environmental sciences

Biophilic Design

A Review of Principle and Practice

Elizabeth Molthrop 12

he word green elicits many definitions and responses. From nature itself to environmentally friendly
consumer items and building methods, the word
has been ubiquitously slapped onto a multitude of products and services currently on the market. The green
movement in construction particularly has a multitude of
implications. For some, green architecture is a black and
white definition, set by LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) standards. Others seek aesthetic
integration with the environment as a determining factor.
A new movement related to green architecturebiophilic
designhas recently gained much momentum within the
building community. The leading experts in the biophilic
design field hold that we should bring as much of nature
as we can into our everyday environments so as to experience it first-hand; second, we need to shape our built environment to incorporate those same geometrical qualities
found in nature (1). While the green movement has often
focused on the means, biophilic design tends toward emphasizing the end results, establishing natural-based habitats
for humans to live and work. Rather than merely erecting
buildings, architects who utilize the tenets of biophilic design create spaces in which humans can truly fulfill their potential. Biophilic design incorporates elements derived from
nature in order to maximize human functioning and health.

Historical Context
While humans evolved over the millennia, their relation to the environment likewise changed. People depend
on their surroundings for both natural resources and for enabling the establishment of community. As creatures of the
earth, humans respond to its natural features, which can also
be incorporated into constructed design. The modern history
of architecture is characterized by building movements and
styles, often imposed by an elite few who deemed this good
architecture. The rigid geometry of Modern Architecture, for
example, holds few relationships to the outside world. Conversely, great architects in the past were better able to discern those qualities, and to reproduce them in their buildings
because they were more engaged with their immediate surroundings. As a consequence, buildings provided protection
with the benefits of natural elements. The premise of biophilic
design aims not only to reduce the harm that stems from the
built environment, but also to make the built environment
more pleasing and enjoyable. It seeks both to avoid and minimize harmful impacts on the natural environment, as well
as to provide and restore beneficial contacts between people
and nature in the built environment. Architecture in and of
itself is not harmful, and its benefits of shelter and community cannot be overlooked. However, built environments can
certainly cause stress. Biophilic design provides the answer
SPRING 2011

to this predicament, preventing harm to both people and nature while facilitating a beneficial link between the two (1).
Too often, a distinction has been made between architecture and environment, cutting people off from a psychologically-developed need to commune with nature. When
architects overstep their role, using images and surface
effects to supplant everyday human desires and sensibilities in the name of artistic endeavor, humans are left to live
out their lives in a series of ill-fitting, overexaggerated and
often idiosyncratic formal architectural schemes. Biophilic
design does not advocate tree houses or cave-dwelling, but it
does provide the nature-based features that prompt complex
thinking in humans. Though not technically biophilic design,
the nature-communing architecture of Frank Lloyd Wrights
Fallingwater arguably speaks to the human soul much more
than a box-like machine for living by Le Corbusier. Not
an architectural style, biophilic design must avoid becoming such. Designers can often become caught up with the
potential of new technology, pushing its limits but not in
the service of its users. Because of these risks, the green
aspect of biophilic design must not overwhelm its overarching goals of creating an ideal environment for people (1).
Biophilic design affords humans a host of benefits. Using particular landscapes can reduce stress and enhance
well-being because we gravitate toward certain configurations and natural contents. These landscapes were the environments prehistoric people inhabited throughout their
evolution, and the human brain adapted to respond to
these types of spaces. In built environments, we have obstructed the connection developed over millennia. We are
so accustomed to our built habitats that we do not notice
their deleterious effects, and as a result, stress has become
a chronic issue in modern society. Eliminating some of the
distinction between built and natural allows biophilic design
to impart the benefits of both types of environments (2).
One crucial element of the natural landscape to human
health is sunlight. We are evolutionarily programmed to respond positively to well-lighted or sunny areas over dark or
overcast settings (1). People can expect these spaces to foster restoration, improve emotional well-being, and promote
health (1). Distractions of modern life induce stress, especially the artifacts (i.e. cell phones, laptops, etc.) to which
we are so attached (1). The rates of technological progress
have far exceeded rates of psychological evolution, leaving
us ill-equipped to cope with our lifestyle. Biophilia expert
Yannick Joye states, by including elements of ancestral
habitats in the built environment, one can counter potential deleterious effects, which stem from this dominance,
[of uniform/modernist environments], resulting in more
positive effects and more relaxed physiological and psychological states (2). Because biophilia attempts to integrate
ancestral and current habitats, it can alleviate the stress
37

caused by the brains constant attempts to function in a

modern environment it has not yet evolved to handle (2).

Applications of Biophilic Design

Because of its tremendous impact on human psychology, biophilic design plays a vital role in healthcare and
healthcare delivery. The current healthcare system contains many flaws, especially in its physical spaces. Hospitals, clinics, and offices are high-stress environments for
patients, visitors and families, and healthcare professionals
alike. Integrating nature into healthcare facilities has numerous benefits for many groups. One well-known study
by Ulrich et al. looked at patients after surgery. One group
of patients had windows with a tree view; the others windows faced a brick wall (2). The patients with windows facing trees had shorter hospital stays, received fewer negative comments from the nurses, required less moderate
and strong analgesics, and had slightly fewer postoperative
complications (2). The underlying reasons for this discrepancy are biological. For our ancestors, a capability for fast
recovery from stress following demanding episodes was
so critical for enhancing survival chances of early humans
as to favor individuals with a partly genetic predisposition
for restorative responding to many nature settings (1).
As a consequence, nature and nature-based design have
been integrated into the physical design of many hospitals.
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC), for example, boasts an atrium design, flooding daylight through the
entire facility. Natural elements also permeate the building,
including wood, stone, and numerous live plants. Though
DHMC was built to originally incorporate these qualities,
other hospitals have been retrofitted with elements of biophilia. This follows the trend of the application of biophilias concepts to interior design in hospitals as administrators have witnessed patients positive responses to nature.
Changes to pre-existing hospitals allow immediate improvement for staff, patients, and visitors. In addition, scientific
studies have shown that including gardens in healthcare
design has a restorative effect for both faculty and patients.
Whether in a concentrated garden setting or dispersed
throughout the building, natural forms provide an oasis
from the stress inherent within the healthcare system (1).
A few theories based on research have emerged to explain the effects of biophilic design on humans. One element likely contributing to biophilias influence on human
psychology is an underlying geometry of fractals within nature (2). Characteristics of fractals include roughness [recurring] on different sales of magnitude, self-similarity
on each level of magnification, and non-integer dimensionality (which is more easily witnessed than described) (2).
Examples of fractal patterns include fern fronds, lighting
bolts, and burning flames. The nested scaling hierarchy
that are fractals can be found in many traditional architectural forms, confirming previous generations greater
connection (conscious or not) to the natural environment (1). The Gothic style in particular is obviously fractal
(1). In addition, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI) studies have begun to reveal a link between aesthetic response and the brains pleasure center (1). Logi38

Image courtesy of Figuura.

Biophilic design can incorporate natural elements into workspaces.

cally, it follows that people would gravitate toward aesthetic

forms that have been reinforced throughout their history.
Along with the concept of fractals, two overarching
theories have attempted to explain humans affinity for biophilia. The first is attention restoration theory, developed by
the Kaplans, which interprets restoration as the recovery
of directed attention or the ability to focus. This capacity is
deployed during tasks that require profound concentration,
such as proofreading or studying. Natural settings have been
found to be ideally suited to restore or rest directed attention. The second theory applies more broadly than just focusing on attention. Restoration is instead stress-reduction
and can occur even when directed attention is not fatigued.
This theorythe psychoevolutionary theory, developed by
Ulrich, is based on the experiences of early humans. The
threats they encountered required immediate response and a
rapid recovery, which typically occurred in natural unthreatening (savanna-like) settings. The humans best-equipped
to do this were the most likely to survive and reproduce,
passing on these nature-induced restoration capabilities
to their offspring. This continuing psychological evolution produced the current makeup of the human brain (2).
While the idea of biophilia is an attractive one, as with
any theory, it has certain limitations. Some people do respond quite well to modern architecture even though they
are biologically predisposed to respond to more natural
forms. Biology is a key player in influencing human psychology, but culture must not be overlooked. In comparing cultures, however, people across the board respond
similarly well to natural views, making it all the more likely
that an affinity for biophilia has been solidified within the
gene pool (1). Because people throughout the world associate biophilia with positive feelings, architects relying
on biophilic design have the advantage of universal appeal. They also retain a high degree of flexibility and freedom, as biophilic design is not defined by one aesthetic.
Many existing buildings contain biophilic elements, but
only a few have been built with the specific idea of biophilic
design in mind. One such building is the Adam Joseph Lewis
Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College. DirecDartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science

tor of Oberlins Environmental Studies Program, David Orr,

explained the buildings goals were to create not just a place
for classes but rather a building that would help to redefine
the relationship between humankind and the environment
one that would expand our sense of ecological possibilities.
Following the tenets of biophilic design led to mutual benefit
for the environment and its human inhabitants. The Lewis
Center is sustainable in a broader sense than the word can
typically be applied. It minimizes energy use in harnessing
solar power, utilizes both active and passive air systems, and
monitors the weather to adapt to conditions. The Centers
Living Machine treats wastewater by combining traditional wastewater technology with wetland ecosystems purification processes, producing water that can be used in the
toilets and for irrigation. In their design, Orr and his team
engineered an outstanding space for students to thrive while
insuring the surrounding environment could do the same.
Another example is the University of Guelph Humber Building in Ontario, Canada. It contains a centrally located biowall, vertically spanning the building. The wall is
covered in dense foliage and can be seen from almost every
level inside. The wall also functions as a new filtration system prototype. The wall purifies the air and has the potential to fulfill the buildings fresh air intake requirements (3).
DHMC also incorporates an Arts program for the benefit of its patients and caregivers. A large portion of the
paintings, photographs, and other works contain nature or
natural elements. Elisabeth Gordon, head of the program,
says the pieces she seeks are soothing and reflective, and
they help reconnect the viewer to his or her humanity (4).
Though she does not use the term biophilic design, the
works within DHMC certainly exhibit the same qualities.

SPRING 2011

Conclusion
Biophilic design principles can be applied in a variety of
contexts allowing growth of both people and environment.
Human psychology clearly benefits from contact with nature, and inviting nature into our buildings is the ideal way
to insure the both the continuation of our modern lifestyle
and assuagement our more primitive needs. Positive effects
can especially be seen in the realm of healthcare. Its typically stressful atmosphere holds tremendous room for improvement, and numerous studies evidence natures role in
healing. In sum, the built environment need not interfere
with biological human needs to commune with nature nor
with existing ecological systems. Ancient architects built for
their cultures, which were almost always more in touch with
the earth than western society of the present. They mimicked natures forms, producing magnificent structures with
which we are still awedthough biophilic design is a novel
concept, they certainly employed some of its recommendations. Today, we can add another layer to this tradition
and ensure maximal benefit for our planet and ourselves.
References
1. S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, and M. Mador, Biophilic Design: the Theory,
Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life (Wiley, New Jersey,
2008).
2. Y. Joye, Rev. Gen. Psychol. 11.4, 305-328 (2007).
3. S. Pliska, Biophilia, Selling the Love of Nature (2005). Available at
http://www.planterra.com/research/article_biophilia.php (17 August 2010).
4. E. Gordon, Personal interview, 23 August 2010.

39