biophilic design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.1. Origins of biophilic design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.1.1. Biophilia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.1.2. Habitat and dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.1.3. Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.1.4. Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.2. Defining biophilic design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4. Biophilic design for sustainable architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5. Biophilic design approaches and elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.1. A biophilic design framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.2. Biophilic design strategies and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.1. Lessons learnt from the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2. Evaluation of biophilic architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
6.3. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Biophilic design in building certification systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
115
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
projects reflect co-existence with nature. Frank Lloyd through the Agenda 21 (UN, 1992) and the 17 Sustainable
Wright’s Fallingwater embraces nature by placing the Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015). However, climate
building, especially the horizontally extended cantilevered crises, biodiversity loss, air pollution and many other issues
terraces, in the midst of nature. Farnsworth House by Ludwig remain urgent challenges today. To address a variety of
Mies van der Rohe establishes a connection with the external challenges in sustainable manners, the European
natural environment through the use of glass walls and light Commission (2015) launched ‘nature-based solutions’ with
structural supports. Later, in the 1960s, the increasing a series of actions that are ‘inspired by, supported by or
awareness of the impact of contemporary life on the envi- copied from nature’ to deploy various natural features and
ronment stimulated an environmental awakening (Tabb and complex system processes in a resource-efficient way to
Deviren, 2013). Landscape architect and town planner Ian diverse urban areas. Available technologies were examined,
McHarg (1969) suggested an ecological perspective that in- and the benefits of these strategies were investigated
corporates the analysis of land, climate, and water into through the assessment of thermal performance, air quality,
urban planning. The 1960s were also a radical period in ar- acoustic insulation and noise reduction, urban stormwater
chitecture. Avant-garde architects such as Mario Bellini, management, and biodiversity (Perez and Perini, 2018;
Alberto Rosselli, Ugo La Pietra, Archizoom, Superstudio, Somarakis et al., 2019). Nonetheless, the current focus is
9999, and others reflected on the destructive impacts of primarily on the urban scale. Research on understanding the
modern construction on the natural environment in their impact of nature-based design in architecture is still
projects. Although most were visual and experimental limited.
works, environmental awareness triggered a shift in the The building sector plays an essential role in sustainable
value of the relationship between humans and nature. development and is responsible for nearly 40% of energy
consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions
1.2. Environmental awareness and emergent (IEA, 2017). Buildings also have a significant impact on
sustainable architecture human health and well-being, as we spend approximately
90% of our time indoors (European Commission, 2003;
The interest in and fascination with ‘nature’ must be seen in Roberts, 2016). Reconnecting with ‘nature’ has been rec-
relation to human-induced environmental crises and ognised as one of the most urgent challenges in contem-
emerging environmental movements. In the 1980s and porary urban architecture (Beatley, 2017; Ives et al., 2018).
1990s, ‘nature’ was explored and associated with a range of Especially during the COVID-19 lockdown, most of the urban
environmental issues of the era. New concerns such as dwellers had minimal access to gardens, parks, or the
climate change, ozone depletion, and loss of biodiversity countryside. In this context, the integration of ‘nature’ into
emerged, and solutions to these issues, came to be char- buildings has been increasingly celebrated recently. In both
acterised within the call for sustainable development academic research and architectural practice, there is
(Leach et al., 2010). The concept of sustainable develop- growing interest in strengthening the effects of contact
ment was brought to public attention in 1987 through the with ‘nature’ while reducing humans’ impact on the natural
Brundtland Report (UN, 1987) and was further elaborated environment. Within the broad field of sustainable
Fig. 1 Examples of the integration of plants, water or analogous natural forms in architecture [Source: (a) Hanging Garden of
Babylon (b) Antoni Gaudı́’s Casa Batllo; (c) Le Corbusier’s Immeubles-villas; (d) Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater]
116
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
architecture, we witness the tendency of increasing longing for ‘nature’ in architecture (Almusaed, 2011;
‘greening’ of architecture through elements such as green Cramer and Browning, 2008; Joye, 2007; Kellert, 2008b;
facades, green roofs, and vertical gardens. In some cases, Ryan et al., 2014; Wilson, 2008). Biophilic design explains
easy promotional language conceals the lack of real im- why some buildings are considered to perform better than
provements or effectiveness (Leach et al., 2010). Moreover, others regarding their nature-connectedness (Berkebile
the notion of ‘nature’ is rather elusive and can be inter- et al., 2008). This nature connectedness presents all sorts
preted in many ways: as essential materials for human of benefits in the living, working, learning, entertainment,
survival; as sources of inspiration for architectural design; and medical environments (Abdelaal, 2019; Abdelaal and
or as a mere romantic idea. In this article, the concept of Soebarto, 2019; Gray and Birrell, 2014; Hähn et al., 2020;
biophilic design is discussed as one approach to conceptu- Jones, 2013; Mangone et al., 2017; Peters and D’Penna,
alise and understand ‘nature’ in architectural design. 2020; Totaforti, 2018; Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2019).
Therefore, biophilic architecture is claimed to contribute
1.3. From the theory of biophilia to biophilic design to sustainability, overcoming the lack of contact with na-
ture and effectively managing natural resources (Almusaed
The term biophilia was coined by social psychologist Erich et al., 2006; Hidalgo, 2014; Jiang et al., 2020; Kayıhan,
Fromm (1964) to describe the ‘love of life’ that explained 2018; McMahan and Estes, 2015).
two fundamental tendencies of living organisms: sustain- In summary, there are two main reasons to explore bio-
ing life from death threats and the positive integration philic design. First, the craving for ‘nature’ is widely recog-
with each other. Biophilia theory did not receive wider nised in the contemporary built environment; thus, it is
recognition until 20 years after it was first proposed. The essential to provide frameworks to understand ‘nature’ in
biologist and naturalist Edward Wilson (1984, p. 1) defined architecture. Second, many design concepts related to ‘na-
‘biophilia’ as ‘the innate tendency to focus on life and ture’ are criticised as ‘green-washing’ or ‘placebo’ strategies.
lifelike processes’. Wilson (1993) further raised ‘the bio- Thus, further investigations should be conducted to examine
philia hypothesis’ to interpret that the emotional their impacts and effects on sustainable architecture.
connection with ‘life’ was conserved after humankind
migrated from the primitive natural environment into the 1.4. Study overview
artificial new environment. He emphasised that biophilia
is ‘the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to This study aims to explore biophilic design as a theoretical
other living organisms’, in which the ‘innate tendency’ framework for conceptualizing ‘nature’ in architecture and
represents the characteristics of ‘hereditary’; meanwhile, to discuss the ways in which biophilic design contributes to
as a ‘learning rule’, it provides an enlightening perspec- achieving sustainability. In the next section, we introduce
tive with which to understand nature (Wilson, 1993, p. the methods we use to select relevant publications and
31). The former point is supported by psycho-evolutionary analyse and synthesise these sources. Section 3 investigates
theory, which argues that some emotional reactions are how the concept of biophilic design has emerged from
rooted in human evolutionary history and developed to relevant theories in environmental psychology and how it
adaptive responses to modern society (Ulrich, 1983). The has been defined in architecture by key thinkers. Section 4
evolutionary dependence on ‘nature’ was also expounded identifies the crucial elements of biophilic design in
by social ecologist Stephen Kellert (1993) by identifying contemporary architecture and discusses the potential of
nine values of biophilia: ‘utilitarian, naturalistic, scienti- biophilic design to address the challenges of sustainable
fic, aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, moralistic, domin- architecture. Section 5 presents a biophilic design frame-
ionistic, and negativistic’. The latter point might be a work and illustrates biophilic design strategies, along with
deliberate ‘softening’ of ‘innate’, which prevents bio- the advantages and disadvantages of integrating natural
philia from being restricted to the significance in evolu- elements into buildings. Finally, the article concludes with
tionary psychology (Joye and de Block, 2011). For the lessons learnt from biophilic design and future di-
instance, the loss of biodiversity is the most obvious rections for research on biophilic design.
example that illustrates the ways in which biophilic and
environmental issues are closely related (Wilson, 1993, p. 2. Method
35). Furthermore, Kellert (2008a, p.462) pointed to bio-
philia as ‘the inherent human inclination to affiliate with
2.1. Identification of relevant publications
natural systems and processes, most particularly life and
life-like (e.g. ecosystems) features of the nonhuman
environment’. Since the 1990s, the concerns of the bio- In this review, we adopt diverse searching, screening, and
philia theory have shifted from its initial focus on life or selecting methods. The key terms ‘biophilia’, ‘biophilic
living organisms to exploring the relationship between design’, ‘biophilic architecture’, and ‘biophilic building’ are
humans and the natural environment. used in the initial search for papers (Fig. 2). Three databases
At the beginning of the 21st century, the notion of bio- are considered: Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
philia was developed and adapted within the architectural The general inclusive criteria set to identify relevant publi-
domain, drawing attention to the emotional aspect of cations are: (1) explained the concept or design strategies of
humans’ needs for interactions with the natural environ- biophilic design; (2) discussed within the scope of architec-
ment in the building environment. Biophilic design was ture, especially urban architecture; (3) examined the impacts
proposed to provide some design guidance to satisfy this of biophilic design through empirical or experimental findings;
117
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
(4) related to the goals of sustainability in architecture; and contested notion of ‘nature’ in architecture. Con-
(5) written in English. ceptualisation includes understanding both the features of
For each specific part of the review, search criteria were the concept and the causal mechanisms that link these
developed to select relevant literature. In reviewing the features (Spiteri, 2008). Thus, we begin with a brief review
theoretical basis of biophilic design, we extracted four of the rationale and mechanism of biophilic design. We
relevant concepts (biophilia, habitat and dwelling, resto- then select three representative biophilic design frame-
ration, and place) from previous publications. The selection works (Browning and Ryan, 2020; Kellert, 2008b, 2018) to
here was relatively rigorous, with literature only included if conduct the comparative analysis. These three are the most
the discussion of these concepts was significant to the frequently cited frameworks in the literature and are often
emergence of biophilic design. Other literature on the referenced in building certificates’ assessment criteria. The
development of these four concepts was not selected to comparative analysis ranges from the purposes of the
avoid obscuring the focus on the emergence of biophilic different elaborations, the specific taxonomic approaches
design. In defining the biophilic design, we selected more they adopt, to the elements contained therein. Overlaps,
types of publications (including grey literature) to identify similarities, differences, contradictions, and ambiguities
the key frameworks from a wider range of interpretations. are later discussed concerning the synthesis and adjust-
Additionally, in interconnecting biophilic design and sus- ments of these frameworks.
tainable architecture and elaborating the pros and cons of
different design strategies, the literature review was 2.2.2. Comparative analysis of biophilic design and
extended to other relevant subfields in architecture (e.g. sustainable architecture
materiality, tectonics, mechanical systems, and mobility) This section focuses on what specific challenges in sustainable
to obtain interdisciplinary knowledge. State-of-the-art architecture can be addressed through biophilic designs. We
publications and representative authors were selected explore the concept of sustainable architecture from the 17
wherever possible. SDGs (UN, 2015). Sustainable architecture serves here as a
The snowball method as a supplementary search was ‘lens’ to illuminate how biophilic design contributes to
used to identify publications from the earliest collected achieving the goals of sustainability in architecture. We
literature. Eventually, 141 journal articles, book chapters, aggregate the various benefits of biophilic design discussed in
and key reports were selected for the review, the majority earlier studies and compare them with the challenges in sus-
of which were published between 2010 and January 2021. tainable architecture categorised by the 17 goals. Moreover,
we record the most relevant biophilic design elements in this
2.2. Analysis and synthesis challenge-benefit comparison for the proposed biophilic
design framework. We also discuss the opportunities to
The study of the obtained publications mainly includes: develop solutions with multiple benefits.
Fig. 2 Year and quantity of keyword occurrences (Source: authors. Note: several different keywords appearing in the same
publication were counted several times).
118
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
between people and nature, thereby to producing a ‘posi- spend much energy on attention when interacting with
tive environmental impact’ (Kellert, 2005, p.107). In other nature, it can provide opportunities to restore exhausted
words, biophilic design does not solely focus on reducing attention (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989).
the impacts of the building sectors on the environment
while lacking interaction with ‘nature’ (Berkebile et al., 3.1.4. Place
2008). This concept has received widespread attention in Place attachment theory examines the emotional connec-
the past two decades. Before explaining its key elements tions with places and argues that people tend to stay in
and design strategies in practices, we discuss the emer- more familiar places (Hidalgo and Hernández, 2001). This
gence of the concept of biophilic design. theory further illustrates that connecting to the local nat-
ural environment by incorporating regional features (e.g.
3.1. Origins of biophilic design geomorphology and landscape) in buildings could generate
the ‘sense of place’ and ‘sense of community’, thereby
The concept of biophilic design is built upon, but not realising personal identity, belonging, and cohesion (Manzo,
limited to, the theory of biophilia. Many theories from 2003).
environmental psychology demonstrate that humans’ need Theories from different perspectives support the emer-
for ‘nature’ is due to an instinctive feeling towards natural gence of biophilic design and converge to suggest that
elements. Such theories explain the mechanism through human’s craving for ‘nature’ is deeply ingrained. Although
which physical and mental functions are generated from the urge has evolved from the dependence on ‘nature’ for
contact with ‘nature’ (Joye, 2007; Peters and D’Penna, survival to the preferences for contact with ‘nature’, the
2020; Ryan et al., 2014; Söderlund and Newman, 2015). emotional need for ‘nature’ has been preserved. Never-
These theories provide the theoretical foundation for the theless, not all ‘nature’ is beneficial to humans (Heerwagen
development of biophilic design (Table 1). and Hase, 2001). Different from positive affiliations (bio-
philia), some occurrences of ‘nature’ that have negative
3.1.1. Biophilia psychological effects, such as the fear of snakes, spiders,
Wilson (1984, 1993) understands biophilia, the ‘philia’ the deep sea, and unmeasurable heights, are assigned to
(love) of ‘bio’ (life or living things), as an emotional another emotion, ‘biophobia’ (Ulrich, 1993). It is thus
response, which is ‘innate’, ‘hereditary’, and exists in the essential to discern what kind of ‘nature’ in architecture
genes. Human beings have lived and survived in the natural can provide positive connections, or in brief, what makes
environment for most of evolutionary history. When we up biophilic design.
moved to the modern artificial environment, our depen-
dence on nature for survival in primitive times was retained 3.2. Defining biophilic design
and evolved into seeking connections with nature for
‘personal identity’ (Kellert, 1993). Therefore, the ‘evolu- On the theoretical basis of several environmental psychol-
tionary dependence on nature’ for ‘survival and personal ogy concepts (as outlined in the previous sub-section), the
fulfillment’ forms the basis of biophilia (Kellert, 1993). understanding of the value of contact with ‘nature’ was
translated into the realm of architecture to explain a range
3.1.2. Habitat and dwelling of issues concerning the integration of ‘nature’ in archi-
In evolutionary psychology, the emotional need for ‘nature’ tecture. The concept of biophilic design subsequently
is also explained as inherited affection from the experience emerged. From 2001 on, academics and practitioners
of choosing habitats and building dwellings. It is argued that developed different interpretations of biophilic design
some natural landscapes or spaces were more conducive for (Fig. 3). These interpretations demonstrate different tax-
our ancestors’ survival; thus, some characteristics identi- onomies of ‘nature’ in architecture from categories to el-
fied from these ‘natural’ spaces are also preferred in ements, in which psychologically experienced and
modern architectural spaces (Appleton, 1975; Hildebrand, physiologically perceived ‘nature’ are discussed inclusively.
1999, 2008; Orians and Heerwagen, 1992). By consciously Heerwagen and Hase (2001) were the first to define
arranging these ‘natural’ characteristics, fascinating various features in biophilic architecture. They attributed
nature-like environments can be created. various natural qualities into eight characteristics based on
habitability, natural elements, process, and geometry in
3.1.3. Restoration design, as well as joyfulness and enticement. Their
Within the restoration perspective, both theories concern framework illustrated that ‘nature’ could be con-
enhancing contact with nature for health and well-being; ceptualised differently in architecture, although it was a
however, their different mechanisms lead to distinct ef- tentative work. A few years later, a group of biophilic
fects. Stress recovery theory proposes that contact with proponents co-authored the book Biophilic Design: The
natural features (e.g. vegetations and water) can generate Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life
a quick and positive psychological reaction. Thus, exposure (Kellert et al., 2008). In this book, Kellert (2008b) proposed
to nature could reduce negative emotions and foster re- a more systematic interpretation of biophilic design with
covery from physiological stress and health problems two basic dimensions, six elements, and over seventy at-
(Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991). In comparison, attention tributes. Heerwagen and Gregory (2008) and Hildebrand
restoration theory suggests that the cognitive tasks’ (2008) proposed some perceivable and cognisable attri-
excessive consumption of human attention leads to brain butes/characteristics of ‘natural’ spaces that can be used
fatigue and mental stress, and since we do not need to in spatial layouts to create biophilic buildings. Moreover,
119
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
Cramer and Browning (2008) offered three preliminary The overall purpose of all three frameworks is to help
categories of biophilic building. Drawing on these three designers understand and apply the concept of biophilic
categories, the construction consulting firm Terrapin Bright design in practice, but these frameworks also differ.
Green outlined fourteen patterns of biophilic design Kellert’s (2008b, 2018) interpretations are built upon the
(Browning et al., 2014). Similarly, Kellert and Calabrese biophilia theory and biophilia values drawn from evolu-
(2015) streamlined Kellert’s (2008b) first framework and tionary psychology. In contrast, Browning and Ryan (2020)
proposed a new one that includes twenty-four attributes investigate the human-nature relationships based on bio-
within three categories. Later, these two similar frame- logical responses, ‘psychological, physiological health and
works were further revised and updated by their pro- well-being, and cognitive functionality and performance’
ponents (Browning and Ryan, 2020; Kellert, 2018). Xue (Browning et al., 2014, p. 11). In addition, Kellert’s (2008b)
et al. (2019) recently suggested the connections with ‘na- first framework is introduced as a detailed ‘specification’ of
ture’ from individual (building user health and well-being) biophilic design, in which all-inclusiveness is celebrated.
to societal (public health) perspectives. This shows the developer’s ambition to use this concept as
Among the numerous biophilic design interpretations, an omnipotent elaboration for understanding ‘nature’ in
we chose three representative conceptual frameworks to architecture. However, the focus shifts from the earlier
conduct a comparative analysis (Browning and Ryan, 2020; comprehensive enumeration to a more concise and
Kellert, 2008b, 2018) (Fig. 4). These three frameworks are comprehensible model in the latest frameworks. It is
often used as the conceptual basis to establish criteria demonstrated in two aspects: the framework structure
regarding natural contact/connection in some important adopted (categorisations) and the elements contained and
architectural certificates (e.g. LBC, WELL, and LEED). They categorised.
have also been adopted to investigate biophilic design in In terms of categorisations, key proponents reached a
many other studies (Abdelaal and Soebarto, 2019; Aye consensus recently on providing relatively succinct expla-
et al., 2019; Gillis and Gatersleben, 2015; Park and Lee, nations. Kellert (2008b) initially applied a hierarchical
2019; Peters and D’Penna, 2020). However, few studies structure from the fundamental distinction (dimensions) to
have discussed the taxonomies of ‘nature’ in these frame- subdivisions (elements and attributes) in his framework.
works and examined whether the terminologies are Those that directly, indirectly, or symbolically reflect
appropriate to describe ‘nature’ in architecture more ‘natural’ forms are regarded as ‘organic or naturalistic’
explicitly rather than aggravating the ambiguity. dimensions, while those culturally or ecologically attached
120
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
to geographical areas are classified as ‘place-based or water’; ‘weather’, and ‘changes, ages, and the patina of
vernacular’ dimensions (Kellert, 2008b). However, this hi- the time’ are depicted as ‘connection with natural sys-
erarchical taxonomy sometimes causes vagueness, as the tems’; natural ‘shapes and forms’ and ‘natural geometrics’
linkage between the basic two ‘dimensions’ and the sub- are suggested as ‘biomorphic forms and patterns’; and
sequent categorised ‘elements’ and ‘attributes’ was not natural ‘materials’ are termed as ‘material connection with
expounded by Kellert. Thus, he adjusted the three-level nature’. Additionally, they agree that nature can be expe-
taxonomy to two-level by synthesising previous divided rienced psychologically through deliberate spatial ar-
‘dimensions’ and ‘elements’ into three ‘experiences’: (1) rangements, such as setting ‘prospect’, ‘refuge’,
‘direct experience of nature’, to ‘contact with basic fea- ‘complexity and order’, or ‘organised complex’ (Browning
tures and characteristics of the natural environment’; (2) and Ryan, 2020; Kellert, 2018).
‘indirect experience of nature’, to ‘convert empirical and Divergences can also be witnessed in the specific el-
objective reality into symbolic and metaphorical forms ements argued by different authors. Kellert (2018) sug-
through projecting thoughts, images, and feelings’; and (3) gests ‘animals’ and ‘plants’ as two key elements
‘experience of space and place’, to ‘the spatial setting’, to individually because love for ‘living organisms’ is the core
consider ‘how people manage and organise their environ- of biophilia theory, and he includes ‘fire’, as it is
mental circumstances’ (Kellert, 2018, pp. 24e25). Simi- believed to play an important role in human survival.
larly, Browning and Ryan (2020) divided various physical, Further, Kellert (2018) discusses ‘boundary’, ‘transitional
metaphorical/representational nature and the emotional spaces’, and ‘mobility’ in exploring place-based re-
reactions of nature into three categories: ‘nature in the lationships with nature. In Browning and Ryan’s (2020)
space’, ‘natural analogues’, and ‘nature of the space’. framework, a unique pattern, ‘non-rhythmic sensory
Nevertheless, ambiguities remain within the two recent stimuli’, is interpreted as the ‘stochastic and ephemeral
frameworks. For instance, Kellert’s (2018) ‘experience of connection with nature that may be analysed statistically
space and place’ is hard to understand terminologically but may not be predicted precisely’, like birds’ occa-
regarding how it relates to contact with nature. This type sional stopover. They also contain the emotional experi-
includes a range of spatial characteristics of nature ences of spaces, like ‘mystery’, ‘risk/peril’, and one
described as ‘sensory aesthetic’ or ‘survival-advantageous’ particular pattern, ‘awe’, explained as ‘stimuli including
(Heerwagen and Gregory, 2008; Hildebrand, 2008), as well other biophilic patterns that defy an existing frame of
as the requirement for a sense of belonging in Place reference and lead to a change in perception’ (Browning
Attachment Theory (Manzo, 2003). Producing these effects and Ryan, 2020, p. 5).
(pleasurable experiences) requires specific arrangements Previous frameworks extend/simplify, corroborate, cor-
rather than the mere experience of the common spaces and rect, or refine each other. However, we recognize some
places. A more explicit expression is therefore needed problems that may make this interpretation intricate and
here. Moreover, in Browning and Ryan’s (2020) framework, obscure. The first is the overlaps between the elements
two of the three patterns under the category of ‘natural caused by the dichotomous expression. In the 15 patterns
analogues’ can likewise be grouped into the other two (Browning and Ryan, 2020), ‘visual connection with nature’
categories. ‘Material connection with nature’ as a physical and ‘non-visual connection with nature’ are independent,
type can be attributed to ‘nature in the space’, and while the other 13 are also largely covered by the visual or
‘complexity and order’ as a feature or quality can be non-visual patterns. Moreover, repetitions exist in Kellert’s
assigned to ‘nature of the space’. (2008b, 2018) classifications, such as the overlap between
For these categories, Kellert (2008b, 2018) tends to ‘sensory variability’ and the elements that deliver multi-
classify diverse nature according to characteristics (con- sensory experiences (e.g. water, plants, and weather), and
crete, simulated, emotional, or others) and refers to them the overlap between ‘information richness’ overlap and
as ‘attributes’. While Browning and Ryan (2020) elaborate those that represent complex forms (e.g. natural geometries
on the functional role of nature in architectural design, and organised complexity). Furthermore, according to the
they thus apply a ‘pattern’ language derived from an original definition, only those that generate ‘positive envi-
architectural theory book, A Pattern Language (Alexander ronmental impacts’ and enhance ‘people’s physical and
et al., 1977). Although different authors adopt diverse mental health, productivity and wellbeing’ are subsumed
terms, some similar elements are included. For example, under biophilic design (Kellert, 2008b, p. 3). However, ‘fire’
‘light’, ‘air’ and ‘water’ are similar to ‘dynamic and diffuse is commonly displayed through metaphorical or symbolic
light’, ‘thermal and airflow variability’ and ‘presence of manners in contemporary architecture to avoid fire risk,
121
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
Fig. 4 Three key frameworks of biophilic design (Source: authors, adapted from Browning and Ryan, 2020; Kellert, 2018, 2008b).
especially in high-rises. ‘Non-rhythmic sensory stimuli’ are Since the 1990s, the concept of sustainability has been
often accompanied by the uncertainty of forming unstable widely discussed and explored in the architectural realm.
psychological responses and distractions. As such, these el- Confronting various environmental crises such as resource
ements do not meet the criteria for biophilic design. scarcity, climate change, and sick building syndrome (Guy
Hence, to narrow the overlaps of the existing biophilic and Moore, 2005), distinct sustainable approaches have
design frameworks and screen out more vital elements in been explored, ranging for example from applying energy-
contemporary urban architecture, we analyse the benefits efficient, high-tech, low-tech and vernacular strategies;
of biophilic design in mitigating the challenges of sustain- analogizing nature and natural systems for design inspira-
ability in architecture. tion; or adopting intelligent, responsive, renewable, recy-
clable and biodegradable materials. These diverse concerns
4. Biophilic design for sustainable architecture and design approaches defy simple classifications of sus-
tainable architecture, and their ‘plurality’ has been praised
(Guy and Moore, 2007).
This section connects biophilic design with sustainable ar-
Today, ‘sustainability’ is still considered a contested and
chitecture. Various challenges of sustainable architecture
ambiguous concept. Schröder (2018) confirms that ‘hetero-
are identified to reflect different design goals, and the
geneity, complexity, conflicts of aims, and controversies are
benefits of biophilic design are reviewed to investigate the
normal’. He suggests exploring what architects, engineers,
effective design elements. In comparing diverse challenges
and clients do with the concept of sustainability in practice
and rich benefits, the correlation between biophilic design
through the framework of translation, ‘which challenges of
elements and the sustainable goals of architecture is
sustainability they recognize and how in response to these
revealed.
122
Table 2 Benefits of biophilic design in addressing the challenges of sustainable architecture.
The 17 SDGs Challenges in Sustainable Architecture Benefits of Biophilic design Most Relevant Biophilic
Design Elements
* 1. No Poverty - Affordability of housing - Reduce energy and construction material costs Air
(Lerner and Stopka, 2016) Daylight
Plants
Materials, texture, and
colour
* 2. Zero Hunger - Food supply - Enable food production (Söderlund, 2019, p.200) Plants
*** 3. Good Health and Well-Being - Healthy and comfortable indoor environment - Reduce air pollution and optimise air quality Air
- Non-toxic substances and environment (Aydogan and Cerone, 2020) Daylight
- Obstruct disease transmission and bacterial - Optimise thermal comfort (Africa et al., 2019; Plants
Communities ience of cities and settlements (Littke, 2016; Simpson and Parker, 2018) Air
- Affordability, accessibility, mobility, and - Decrease violence and crime (Söderlund and Daylight
health of houses and infrastructure Newman, 2017) Plants
Landscape
Weather
Connection to place
** 12. Responsible Consumption - Durability and life cycles of the building - Increase lifespan (Kabisch et al., 2017) Plants
and Production - Proper use of local materials - Strengthen the use of indigenous materials and Materials, texture, and
native plant varieties (Kellert, 2018) colour
Connection to place
*** 13. Climate Action - Climatic comfort with minimum energy - Reduce energy consumption through vegetative Water
consumption climatic effects (Hoelscher et al., 2016; Sheweka Air
- Resilient to changing conditions (e.g. and Mohamed, 2012) Daylight
extreme rainfall, floods, hurricanes, drought, - Reduce the urban heat island effect (Koc et al., Plants
and heatwaves) 2017; Kabisch et al., 2017) Landscape
- Sensitivity to local culture, topographic, and - Attenuate noise (Rowe, 2011) Weather
climatic conditions - Enhance wind protection (Sheweka and Mohamed, Connection to place
- Climate adaptation solutions with co-benefits 2012)
- Sensitive to local topography and climate (Beatley
and Newman, 2013)
* 14. Life below Water - Low-cost water management - Reduce water pollution (Rowe, 2011; Söderlund and Water
- Regeneration of polluted land close to the Newman, 2015) Plants
sea Animals
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
elements
Animals
Plants
sustainable architecture.
To overcome the fuzzy notion of sustainable architec-
work together (Jones, 2016)
et al., 2016)
**
*
125
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
Goal 14 Life Below Water, and more. Although biophilic framework, we elaborate upon the existing frameworks by
design has limited effects in pursuing these goals, the using taxonomy curation methods such as corrections/
exploration of indirect benefits provides additional insights renaming, additions/exclusions, and overall revisions and
for understanding the notion of sustainable architecture. editing (Sancho-Chavarria et al., 2020). We interpret design
The benefits could be measurable, not directly measur- approaches and elements to make the concept of biophilic
able, quantifiable, unquantifiable, tangible, and intangible. design more tangible for architects and other design pro-
Many of these benefits are interrelated, although they are fessionals. We carefully extract the most important bio-
discussed from different standpoints. For instance, the philic design elements from the various identified types of
proper use of indigenous natural materials cannot only ‘nature’: direct or indirect, tangible or intangible,
reduce construction costs to reduce poverty (Goal 1) but morphological or material, and many others. Those that
also contribute to the recycling of materials for more might cause excessive uncertainty and controversy in terms
responsible consumption (Goal 12). Reducing air pollution of effectiveness and those that rarely appear in contem-
provides environmental benefits and is also related to porary urban architecture are rejected. Although it is
optimising indoor air quality in health. Additionally, from impossible to eliminate overlaps and repetition, we modify
the challenge-benefit analysis, some priorities (e.g. air, the contained elements terminologically. Terms that are
daylight, plants, and landscape) in biophilic design are relatively parallel in characters are used in each category.
uncovered in achieving multiple sustainable goals. Facing It should be acknowledged that this framework is a pre-
climate change, we need to explore more solutions with co- liminary interpretation of biophilic design. Further trans-
benefits for sustainable architecture (Barron et al., 2019; formations are necessary to materialise the concept of
Mossin et al., 2018). Therefore, more qualitative and biophilic design into practices. Thus, architectural design
quantitative research is required to identify biophilic issues such as form, typology, scale, proportion, tectonics,
design strategies and guidelines in developing efficient so- and technology should be investigated in future studies. The
lutions and support the enactment of criteria. next sub-section presents some design strategies that can be
used to apply diverse biophilic designs in architecture.
5. Biophilic design approaches and elements
5.2. Biophilic design strategies and examples
5.1. A biophilic design framework
Proponents of biophilic design have suggested many design
strategies, priorities, and considerations. Some of these
This study introduces an optimised biophilic design frame-
were discussed at different scales in cities (Beatley and
work to support the integration of ‘nature’ into architec-
Newman, 2013; Salingaros and Madsen, 2008; Wilson,
ture in the pursuit of sustainability. The framework consists
2008). Some concerned indoor environments (McGee and
of three essential design approaches and covers eighteen
Marshall-Baker, 2015) or specific buildings (Lee and Park,
key elements (Fig. 5). In organising the new biophilic design
2018; Peters and D’Penna, 2020). Some were extracted
Fig. 5 Biophilic design framework: three design approaches and primary elements (Source: authors).
126
Table 3 Biophilic design strategies and the positive and negative effects of each element (BDEs: Biophilic Design Elements).
BDEs Design Strategies Strengths & Opportunities Weaknesses & Threats Examples
Water Build waterscapes such as foun- - Create multiple sensory experi- - High-volume and large-turbulence
tains, constructed wetlands, ences of water, and diverse water that affects acoustic quality
ponds, water walls, rainwater water configuration and and humidity
spouts, aquaria, etc. appearance - Negative (biophobic) emotional re-
Access to natural water features - Expand the water area sponses (e.g. fear of deep water)
such as waterfalls, rivers, - Prioritise fluctuating water over - Artificial water features may in-
streams, stagnant water crease energy consumption
oceans, etc.
(Browning et al., 2014; Hunter (Browning et al., 2014; Ulrich,
(Browning et al., 2014; Kellert, et al., 2010; White et al., 2010) 1993) Apple’s Piazza Liberty Store, Milan
(Browning et al., 2014; Gou (Browning et al., 2014; Nicol and Shi et al., (2018)
et al., 2014; Kellert, 2018) Humphreys, 2002) Mountain Restaurant & Bar, Zunyi
(China), by ZJJZ Atelier, built in 2018
Daylight Bring in natural light via glass - Dynamic lights and shadows form - Glares and spilling light interfere
walls, clerestories, skylights, transitions between indoor and with visual performance, and
atria, reflective colours/mate- outdoor spaces, which are intense dynamics might be
rials, etc. fascinating distracting
Mimic the spectral and ambient - High-contrast lights bring atten- - Could lead to overheating and
qualities of natural light, such as tion and evoke a sense of decreased building performance
by arranging multiple low-glare sacredness
electric light sources, ambient - Support productivity and boost (Browning et al., 2014; Cramer and
diffused lighting on walls/ retail sales Browning, 2008)
ceiling, and daylight preserving Institut du Monde Arabe, Paris
window treatments (Aries et al., 2015; Browning (France), by Ateliers Jean Nouvel,
et al., 2014; Cramer and built in 1987
(Browning et al., 2014; Kellert, Browning, 2008; Hähn et al.,
2018) 2020; Hraska, 2015; Lotfabadi
et al., 2016; McGee and
Marshall-Baker, 2015;
Söderlund, 2019, p. 152; Yoon
and Lim, 2020)
(continued on next page)
Table 3 (continued )
BDEs Design Strategies Strengths & Opportunities Weaknesses & Threats Examples
Plants Bring vegetation indoors by - Increase green space coverage, - Could cause structural problems,
potting plants and indoor green native plants ratio, and excessive humidity, insect trouble,
walls biodiversity odour issues, etc.
Incorporate plants into buildings - Improve shading/sheltering abil- - Single plants and isolated gardens
by using green roofs, green walls ity and reduce building energy have limited impacts
and facades, large atria with consumption - Highly artificial designs require
park-like settings, green - Edible plants promote food pro- intensive energy and maintenance
pockets, etc. duction for urban farming
- Provide accessible green spaces (Barton and Pretty, 2010; Kellert,
(Chang and Chen, 2005; Kellert, and support physical exercise 2018; Maes et al., 2016; Oldfield Museé du Quai Branly, Paris (France),
2018) - Provide visual connections with et al., 2015; Revell and Anda, 2014) by Patrick Blanc, built in 2004
green spaces for restoration,
stress reduction, productivity,
and positive mood
- Reduce air pollution and opti-
Animals Create spaces to accommodate - Increase biodiversity and enrich - Contact with some specific animals
animals, such as ponds, aquar- local species (e.g. snakes and spiders) or the
iums, etc. - Form an ecosystem with inter- sight of dead animals may cause
Build animal-friendly living connected plants, soil, water, negative (biophobic) emotions
areas to attract animals like and geological features
nest boxes, gardens, green Ulrich (1993)
roofs/walls, etc. (Kellert, 2018; Maes et al., 2016)
Kellert (2018)
Mellor Primary School, Stockport
(UK), by Sarah Wigglesworth
Architects, built in 2015
Landscape Build landscapes in the sites - Enhance coherent and ecologi- - Contrived superficial decorations,
such as constructed wetlands, cally connected landscapes isolated, exotic plant configurations
grasslands, prairies, forests, and - Optimise the natural landscape, - Lack of participation and immersion
other habitats and minimise management - Lack of shelter and inappropriate
Create interior landscapes in requirements distance and height to view the
atria, courtyards, entry areas, landscape
hallways, etc. (Hwang and Yue, 2015; Kellert,
Provide window views of natural 2018) Kellert (2018)
landscapes like forests, sea-
scapes and water motifs Chichu Art Museum, Naoshima island
(Japan), by Tadao Ando, built in 2004
(Kellert, 2018; Schweitzer et al.,
2004; Xue et al., 2019)
Weather Enhance exposure to weather - Allow visual access to weather - Extreme weather conditions and
through operable windows, (more cost-effective) and climate change are not beneficial to
porches, balconies, terraces, physical experiences to perceive human health and comfort
courtyards, etc. weather
Enhance awareness of meteoro- - Optimise window views Coren and Safer (2020)
logical conditions by using - Adopt permeable surfaces for
transparent roofs, rainwater stormwater management
collectors and spouts, etc. - Integrate rainwater treatment
Simulate the experience of systems into landscape design
weather, like sunlight, airflow, Sun Rain Rooms, London (UK), by
humidity, temperature, and (Beatley, 2011; Browning et al., Tonkin Liu Architects, built in 2017
barometric pressure 2014; Vanuytrecht et al., 2014;
mimetic or Biomimicry), such as ergy consumption system and further endanger the
termites and spiders inspired the - Improve the efficiency of build- whole larger ecosystem
efficiency of climatic controls ing resources and the ability to - Focus on imitation of external form
and the structural strength of self-compensate and regulate and silhouette, but neglect econ-
building materials. - Innovate building shape and omy and feasibility in structure and
structural design (e.g., large construction (Yuan et al., 2017)
(Kellert, 2018; Yuan et al., 2017) span structure, thin shell struc-
ture, or membrane structure, Beijing National Aquatics Center,
etc.) Beijing (China), by PTW Architects,
- Improve the durability of the CSCEC, CCDI and Arup,built in 2007
building (Kellert, 2018; Yuan
et al., 2017)
Images Present natural scenes, plants, - Provide opportunities to connect - May be less effective than viewing
animals, water, landscapes, or with nature in special enclosed real natural scenes
geological features in paintings, environments (e.g. radiation - Some images produce undesirable
photographs, videos, and rooms in hospitals) effects (e.g., barren/degraded na-
fabrics. - Generate positive distractions to ture or themeless, isolated, random
Natural images should include a release anxiety, fear, and stress elements)
rich variety of species, land- - Evoke a sense of nature- - Influenced by personal preference
scapes, or human survival expe- connected for natural image types
riences in nature.
Erasmus MC Hospital, Rotterdam
(Browning et al., 2014; Kellert, (Berman et al., 2008; Kellert, (Browning et al., 2014; de Groot (Netherlands), by EGM architects,
2018) 2018; McGee and Marshall- and van den Born, 2003; Kellert, built in 2018
Baker, 2015; Ulrich, 1981; 2018)
Vaughan and Ostwald, 2010; Yin
et al., 2020)
Materials, Adopt natural materials like - Arouse the impression of natural - The effectiveness of the colour
Texture, and wood, bamboo, rock, stone, variability by using different (green) design in real environments
Colour clay, etc. materials and colours is uncertain
Consider textures beyond mate- - Allow rough and unfinished - Excessively bright or high-contrast
rials, such as light, colour, and textured surfaces colours produce pressure effects,
sound - Replace steel, concrete, etc. as and some colours (e.g., rotting
Use natural colours such as blue, building materials in reducing brown) generate negative
Connection to Provide views of prominent - Establish connections through - Misunderstanding of culture and
Place landmarks, landscapes, water- various dimensions (e.g., cul- context can lead to inappropriate
scapes, geological forms, etc. ture, history, geography, and information or abuse
Use indigenous materials and ecology) - A sense of loss may be evoked when
native plant varieties - Generate a ‘sense of place’ and the designs change negatively or are
Apply landscape features to satisfy preferences for familiar demolished
define building forms or dedi- places (place attachment)
cated landscape design such as - Evoke a sense of belonging and (Liu et al., 2018; Mazumdar, 1995)
Savanna-like environments support self-identity by
integrating parts into the whole Ningbo Historic Museum, Ningbo
(Kellert, 2008b, 2018) (nature bonding) (China), by Amateur Architecture
- Support relaxation and psycho- Studio, built in 2008
logical comfort and security
paths or ramps
Lim, 2020)
133
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
natural elements in architecture into three types based on others. Indirect responses include, such as enabling urban
different design ‘patterns’ or nature ‘attributes’. Still, farming for food production (zero hunger), offering
uncertainties, controversies, and overlaps remain in previ- accessible and public green or blue spaces, and improving
ous taxonomies. For example, vague terms like ‘informa- the accessibility of public infrastructures (reduced in-
tion richness’ and ‘non-rhythmic sensory’ are used; binary equalities). Some design elements like air, daylight,
taxonomies like ‘visual connection with nature’ and ‘non- plants, and landscape can be used to address multiple
visual connection with nature’ are adopted; and some challenges. Thus, consistent with the findings of previous
detailed elements are placed alongside collective design studies (Sharifi and Sabernejad, 2016), we agree that
methods in the same group, such as ‘images’, ‘colour’, biophilic design may help achieve the goals of sustainable
‘materials’, and ‘biomimicry’ (including design methods architecture, as biophilic elements could be developed as
inspired by nature) (Browning and Ryan, 2020; Kellert, nature-based solutions with co-benefits especially for
2018). Therefore, we synthesised the previous framework, enhancing health and well-being and combating climate
identified the key elements, and made terminological ad- change.
justments. We introduced three biophilic design ap- ‘Natural’ designs are double-edged swords that become
proaches (nature incorporation, nature inspiration, and ‘risk, danger, and side-effects’ (Beck, 1999, p.19). How-
nature interaction) and eighteen primary elements selec- ever, the negative aspects of incorporating nature into
tively in a new framework. buildings have rarely been discussed in previous publica-
The biophilic design framework encompasses distinct tions. Bringing nature into architecture involves careful
but interrelated elements. First, the boundaries between planning and maintenance. For example, plants may cause
different biophilic design categories are fluid, and the structural problems, excessive humidity, insect troubles,
elements are often interdependent. In order to integrate and odour issues, or they may simply die, and highly arti-
plants into buildings, we also need to consider water, air, ficial ‘green’ designs require intensive energy use and
sunlight, animals, weather, and seasons to support vege- maintenance (Barton and Pretty, 2010; Maes et al., 2016;
tative life; regularly trim plants to ensure their growth; Oldfield et al., 2015). We therefore specify the advantages
create refuge spaces by tree canopies; use indigenous (strength and opportunities) and disadvantages (weak-
plant species to connect to the local environment; care- nesses and threats) of these natural elements in buildings in
fully design transitional spaces between the indoors and biophilic design strategies.
outdoors to prevent disconnections with the whole The successful and effective practices of biophilic
ecosystem; and many others. Second, biophilic design design involves many crucial factors. Design solutions
encourages the combination of different approaches and should consider specific user groups. For example, in hos-
elements. As many similar green roofs and walls have pitals, the requirements of distinct groups such as medical
recently been constructed, a phenomenon of ‘universal- workers, patients, and patients’ family members should be
isation’ has emerged in the greening tendency of sus- inclusively considered. Age and gender should also be used
tainable buildings. The mixture of diverse biophilic as design considerations. Similar to the design of learning
elements enriches creativity and helps resist such uni- environments, different concerns should be given for
versalisation in sustainable architecture. In BREEAM-NL, children and university students. Gender should also be
buildings including more biophilic design patterns have a considered, as women may have stronger psychological
better chance of being marked as ‘exemplary’ rather than responses to plants than men (Grinde and Patil, 2009).
‘standard’ performance. Furthermore, biophilic design is Furthermore, exposure time to ‘nature’ and contact fre-
not simply the expression of natural elements. Some is- quency should be quantified and weighed in design.
sues, such as whether larger-scale/volume three-dimen- Spending at least 120 min a week in urban green spaces
sional green spaces can boost performance and improve improves people’s health and well-being (White et al.,
building quality, are largely overlooked. Investigations 2019), while the 40-s viewing of green roofs produces
into the correlation between quantity and quality can micro-breaks that can restore attention (Lee et al., 2015).
help understand more complex design typologies and Quantitating scale is another important consideration.
improve building quality. Single or isolated plants have limited effects (Kellert,
Biophilic design has the potential to contribute to 2018), while huge quantities of greening may also
sustainability in architecture in many ways. In comparing become a burden due to additional building materials,
the specific challenges of sustainable buildings with structural requirements, and maintenance budgets.
various benefits of biophilic design, we have revealed that
most of the benefits of biophilic design directly or indi- 6.2. Evaluation of biophilic architecture
rectly address these challenges. Direct responses include,
for example, decreasing the urban heat island effect Biophilic design should not be limited to promising ideas
(climate action), providing habitats for plants and animals without scientific substantiation; such ideas need to be
and improving biodiversity (life on land), reducing air evaluated and quantified. However, the quantitative eval-
pollution, optimising air quality, optimising thermal uation of biophilic architecture is a significant challenge
comfort, and utilising non-toxic substances for healthy (Ryan et al., 2014). On the one hand, many relatively
indoor environments (good health and well-being), among subjective factors are difficult to measure. On the other
134
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
hand, biophilic design is a relatively new topic and lacks architectural perspectives by considering tectonics, form,
quantitative studies. Although the focus of this study is not technology, and representation. For instance, how biophilic
to develop assessment criteria, identifying quantitative design enriches architectural forms? How should biophilic
indices could help architecture specialists become further design be explained typologically? How does it enhance
involved in biophilic design. Some indices are listed here for spatial organisation and order? How does it relate to the
consideration: water area size, humidity level, noise level, site and the context? The biophilic design framework still
air ventilation rate, air supply rate, CO2 level, tempera- lacks explicit design strategies and guidelines to translate
ture, daylight factor, daylight autonomy, plant and animal these approaches or elements into architectural design, as
species numbers (biodiversity level), accessible green only general strategies and considerations of biophilic
space area and rate, viewable green space area and rate, design can be derived from the existing literature. In
tree canopy scale, indoor plant size and density, natural addition, it is crucial to identify design targets or desired
material type and quantity, colour brightness and contrast, responses (Browning et al., 2014). Biophilic design guide-
focal lengths in prospect, and fractal dimension in lines require more interdisciplinary knowledge to link
complexity. design strategies and benefits. Other themes, such as the
However, quantitative analyses have limitations; many collaboration between distinct professions (Aye et al.,
factors related to environmental psychology, such as the 2019) and the discussion of financial matters (Littke,
sense of belonging, the fulfilment of personal identity, and 2016), remain in design considerations. Building technol-
the satisfaction of aesthetic preferences, are difficult to ogy is also essential to the materialisation of biophilic ar-
quantify. Both qualitative and quantitative indices are chitecture. Further investigations should focus on not only
provided in the evaluation criteria of some building certif- how to construct such buildings but also how to reduce or
icates (see Appendix). Within the broad range of biophilic address their defects. Another question concerns validating
design, the indices developed rarely exceed the physical the effectiveness of biophilic design, especially for un-
natural elements like water and green spaces. Therefore, measurable benefits without concrete metrics. Thus,
to establish a scientific evaluation system for biophilic further qualitative and quantitative research is necessary
design, investigations of architectural themes such as ty- to evaluate the performance of biophilic buildings.
pology, form, scale, composition, order, tectonics, and Furthermore, as integrating nature into buildings
technology should be extended. (‘greening’ of architecture) becomes a marketing tool, the
In addition, as discussed, the integration of ‘nature’ in crucial factors of biophilic design must be examined and
architecture is not a recent occurrence. The biophilic given critical attention.
design framework suggested in this study, which encom- In conclusion, this study explicates the distinct fea-
passes a wide variety of design approaches and elements, tures, design approaches, and elements of ‘nature’ in
provides a method for re-examining and re-evaluating how conceiving biophilic architecture and bridges the benefits
‘nature’ was (consciously) embedded into many compelling of biophilic design and specific challenges of sustainable
designs before the emergence of biophilic design. ‘Bio- architecture. The biophilic design framework embraces a
philia’ is a quality that is also present in historical archi- wide variety of ‘natural’ design, from physical, sensory,
tecture (Ramzy, 2015a). Though such structures may not metaphorical, morphological, material to spiritual expe-
have been designed with the concept of biophilia in mind, riences. Some elements (e.g. air, daylight, plants, and
they still show the architects’ concerns and endeavours to landscape) present opportunities to develop design stra-
connect with nature. For instance, the Japanese Zen Gar- tegies with multiple benefits, especially for enhancing
den in Ryo an-Ji is a good illustration of traditional archi- health and well-being, productivity, biodiversity, circu-
tecture that coexists with nature through metaphorical larity, and resilience. A comprehensive understanding of
natural landscapes; the Humble Administrator’s Garden in biophilic design can help to enrich creativity and organise
China mimics the richness information of nature through spatial experiences, which contributes to design innova-
different combinations of stones, plants, architecture, and tion and enhances building quality in the pursuit of sus-
water; the Saint Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow recalls natural tainable architecture.
shapes and forms; and the Milan Cathedral is an example of
the incorporation of natural patterns and geometries.
Moreover, prominent biophilic designs can be seen in
modern architecture such as the Great Workroom of the
Declaration of competing interest
Johnson Wax Headquarters (designed in 1936) and the
Sydney Opera House (designed in 1957). The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
6.3. Future research appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
As biophilic design has been applied in architecture for only Appendix. Biophilic design in building
20 years, many unanswered questions remain. The concept certification systems
of biophilic design provides many inspirations for archi-
tectural design, but architectural language (e.g. typology,
order, and context) is rarely used to interpret biophilic
buildings. Future research should analyse cases from
135
Building Published Year Qualitative Evaluation of Biophilic Design Quantitative Evaluation of Biophilic Design Sources
Standards
WELL V2 2020 Mind - Biophilia I Qualitative: Mind - Biophilia II Quantitative: https://standard.wellcertified.
com/mind/biophilia-ii-
1. Nature Incorporation (environmental el- 1. Outdoor Biophilia (25 % of the site area with quantitative
ements, lighting, space layout) landscaped grounds or rooftop gardens, and
2. Pattern Incorporation (nature’s patterns 70 % plantings including tree canopies)
throughout the design) 2. Indoor Biophilia (potted plants or planted
3. Nature Interaction (within the building, beds > 1 % of floor area per floor, and covering
within the project boundary, external to a wall area 2 % of the floor area)
the building) 3. Water Feature (at least one water feature for
every 9290 m2 [100,000 ft2] in projects larger
than 9290 m2 [100,000 ft2], each one >1.8m in
BREEAM-NL 2020 Health - HEA 10 Biophilic Design: Health - HEA 10 Biophilic Design (standard): https://richtlijn.breeam.nl/
V1.0 (NC) Browning et al.‘s 14 patterns of biophilic From Browning et al.‘s 3 categories and 14 credit/biophilic-design-1092
design in 3 categories: patterns of biophilic design
136
GM (NRB and RB) 2015, 2016 NRB 2015 4.2c Wellbeing - (i) Biophilic NRB 2015 4.2c Wellbeing - (i) Biophilic Design: https://www.bca.gov.sg/
Design: Greenmark/others/Green_Mark_
3. 5 % of the common areas or functional spaces NRB_2015_Criteria.pdf
1. Accessible sky gardens, sky terraces, in- fix indoor planting https://www.bca.gov.sg/
ternal courtyards and rooftop gardens as 5. Images of nature for 5 % of common areas GreenMark/others/GM_RB_2016_
areas criteria_final.pdf
2. Biomimicry designs
4. Natural shapes and forms, or ecological
attachment to the place
RB 2016 4.02 c Wellbeing - (i) Biophilic
Design:
References Berman, M.G., Jonides, J., Kaplan, S., 2008. The cognitive benefits
of interacting with nature. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1207e1212.
Berto, R., Barbiero, G., 2017. The biophilic quality index. A tool to
Abboushi, B., Elzeyadi, I., Taylor, R., Sereno, M., 2019. Fractals in
improve a building from “green” to restorative. Visions Sustain
architecture: the visual interest, preference, and mood
8, 38e45.
response to projected fractal light patterns in interior spaces.
Bloomer, K., 2008. The picture window: the problem of viewing
J. Environ. Psychol. 61, 57e70.
nature through glass. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science
Abdelaal, M.S., 2019. Biophilic campus: an emerging planning
and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 253e262.
approach for a sustainable innovation-conducive university. J.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Brotherton, M.C., 2019. Nature
Clean. Prod. 215, 1445e1456.
connectedness and environmental management in natural re-
Abdelaal, M.S., Soebarto, V., 2019. Biophilia and Salutogenesis as
sources companies: an exploratory study. J. Clean. Prod. 206,
restorative design approaches in healthcare architecture. Ar-
227e237.
chitect. Sci. Rev. 62, 195e205.
Browning, W., Ryan, C., Clancy, J., 2014. 14 Patterns of Biophilic
Africa, J., Heerwagen, J., Loftness, V., Ryan Balagtas, C., 2019.
Design: Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment.
Biophilic design and climate change: performance parameters
Terrapin Bright Green,LLC., New York.
for health. Front. Built Environ. 5, 28.
Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., 2020. What is biophilia and what does
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-
it mean for buildings and spaces? Nature Inside: A Biophilic
King, I., Shlomo, A., 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Build-
Design Guide. RIBA Publishing, pp. 1e5.
ings, Construction. Oxford University Press.
Burls, A., 2007. People and green spaces: promoting public health
Almusaed, A., 2011. Biophilic and Bioclimatic Architecture:
and mental well-being through ecotherapy. J. Publ. Ment.
Analytical Therapy for the Next Generation of Passive Sustain-
Health 6, 24e39.
able Architecture. Springer Science & Business Media.
Chang, C.Y., Chen, P.K., 2005. Human response to window views
Almusaed, A., Almssad, A., Abdushaik, Z.K., Khalil, S., 2006. Bio-
and indoor plants in the workplace. Hortscience 40, 1354e1359.
philic architecture, the concept of healthy sustainable archi-
Church, S.P., 2015. Exploring Green Streets and rain gardens as
tecture. PLEA 2006 - 23rd Int. Conf. Passiv. Low Energy Archit.
instances of small scale nature and environmental learning
Conf. Proc. 6e8.
tools. Landsc. Urban Plann. 134, 229e240.
Alvaro, C., Wilkinson, A.J., Gallant, S.N., Kostovski, D.,
Colding, J., Giusti, M., Haga, A., Wallhagen, M., Barthel, S., 2020.
Gardner, P., 2016. Evaluating intention and effect: the impact
Enabling relationships with nature in cities. Sustain 12, 1e16.
of healthcare facility design on patient and staff well-being.
Coren, E., Safer, D.L., 2020. Solutions stories: an innovative
Heal. Environ. Res. Des. J. 9, 82e104.
strategy for managing negative physical and mental health im-
Appleton, J., 1975. The Experience of Landscape. John Wiley &
pacts from extreme weather events. In: Leal Filho, W.,
Sons.
Nagy, G.J., Borga, M., Chávez Muñoz, P.D., Magnuszewski, A.
Aries, M.B.C., Aarts, M.P.J., Van Hoof, J., 2015. Daylight and
(Eds.), Climate Change, Hazards and Adaptation Options:
health: a review of the evidence and consequences for the built
Handling the Impacts of a Changing Climate. Springer Interna-
environment. Light. Res. Technol. 47, 6e27.
tional Publishing, Cham, pp. 441e462.
Aydogan, A., Cerone, R., 2020. Review of the effects of plants on
Cramer, J.S., Browning, W.D., 2008. Transforming building prac-
indoor environments. Indoor Built Environ. 30, 442e460.
tices through biophilic design. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory,
Aye, E., Hackett, D., Pozzuoli, C., 2019. The intersection of bio-
Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 335e346.
philia and engineering in creating sustainable, healthy and
Dahanayake, K.C., Chow, C.L., 2019. Passive energy performance
structurally sound built environments. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
of vertical greenery systems (VGS) under. Different Climatic
217, 663e673.
Conditions 131, 228e237.
Barron, S., Nitoslawski, S., Wolf, K.L., Woo, A., Desautels, E.,
Dosen, A.S., Ostwald, M.J., 2016. Evidence for prospect-refuge
Sheppard, S.R.J., 2019. Greening blocks: a conceptual typology
theory: a meta-analysis of the findings of environmental pref-
of practical design interventions to integrate health and climate
erence research. City, Territ. Archit. 3, 1e14.
resilience co-benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 (21),
de Groot, W.T., van den Born, R.J.G., 2003. Visions of nature and
4241.
landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands.
Barton, J., Pretty, J., 2010. What is the best dose of nature and
Landsc. Urban Plann. 63, 127e138.
green exercise for improving mental health- A multi-study
Dosen, A.S., Ostwald, M.J., 2013. Prospect and refuge theory:
analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3947e3955.
constructing a critical definition for architecture and design.
Beatley, T., 2011. Biophilic Cities. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Int. J. Des. Soc. 6, 9e23.
Beatley, T., 2017. Biophilic cities and healthy societies. Urban Plan
El-Darwish, I.I., 2019. Fractal design in streetscape: rethinking the
2, 1e4.
visual aesthetics of building elevation composition. Alexandria
Beatley, T., Newman, P., 2013. Biophilic cities are sustainable,
Eng. J. 58, 957e966.
resilient cities. Sustain 5, 3328e3345.
Eroǧlu, E., Müderrisoǧlu, H., Kesim, G.A., 2012. The effect of
Beck, U., 1999. World risk society as cosmopolitan society?
seasonal change of plants compositions on visual perception. J.
Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured un-
Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 20, 196e205.
certainties. In: World Risk Society. Polity Press, Cambridge,
European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innova-
pp. 19e23.
tion Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-naturing
Beil, K., Hanes, D., 2013. The influence of urban natural and built
Cities.
environments on physiological and psychological measures of
European Commission, 2003. Indoor Air Pollution: New EU Research
stress- A pilot study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 10,
Reveals Higher Risks than Previously Thought.
1250e1267.
Fink, H.S., 2016. Human-nature for climate action: nature-based
Benvenuti, S., 2014. Wildflower green roofs for urban landscaping,
solutions for urban sustainability. Sustain 8.
ecological sustainability and biodiversity. Landsc. Urban Plann.
Fromm, E., 1964. Love of death and love of life. In: The Heart of
124, 151e161.
Man: its Genius for Good and Evil. New York: Harper & Row.
Berkebile, B., Fox, B., Hartley, A., 2008. Reflections on imple-
Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H.,
menting biophilic design. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Sci-
Gaston, K.J., 2007. Psychological benefits of greenspace in-
ence and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 347e356.
crease with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3, 390e394.
138
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
Gatersleben, B., Andrews, M., 2013. When walking in nature is not Jones, D.R., 2013. ‘The biophilic university’: a de-familiarizing
restorative-The role of prospect and refuge. Health Place 20, organizational metaphor for ecological sustainability? J. Clean.
91e101. Prod. 48, 148e165.
Gillis, K., Gatersleben, B., 2015. A review of psychological litera- Joye, Y., 2007. Architectural lessons from environmental psychol-
ture on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. ogy: the case of biophilic architecture. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 11,
Buildings 5, 948e963. 305e328.
Gou, Z., Prasad, D., Lau, S.S.Y., 2014. Impacts of green certifica- Joye, Y., de Block, A., 2011. “Nature and I are two”: a critical
tions, ventilation and office types on occupant satisfaction with examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environ. Val. 20,
indoor environmental quality. Architect. Sci. Rev. 57, 196e206. 189e215.
Gray, T., Birrell, C., 2014. Are biophilic-designed site office build- Joye, Y., Loocke, P. Van, 2007. A Tentative Argument for the In-
ings linked to health benefits and high performing occupants? clusion of Nature-Based Forms in Architecture. Universiteit
Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 11, 12204e12222. Gent.
Grinde, B., Patil, G.G., 2009. Biophilia: does visual contact with Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., 2017. Nature-Based
nature impact on health and well-being? Int. J. Environ. Res. Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Link-
Publ. Health 6, 2332e2343. ages between Science, Policy and Practice. Springer.
Guy, S., Moore, S., 2005. Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an
Natures in Europe and North America. Routledge. integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169e182.
Guy, S., Moore, S.A., 2007. Sustainable architecture and the Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psy-
pluralist imagination. J. Architect. Educ. 60, 15e23. chological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Hähn, N., Essah, E., Blanusa, T., 2020. Biophilic design and office Kayıhan, K.S., 2018. Examination of biophilia phenomenon in the
planting: a case study of effects on perceived health, well- context of sustainable architecture. Lect. Notes Civ. Eng. 6,
being and performance metrics in the workplace. Intell. Build. 80e101.
Int. 1e20. Kellert, S.R., 2018. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic
Hashemnezhad, H., Heidari, A.A., Hoseini, P.M., 2013. “Sense of Design. Yale University Press.
place” and “place attachment” (A comparative study). Int. J. Kellert, S.R., 2008a. Biophilia. In: Jørgensen, S.E., Fath, B.D.
Archit. Urban Dev. 3, 5e12. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ecology, pp. 462e466. Elsevier Science.
Heerwagen, J.H., Gregory, B., 2008. Biophilia and sensory aes- Kellert, S.R., 2008b. Dimensions, elements, and attributes of bio-
thetics. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science, and Practice philic design. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and
of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 227e242. Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 3e19.
Heerwagen, J.H., Hase, B., 2001. Building biophilia: connecting Kellert, S.R., 2005. Building for Life: Designing and Understanding
people to nature in building design. Environ. Des. Constr. 3, the Human-Nature Connection. Island Press, Washington.
30e36. Kellert, S.R., 1993. The biological basis for human values of nature.
Hidalgo, A.K., 2014. Biophilic design, restorative environments and In: Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis.
well-being. In: 9th Int. Conf. Des. Emot. 2014 Color. Care, Island Press, pp. 42e69.
pp. 535e544. Kellert, S.R., Calabrese, E.F., 2015. The Practice of Biophilic
Hidalgo, M.C., Hernández, B., 2001. Place attachment: conceptual Design. Available online at: http://www.biophilic-design.com.
and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 273e281. Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J.H., Mador, M.L., 2008. Biophilic Design:
Hildebrand, G., 2008. Biophilic architectural space. In: Biophilic The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life.
Design: the Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to John Wiley & Sons.
Life, pp. 263e275. Koc, C.B., Osmond, P., Peters, A., 2017. Towards a comprehensive
Hildebrand, G., 1999. Origins of Architectural Pleasure. University green infrastructure typology: a systematic review of ap-
of California Press. proaches, methods and typologies. Urban Ecosyst. 20, 15e35.
Hjørland, B., Gnoli, C., 2017. Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organi- Korpela, K., De Bloom, J., Sianoja, M., Pasanen, T., Kinnunen, U.,
zation, Knowledge organization (IEKO). 2017. Nature at home and at work: naturally good? Links between
Hoelscher, M.T., Nehls, T., Jänicke, B., Wessolek, G., 2016. window views, indoor plants, outdoor activities and employee
Quantifying cooling effects of facade greening: shading, tran- well-being over one year. Landsc. Urban Plann. 160, 38e47.
spiration and insulation. Energy Build. 114, 283e290. Lau, S.S.Y., Gou, Z., Liu, Y., 2014. Healthy campus by open space
Hraska, J., 2015. Chronobiological aspects of green buildings design: approaches and guidelines. Front. Archit. Res. 3,
daylighting. Renew. Energy 73, 109e114. 452e467.
Hunter, P.R., MacDonald, A.M., Carter, R.C., 2010. Water supply Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Pathways to sustainabil-
and health. PLoS Med. 7. ity: responding to dynamic contexts. In: Dynamic Sustainabil-
Hwang, Y.H., Yue, Z.E.J., 2015. Observation of biodiversity on ities: Technology, Environment, and Social Justice. Earthscan.
minimally managed green roofs in a tropical city. J. Living Lee, H.C., Park, S.J., 2018. Assessment of importance and char-
Archit. 2, 9e26. acteristics of biophilic design patterns in a children’s library.
IEA, 2017. Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient build- Sustain 10.
ings and construction sector: Global Status Report 2017. UN Lee, K.E., Williams, K.J.H., Sargent, L.D., Williams, N.S.G.,
Environment and International Energy Agency. Johnson, K.A., 2015. 40-second green roof views sustain
Ives, C.D., Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Dorninger, C., attention: the role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. J.
Klaniecki, K., Fischer, J., 2018. Reconnecting with nature for Environ. Psychol. 42, 182e189.
sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1389e1397. Lerner, B.A., Stopka, M., 2016. The financial benefits of biophilic
Jones, D.R., 2016. The ‘biophilic organization’: an integrative design in the Workplace : a review and summary of current
metaphor for corporate sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 138, research. Mist Environ 1e23.
401e416. Littke, H., 2016. Becoming biophilic: challenges and opportunities
Jiang, B., Song, Y., Li, H.X., Lau, S.S.Y., Lei, Q., 2020. Incorpo- for biophilic urbanism in urban planning policy. Smart Sustain.
rating biophilic criteria into green building rating tools: case Built Environ. 5, 15e24.
study of Green Mark and LEED. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 82.
139
W. Zhong, T. Schröder and J. Bekkering
Liu, Q., Fu, W., van den Bosch, C.C.K., Xiao, Y., Zhu, Z., You, D., Perez, G., Perini, K., 2018. Nature Based Strategies for Urban and
Zhu, N., Huang, Q., Lan, S., 2018. Do local landscape elements Building Sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 353e356.
enhance individuals’ place attachment to new environments? A Peters, T., D’Penna, K., 2020. Biophilic design for restorative uni-
cross-regional comparative study in China. Sustain 10, 1e17. versity learning environments: a critical review of literature and
Lotfabadi, P., Alibaba, H.Z., Arfaei, A., 2016. Sustainability; as a design recommendations. Sustain 12.
combination of parametric patterns and bionic strategies. Ramzy, N.S., 2015a. Biophilic qualities of historical architecture: in
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57, 1337e1346. quest of the timeless terminologies of “life” in architectural
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M.L., expression. Sustain. Cities Soc. 15, 42e56.
Barredo, J.I., Grizzetti, B., Cardoso, A., Somma, F., Ramzy, N.S., 2015b. Sustainable spaces with psychological conno-
Petersen, J.E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E.R., Zal, N., tation: historical architecture as reference book for biomimetic
Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A., Biala, K., Piroddi, C., Egoh, B., models with biophilic qualities. Archnet-IJAR.
Degeorges, P., Fiorina, C., Santos-Martı́n, F., Narusevicius, V., Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., Weber, D., 2010. The measurement of
Verboven, J., Pereira, H.M., Bengtsson, J., Gocheva, K., Marta- place attachment: personal, community, and environmental
Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, C., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 422e434.
Pérez-Soba, M., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lillebø, A.I., Malak, D.A., Revell, G., Anda, M., 2014. Sustainable Urban biophilia: the case of
Condé, S., Moen, J., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E.G., Zulian, G., greenskins for Urban density. Sustain 6, 5423e5438.
Lavalle, C., 2016. An indicator framework for assessing Roberts, T., 2016. We Spend 90% of Our Time Indoors. Says Who?
ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.buildinggreen.com/
2020. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 14e23. blog/we-spend-90-our-time-indoors-says-who.
Mandasari, A., Gamal, A., 2017. Biophilia as a factor of consumer Rowe, D.B., 2011. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement.
preferences in choosing residential property product. In: Environ. Pollut. 159, 2100e2110.
ICCREM 2017 Real Estate Urban. - Proc. Int. Conf. Constr. Real Ryan, C.O., Browning, W.D., 2018. Biophilic design. In:
Estate Manag, vol. 2017, pp. 15e26. Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and
Mangone, G., Capaldi, C.A., van Allen, Z.M., Luscuere, P.G., 2017. Technology. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 1e44.
Bringing nature to work: preferences and perceptions of con- Ryan, C.O., Browning, W.D., Clancy, J.O., Andrews, S.L.,
structed indoor and natural outdoor workspaces. Urban For. Kallianpurkar, N.B., 2014. Biophilic design patterns: emerging
Urban Green. 23, 1e12. nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built
Manzo, L.C., 2003. Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of environment. Archnet-IJAR 8, 62e76.
emotional relationships with places. J. Environ. Psychol. 47e61. Salingaros, N.A., Madsen, K.G., 2008. Neuroscience, the natural
Mazumdar, S., 1995. Even the moon has a dark side: a critical look environment, and building design. In: Biophilic Design: the The-
at vernacular architecture. In: 83rd ACSA Annual Meeting Pro- ory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 59e83.
ceedings, pp. 128e134. Sancho-Chavarria, L., Beck, F., Mata-Montero, E., 2020. An expert
McGee, B., Marshall-Baker, A., 2015. Loving nature from the inside study on hierarchy comparison methods applied to biological
out: a biophilia matrix identification strategy for designers. taxonomies curation. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 6, e277.
Heal. Environ. Res. Des. J. 8, 115e130. Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2017. The experienced psychological
McHarg, I.L., 1969. Design with Nature. The Natural History Press. benefits of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 256e269.
McMahan, E.A., Estes, D., 2015. The effect of contact with natural Schröder, T., 2018. Giving meaning to the concept of sustainability
environments on positive and negative affect: a meta-analysis. in architectural design practices: setting out the analytical
J. Posit. Psychol. 10, 507e519. framework of translation. Sustain 10 (6), 1710.
Md Rian, I., Sassone, M., 2014. Tree-inspired dendriforms and Schweitzer, M., Arch, M., Gilpin, L., Frampton, S., Ph, D., 2004.
fractal-like branching structures in architecture: a brief his- Healing Spaces : elements of environmental design that make
torical overview. Front. Archit. Res. 3, 298e323. an impact on health. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 10, 71e83.
Morton, T., 2007. Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environ- Sharifi, M., Sabernejad, J., 2016. Investigation of Biophilic archi-
mental Aesthetics. Harvard University Press. tecture patterns and prioritizing them in design performance in
Mossin, N., Stilling, S., Bøjstrup, T.C., Larsen, V.G., Lotz, M., order to realize sustainable development goals. Eur. Online J.
Blegvad, A., 2018. An Architecture Guide to the UN 17 Sus- Nat. Soc. Sci. 5, 325e337.
tainable Development Goals. KADK. Sheweka, S.M., Mohamed, N.M., 2012. Green facades as a new
Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., Özbilen, A., 2010. Prospect and refuge as sustainable approach towards climate change. Energy Procedia
the predictors of preferences for seating areas. Sci. Res. Essays 18, 507e520.
5, 1224e1233. Shi, Z., Qian, H., Zheng, X., Lv, Z., Li, Y., Liu, L., Nielsen, P.V.,
Nicol, J.F., Humphreys, M.A., 2002. Adaptive thermal comfort and 2018. Seasonal variation of window opening behaviors in two
sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy Build. 34, naturally ventilated hospital wards. Build. Environ. 130, 85e93.
563e572. Simpson, G.D., Parker, J., 2018. Data on peer-reviewed papers
Nurdiah, E.A., 2016. The potential of bamboo as building material about green infrastructure, urban nature, and city liveability.
in organic shaped buildings. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 216, Data 3, 1e10.
30e38. Söderlund, J., 2019. The Emergence of Biophilic Design. Springer
Oldfield, E.E., Felson, A.J., Auyeung, D.S.N., Crowther, T.W., Nature, Switzerland.
Sonti, N.F., Harada, Y., Maynard, D.S., Sokol, N.W., Söderlund, J., Newman, P., 2017. Improving mental health in
Ashton, M.S., Warren, R.J., Hallett, R.A., Bradford, M.A., 2015. prisons through biophilic design. Prison J. 97, 750e772.
Growing the urban forest: tree performance in response to bi- Söderlund, J., Newman, P., 2015. Biophilic architecture: a review
otic and abiotic land management. Restor. Ecol. 23, 707e718. of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2, 950e969.
Orians, G.H., Heerwagen, J.H., 1992. Evolved responses to land- Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S., Chrysoulakis, N., 2019. ThinkNature
scapes. In: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Nature-Based Solutions Handbook.
Generation of Culture, pp. 555e580. Spiteri, L.F., 2008. Concept theory and the role of conceptual
Park, S.J., Lee, H.C., 2019. Spatial design of childcare facilities coherence in assessments of similarity. In: Proceedings of the
based on biophilic design patterns. Sustain 11, 1e15. ASIST Annual Meeting.
Pawlyn, M., 2019. Biomimicry in Architecture, second ed. RIBA Sudimac, B., Ilic, B., Muncan, V., AnCelkovic, A.S., 2019. Heat flux
Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne. transmission assessment of a vegetation wall influence on the
140
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 114e141
building envelope thermal conductivity in Belgrade climate. J. Well, F., Ludwig, F., 2019. Blueegreen architecture: a case study
Clean. Prod. 223, 907e916. analysis considering the synergetic effects of water and vege-
Tabb, P.J., Deviren, A.S., 2013. The greening of architecture A tation. Front. Archit. Res. 9, 191e202.
critical history and survey of contemporary sustainable archi- WGBC, 2016. Green building: improving the lives of billions by
tecture and urban design. Routledge. helping to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Tang, I.C., Sullivan, W.C., Chang, C.Y., 2015. Perceptual evaluation Available online at: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/
of natural landscapes: the role of the individual connection to green-building-improving-lives-billions-helping-achieve-un-
nature. Environ. Behav. 47, 595e617. sustainable-development-goals.
Totaforti, S., 2018. Applying the benefits of biophilic theory to Whang, H.-J., 2011. The relationship of complexity and order in
hospital design. City, Territ. Archit. 5, 1e9. determining aesthetic preference in architectural form. Archi-
Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y., Sato, H., 2007. Physiological effects in tect. Res. 13, 19e30.
humans induced by the visual stimulation of room interiors with White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D.,
different wood quantities. J. Wood Sci. 53, 11e16. Depledge, M., 2010. Blue space: the importance of water for
Ulrich, R.S., 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and
Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Is- built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 482e493.
land Press, pp. 73e137. White, M.P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B.W., Hartig, T.,
Ulrich, R.S., 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural Warber, S.L., Bone, A., Depledge, M.H., Fleming, L.E., 2019.
environment. Hum. Behav. Environ. 6, 85e125. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated
Ulrich, R.S., 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some psycho- with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 9, 1e11.
physiological effects. Environ. Behav. 13, 523e556. Wijesooriya, N., Brambilla, A., 2021. Bridging biophilic design and
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., environmentally sustainable design: a critical review. J. Clean.
Zelson, M., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and Prod. 283, 124591.
urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201e230. Wilson, A., 2008. Biophilia in practice: buildings that connect
UN, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and people with nature. In: Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science
Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 325e333.
UN, 1992. In: United Nations Conference on Environment and Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species.
Development: Agenda 21, Rio Declaration. United Nations. MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
UN, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustain- Wilson, E.O., 1993. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In:
able Development. United Nations. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, Edward Osborne (Eds.), The Biophilia
Van den Berg, A.E., Joye, Y., Koole, S.L., 2016. Why viewing nature Hypothesis. Island Press.
is more fascinating and restorative than viewing buildings: a Xue, F., Lau, S.S.Y., Gou, Z., Song, Y., Jiang, B., 2019. Incorpo-
closer look at perceived complexity. Urban For. Urban Green. rating biophilia into green building rating tools for promoting
20, 397e401. health and wellbeing. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 76, 98e112.
Vanuytrecht, E., Van Mechelen, C., Van Meerbeek, K., Willems, P., Yin, J., Yuan, J., Arfaei, N., Catalano, P.J., Allen, J.G.,
Hermy, M., Raes, D., 2014. Runoff and vegetation stress of Spengler, J.D., 2020. Effects of biophilic indoor environment on
green roofs under different climate change scenarios. Landsc. stress and anxiety recovery: a between-subjects experiment in
Urban Plann. 122, 68e77. virtual reality. Environ. Int. 136, 105427.
Vaughan, J., Ostwald, M.J., 2010. Using fractal analysis to compare Yin, J., Zhu, S., MacNaughton, P., Allen, J.G., Spengler, J.D., 2018.
the characteristic complexity of nature and architecture: Re- Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to bio-
examining the evidence. Architect. Sci. Rev. 53 (4), 323e332. philic indoor environment. Build. Environ. 132, 255e262.
Wallmann-Sperlich, B., Hoffmann, S., Salditt, A., Bipp, T., Yoon, E., Lim, Y., 2020. A study on the composition between nature
Froboese, I., 2019. Moving to an “Active” biophilic designed and architectural space in healthcare facilities. Architect. Res.
office workplace: a pilot study about the effects on sitting time 22, 113e122.
and sitting habits of office-based workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Yuan, Y., Yu, X., Yang, X., Xiao, Y., Xiang, B., Wang, Y., 2017. Bi-
Publ. Health 16. onic building energy efficiency and bionic green architecture: a
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74, 771e787.
141