Biophilic cities and health

Abstract

Biophilic design emerged at the beginning of the twenty-first century as an integral part of restorative environmental design, an approach that seeks to reestablish positive connections between nature and humanity in the built environment by minimizing damage to natural systems and human health (low environmental impact design), and by fostering positive experiences of nature in order to enrich the human mind, body and spirit (biophilic design) (Kellert 2005). Biophilic design is based on the theory that humans have an innate biological affinity for the natural environment (the biophilia hypothesis – Wilson 1984, 1993), and is informed by research on the restorative benefits of nature and psychoevolutionary theories of landscape preference. Kellert identified two basic dimensions of biophilic design: organic (or naturalistic) design involves the use of shapes and forms in buildings and landscapes that directly, indirectly, or symbolically elicit people’s inherent affinity for the natural environment, while vernacular (or place-based) design refers to buildings and landscapes that foster an attachment to place by connecting culture, history, and ecology within a geographic context (Kellert 2005, p. 5). Various frameworks have been developed in order to assist designers with the process of translating biophilia into the built environment by creating spaces that provide a connection to nature in order to enhance mental health and well-being (e.g. Kellert 2008, Browning et al. 2014, Kellert and Calabrese 2015). The frameworks are conceived as tools for understanding design opportunities at the building scale, by incorporating nature (e.g. plants, water) in the design of a space, using design features that evoke some aspects of nature – such as ornamentation, use of natural materials, and biomorphic forms – and using spatial configurations characteristic of the natural environment. The frameworks have been widely used to investigate biophilic design in a variety of different settings, including hospitals (Abdelaal and Soebarto 2019), dementia care homes (Peters and Verderber 2021), childcare facilities (Park and Lee 2019), primary schools (Ghaziani et al. 2021) and universities (Peters and D’Penna 2020), and have recently been incorporated in some of the main green building rating systems – such as LEED, LBC and WELL – as criteria for assessing the positive effect of building design on the health and well-being of the occupants.