Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 391-400 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/08/2 | Accepted: 2023/09/10 | Published: 2023/09/19
Received: 2023/08/2 | Accepted: 2023/09/10 | Published: 2023/09/19
How to cite this article
Jafarizadeh R, Abdulahzadeh Taraf A, Haqhlesan M, Saghafi Asl A. Investigating the Factors Affecting the Design of the Biophilic City. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :391-400
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1510-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1510-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Urban Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2- Department of Architecture and Urban Engineering, Ilkhchi Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilkhchi, Iran
2- Department of Architecture and Urban Engineering, Ilkhchi Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilkhchi, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (88 Views)
Introduction
Environmental and human health depend on the integration of nature into the form and function of cities. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted societies to reconsider urban health in particular [Ruszczyk et al., 2022]. This global crisis underscored the importance of access to and interaction with nature and open spaces in cities for social, physical, and psychological well-being. Public health crises in the past have reshaped urban public spaces, just as the current pandemic has raised questions about how cities, neighborhoods, and health-promoting environments should be designed and managed [Patuano et al., 2022]. In this context, the theory of biophilic cities is supported by an approach in urban planning and design that seeks to provide opportunities for citizens to connect with nature through environmental projects, regenerative and biophilic design, and residential greenery all of which are associated with enhanced well-being, sense of place, place attachment, spirit of place, and socialization [Beatley, 2016].
Nevertheless, a gap persists between human needs for nature, everyday lived experience, and sustainable behaviors. Recent reviews and systematic studies have suggested that our relationship with nature, particularly our experience of biophilic design has significant implications for sustainability and quality of life. Although more than four decades of research has examined the benefits of nature access for human health and climate, inconsistencies and lack of alignment remain in the fields of sustainability and design. These inconsistencies partly stem from inadequate understanding, interpretation, and application of research on nature and health in urban design strategies and policies across different scales. Problems arise from the insufficient integration of biophilic urban design principles, urban planning, and health outcomes, as well as from the limited interdisciplinary application of findings across related fields. Urban managers, often lacking the necessary tools and knowledge, still fail to prioritize health-oriented and biophilic design objectives to improve citizens’ well-being.
The concept of biophilia was first introduced scientifically by a biologist, entomologist, and environmental advocate at Harvard University. Biophilia refers to the innate human connection to nature, our inherent dependence on and emotional bonds with the natural world. The theory posits that humans and nature have co-evolved, and thus it is unsurprising that being surrounded by nature fosters greater tranquility, joy, and creativity [Beatley, 2017]. Biophilic design is an applied science that incorporates the latest findings on human–nature relationships to align artificial environments with intrinsic human needs. Evidence shows that biophilic design reduces stress, stimulates creativity and clear thinking, enhances physical and mental well-being, and accelerates healing. Given the ongoing trend of urbanization, these benefits are increasingly relevant in the design of urban spaces, architecture, and interiors [Bolten & Barbiero, 2020]. As a sustainable design strategy, biophilic design seeks to induce positive changes in users by integrating and reconnecting humans with nature [Lee & Park, 2018].
An expanding body of research addresses the relationship between the urban environment and human health, much of which involves spatial conceptualizations and research designs that draw upon aspects of geographic information science [Labib et al., 2020]. Urban green spaces may provide stronger preventive health effects compared to other settings. City residents are generally more exposed to environmental stressors, such as depression, anxiety, and stress, than rural populations. Substantial scientific evidence, supported by adaptive and utilitarian paradigms over the past 40 years, has emphasized the link between access to nature and human health [Labib et al., 2020; Bratman et al., 2019]. Although some studies indicate clear benefits of access to nature for human health outcomes, a misalignment persists between the vast body of research and the evidence needed to persuade stakeholders of nature’s tangible and traceable advantages for their unique projects [Little, 2022]. Such inconsistencies partly stem from diverse research methods and paradigms underlying the majority of findings that capture the attention of policymakers and developers, yet remain poorly aligned with the broader biophilic design framework adopted by designers [Loder, 2020].
At least two arguments suggest that urban green spaces may promote health as effectively as those in less urbanized settings. First, large-scale observational and experimental studies examining the protective effects of green space, particularly in cities, generally show that urban greenery enhances health. Second, the pathways through which green space benefits health, such as stress reduction, physical activity, social cohesion, and air quality are present in both urban and less urbanized areas; hence, the strength of association between green space and health may be comparable across settings [Browning et al., 2022; Kondo et al., 2018].
If more people relocate to suburban or rural areas in search of green space and safety during pandemics, the global climate crisis may intensify, since living outside cities can increase carbon impacts [Jones & Kammen, 2014; Ottelin et al., 2019]. Growing evidence suggests that ecosystem services, and especially exposure to natural environments (green–blue spaces), provide significant potential benefits for mental health and well-being [Pouso et al., 2021]. Scientific research demonstrates that nature affects physical, psychological, and cognitive health [Kavathekar & Bantanur, 2021]. Biophilic design seeks to reconnect this innate human need for nature with the modern built environment. Automated fractal processing has initiated preliminary evaluations of attraction or avoidance responses to environmental health, shaping potential positive or negative impacts. As cycles of visual perception repeat, the attractiveness of urban form influences user experience more profoundly than previously assumed. These perceptual mechanisms enhance intuitive walking and navigation, thereby supporting civic interactions the very purpose for which communities and cities are established [Brielmann et al., 2022]. The incorporation of multiple fractals thus calls for reintegration of biophilic and traditional architecture into urban design to validate their positive effects on health and well-being, including significant reductions in stress and mental fatigue [Labaune et al., 2020].
Comparative research on nature is complicated by the wide range of measures and methodologies, making it difficult to establish robust conclusions. The most influential research programs over the past four decades have been based on adaptive or utilitarian paradigms. The adaptive paradigm assumes that evolutionary or biological survival shapes physiological and psychological responses, and that some environments are more conducive to human health and well-being than others. Two major research programs emerging from this paradigm have received particular attention: (1) restorative environments, which aid in restoring attention and improving cognition, exemplified by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART) [Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005] and (2) environments that support stress recovery and positive affect, exemplified by Roger Ulrich’s Psychophysiological Stress Reduction Theory (PSR) [Ulrich, 1993]. ART posits that mental fatigue and attention depletion can be alleviated by time spent in nature, while PSR emphasizes emotional and affective dimensions of human–nature interactions.
More recent approaches have also explored related concepts such as topophilia, which emphasizes personal identity, meaningful attachment to place, and the design of urban environments that reconnect city dwellers with nature while fostering sustainable behaviors. Although place-attachment theory offers a valuable perspective for urban and regional planning with a regenerative orientation, its largely theoretical and qualitative nature has limited its practical application. The modern biophilic design movement was fueled by the biophilia hypothesis, which defines biophilia as the innate emotional affiliation of humans with other living organisms, a genetic and evolutionary trait that is an inherent part of human nature. Kellert and Calabrese operationalized this concept in the built environment, identifying two primary dimensions of biophilic design: the organic (nature-based) dimension and the place-based (vernacular) dimension [Kellert et al., 2011; Kellert & Calabrese, 2015; Kellert, 2018]. The organic dimension refers to natural forms and patterns integrated directly, indirectly, or symbolically in the built environment, while the place-based dimension reflects buildings and landscapes tied to local culture and ecology. More detailed classifications identify six core elements, encompassing over 70 features of biophilic design.
Recent refinements of Kellert’s work include the 14 patterns of biophilic design, which address health and well-being in the built environment [Cacique & Ou, 2022], as well as the biophilic interior design matrix, which adapts these principles for practical application in interior environments [McGee et al., 2019]. Experimental approaches to biophilic design further explore its principles, components, and features through phenomenological and experiential methods, seeking to understand human spatial experience and model it in alignment with biophilic principles.
In this regard, there is a clear need to identify, synthesize, and systematize indicators and components related to biophilic urban design, a task that constitutes the main focus of the present study. Specifically, this research aims to provide: (1) researchers, designers, and urban planners with an improved understanding of the benefits of nature; and (2) a comprehensive and organized framework of indicators and components extracted from the reviewed literature. A holistic overview of the existing scholarship and findings in the field of biophilic urban design may contribute to clarifying research directions and informing related design practices. Ultimately, this study seeks to employ biophilia theory and innovative practices presented in recent review studies (over the past five years) to develop a systematic meta-analysis of influential components drawn from the examined sources.
Methodology
The present review study employed a comparative–analytical approach and was conducted in 2023. The research applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify key components (both explicit and latent) and to capture stakeholders’ perspectives on the complex and often unpredictable dynamics of the system under study.
The structural analysis method was implemented in three stages:
Findings
In the first stage of the structural analysis, 60 components influencing biophilic city design were identified. These components were evaluated by an expert panel using a structured questionnaire, and ultimately 54 components were confirmed as the main factors, grouped under five dimensions: institutional, natural, economic, social, and health.
In the next stage, the impact matrix of components was completed by the expert panel and prepared for analysis using MICMAC software. The first step of MICMAC analysis involved entering the data and generating the direct influence matrix of the components. The resulting matrix, sized 54×54, was obtained after two rounds of statistical iteration. From the set of relationships assessed in the software, low, moderate, and high-impact links were distinguished, with the final outputs presented in Figures 1 and 2, depicting both direct influences and the existing potential within these relationships.
Figure 1. Ranking of components based on influence
Figure 2. Ranking of components based on dependency
The results indicated that the components existence of laws, biophilic programs, availability of funding for biophilic activities, and biomimicry demonstrated the highest influence with the lowest dependency, while the components promotion of physical and mental health, human–nature compatibility, and functionality and health showed the highest dependency with the lowest influence. The critical factors identified included 22 influential components, 14 dependent components, 7 independent components, and 11 key bidirectional components that can guide the system toward sustainability (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Distribution of influence, dependency, and potential of the studied components in the MICMAC output diagram
It is noteworthy that the key components, often referred to in the literature as linking or dual components, possess both strong influence and high dependency. If utilized effectively in design, these components can enable the successful implementation of biophilic urban design. Among the most important key components were strengthening the human–nature relationship, reinforcing a broad spectrum of natural values, and fostering participation (Figure 3).
In other words, the bidirectional target components identified occupy the upper-right quadrant of the influence–dependence diagram, which signifies their capacity for both high influence and high dependency. These components, also known as trust factors, rapidly absorb and transmit changes within the system due to their interdependencies, thereby holding significant potential to destabilize or reconfigure system sustainability (Figure 3).
In contrast, the upper-left quadrant of Figure 4 contains components with low dependency and high influence, primarily existence of laws, biophilic programs, funding availability, and biomimicry. These function as the driving forces of the system, capable of injecting energy, producing change, and influencing other system components. Meanwhile, components positioned in the lower-right quadrant, such as physical and mental health, human–nature compatibility, and functionality and health exhibit the highest dependency and lowest influence, functioning as system outcomes directly affected by the driving forces. The lower-left quadrant represents the independent components, characterized by minimal influence and dependency.
The results of the direct influence matrix, potential direct influence matrix, indirect influence matrix, and potential indirect influence matrix are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. These results highlight both the current and potential future interrelationships among components, thereby facilitating foresight and scenario planning. According to the structural analysis, the components reinforcing a wide range of natural values, existence of laws, biophilic programs, and strengthening the human–nature relationship exhibited the highest direct influence, while physical and mental health promotion, human–nature compatibility, and functionality and health showed the lowest direct influence.
Discussion
The present study aimed to employ biophilic theory and recent innovative findings to identify the components influencing biophilic urban design.
Modern cities today are dominated by vehicles, long considered symbols of human civilization and urban advancement. Uncontrolled and continuous urban construction has neglected environmental cycles within urban fabrics. The challenges arising from urbanization have prompted urban designers and planners to develop structured programs under the framework of urban environmental conservation. Among the most significant and recent urban design approaches emphasizing a reciprocal and extensive relationship between humans and nature is biophilic urbanism, whose historical development and design principles were discussed in this study.
According to the findings, complexity and order, as well as biomorphic shapes and patterns, emerged as independent components, whereas promotion of physical and mental health, functionality and well-being, and human–nature compatibility exhibited the highest dependency. The most significant bidirectional components were strengthening human–nature relationships, reinforcing a broad spectrum of natural values, and fostering participation, which carried the greatest weight and strategic positioning. It is important to note that only three examples of each type of component were highlighted for illustration, while the total included 11 bidirectional components, 7 independent components, 14 influential components, and 22 dependent components. Bidirectional components are so named due to their simultaneous influence and dependency. In this study, these components are referred to as target components, as they can destabilize the system; with careful planning and optimal utilization, these components can be directed toward either influence or dependency to establish a balanced and highly sustainable system.
The modern biophilic urban planning and design approach addresses urban challenges arising from the separation of nature and cities, such as environmental pollution, degradation of natural elements and spaces, diminished vitality in human–nature interaction, traffic congestion, and reduced nature-based economic dynamism. Simultaneously, it provides a pathway toward sustainable urban development. What distinguishes biophilic urban planning from other approaches derived from the sustainable development paradigm is its emphasis on deep sensory interactions, education, culture, and nature-based civic activities, alongside the presence of nature and conservation of natural elements and spaces, as key principles in urban planning and design.
Implementing biophilic urban design yields positive impacts across environmental, functional, social, psychological, and economic dimensions. Noraie and Shokrani (2021) proposed a multidimensional approach in biophilic urban design, composed of 39 indicators spanning social vitality, economic dynamism, green transportation, environmental sustainability, and efficient urban management.
Urban planners and designers can prioritize components based on their strong interconnections, selecting those with the highest effectiveness to maximize the impact of biophilic design within a given study area or project. Consistent with this study, Beiginezhad and Ameri Sefat (2016) have emphasized the positive influence of biophilic architecture, resulting from human–nature interaction, on physical and mental well-being. Asadi and Khatibi (2021) have highlighted the importance of form, morphology and structure, transportation and accessibility, land use and activities, landscape systems, education and awareness, ecosystems, management and policymaking, and energy in biophilic city design.
Based on the results, the following recommendations are proposed to improve urban biophilic design:
Conclusion
A total of 54 components across five dimensions of institutional, natural, economic, social, and health were identified as the main factors influencing biophilic urban design. Among these, 22 components were classified as influential, 14 as dependent, 7 as independent, and 11 as key bidirectional components
Acknowledgements: The authors express their sincere gratitude to all individuals who assisted them in conducting this research.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the dissertation of Mr. Rasoul Jafarizadeh.
Authors’ Contributions: Jafarizadeh R (first author): Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist (25%); Akbar Abdulahzadeh Taraf A (second author): Methodologist/Discussion Writer/Introduction Writer (25%); Haghlesan M (third author): Statistical analyst/Discussion Writer/Methodologist (25%); Saghafi Asal A (fourth author): Discussion Writer/Methodologist (25%).
Funding: The required financial resources were provided from personal income
Environmental and human health depend on the integration of nature into the form and function of cities. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted societies to reconsider urban health in particular [Ruszczyk et al., 2022]. This global crisis underscored the importance of access to and interaction with nature and open spaces in cities for social, physical, and psychological well-being. Public health crises in the past have reshaped urban public spaces, just as the current pandemic has raised questions about how cities, neighborhoods, and health-promoting environments should be designed and managed [Patuano et al., 2022]. In this context, the theory of biophilic cities is supported by an approach in urban planning and design that seeks to provide opportunities for citizens to connect with nature through environmental projects, regenerative and biophilic design, and residential greenery all of which are associated with enhanced well-being, sense of place, place attachment, spirit of place, and socialization [Beatley, 2016].
Nevertheless, a gap persists between human needs for nature, everyday lived experience, and sustainable behaviors. Recent reviews and systematic studies have suggested that our relationship with nature, particularly our experience of biophilic design has significant implications for sustainability and quality of life. Although more than four decades of research has examined the benefits of nature access for human health and climate, inconsistencies and lack of alignment remain in the fields of sustainability and design. These inconsistencies partly stem from inadequate understanding, interpretation, and application of research on nature and health in urban design strategies and policies across different scales. Problems arise from the insufficient integration of biophilic urban design principles, urban planning, and health outcomes, as well as from the limited interdisciplinary application of findings across related fields. Urban managers, often lacking the necessary tools and knowledge, still fail to prioritize health-oriented and biophilic design objectives to improve citizens’ well-being.
The concept of biophilia was first introduced scientifically by a biologist, entomologist, and environmental advocate at Harvard University. Biophilia refers to the innate human connection to nature, our inherent dependence on and emotional bonds with the natural world. The theory posits that humans and nature have co-evolved, and thus it is unsurprising that being surrounded by nature fosters greater tranquility, joy, and creativity [Beatley, 2017]. Biophilic design is an applied science that incorporates the latest findings on human–nature relationships to align artificial environments with intrinsic human needs. Evidence shows that biophilic design reduces stress, stimulates creativity and clear thinking, enhances physical and mental well-being, and accelerates healing. Given the ongoing trend of urbanization, these benefits are increasingly relevant in the design of urban spaces, architecture, and interiors [Bolten & Barbiero, 2020]. As a sustainable design strategy, biophilic design seeks to induce positive changes in users by integrating and reconnecting humans with nature [Lee & Park, 2018].
An expanding body of research addresses the relationship between the urban environment and human health, much of which involves spatial conceptualizations and research designs that draw upon aspects of geographic information science [Labib et al., 2020]. Urban green spaces may provide stronger preventive health effects compared to other settings. City residents are generally more exposed to environmental stressors, such as depression, anxiety, and stress, than rural populations. Substantial scientific evidence, supported by adaptive and utilitarian paradigms over the past 40 years, has emphasized the link between access to nature and human health [Labib et al., 2020; Bratman et al., 2019]. Although some studies indicate clear benefits of access to nature for human health outcomes, a misalignment persists between the vast body of research and the evidence needed to persuade stakeholders of nature’s tangible and traceable advantages for their unique projects [Little, 2022]. Such inconsistencies partly stem from diverse research methods and paradigms underlying the majority of findings that capture the attention of policymakers and developers, yet remain poorly aligned with the broader biophilic design framework adopted by designers [Loder, 2020].
At least two arguments suggest that urban green spaces may promote health as effectively as those in less urbanized settings. First, large-scale observational and experimental studies examining the protective effects of green space, particularly in cities, generally show that urban greenery enhances health. Second, the pathways through which green space benefits health, such as stress reduction, physical activity, social cohesion, and air quality are present in both urban and less urbanized areas; hence, the strength of association between green space and health may be comparable across settings [Browning et al., 2022; Kondo et al., 2018].
If more people relocate to suburban or rural areas in search of green space and safety during pandemics, the global climate crisis may intensify, since living outside cities can increase carbon impacts [Jones & Kammen, 2014; Ottelin et al., 2019]. Growing evidence suggests that ecosystem services, and especially exposure to natural environments (green–blue spaces), provide significant potential benefits for mental health and well-being [Pouso et al., 2021]. Scientific research demonstrates that nature affects physical, psychological, and cognitive health [Kavathekar & Bantanur, 2021]. Biophilic design seeks to reconnect this innate human need for nature with the modern built environment. Automated fractal processing has initiated preliminary evaluations of attraction or avoidance responses to environmental health, shaping potential positive or negative impacts. As cycles of visual perception repeat, the attractiveness of urban form influences user experience more profoundly than previously assumed. These perceptual mechanisms enhance intuitive walking and navigation, thereby supporting civic interactions the very purpose for which communities and cities are established [Brielmann et al., 2022]. The incorporation of multiple fractals thus calls for reintegration of biophilic and traditional architecture into urban design to validate their positive effects on health and well-being, including significant reductions in stress and mental fatigue [Labaune et al., 2020].
Comparative research on nature is complicated by the wide range of measures and methodologies, making it difficult to establish robust conclusions. The most influential research programs over the past four decades have been based on adaptive or utilitarian paradigms. The adaptive paradigm assumes that evolutionary or biological survival shapes physiological and psychological responses, and that some environments are more conducive to human health and well-being than others. Two major research programs emerging from this paradigm have received particular attention: (1) restorative environments, which aid in restoring attention and improving cognition, exemplified by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART) [Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005] and (2) environments that support stress recovery and positive affect, exemplified by Roger Ulrich’s Psychophysiological Stress Reduction Theory (PSR) [Ulrich, 1993]. ART posits that mental fatigue and attention depletion can be alleviated by time spent in nature, while PSR emphasizes emotional and affective dimensions of human–nature interactions.
More recent approaches have also explored related concepts such as topophilia, which emphasizes personal identity, meaningful attachment to place, and the design of urban environments that reconnect city dwellers with nature while fostering sustainable behaviors. Although place-attachment theory offers a valuable perspective for urban and regional planning with a regenerative orientation, its largely theoretical and qualitative nature has limited its practical application. The modern biophilic design movement was fueled by the biophilia hypothesis, which defines biophilia as the innate emotional affiliation of humans with other living organisms, a genetic and evolutionary trait that is an inherent part of human nature. Kellert and Calabrese operationalized this concept in the built environment, identifying two primary dimensions of biophilic design: the organic (nature-based) dimension and the place-based (vernacular) dimension [Kellert et al., 2011; Kellert & Calabrese, 2015; Kellert, 2018]. The organic dimension refers to natural forms and patterns integrated directly, indirectly, or symbolically in the built environment, while the place-based dimension reflects buildings and landscapes tied to local culture and ecology. More detailed classifications identify six core elements, encompassing over 70 features of biophilic design.
Recent refinements of Kellert’s work include the 14 patterns of biophilic design, which address health and well-being in the built environment [Cacique & Ou, 2022], as well as the biophilic interior design matrix, which adapts these principles for practical application in interior environments [McGee et al., 2019]. Experimental approaches to biophilic design further explore its principles, components, and features through phenomenological and experiential methods, seeking to understand human spatial experience and model it in alignment with biophilic principles.
In this regard, there is a clear need to identify, synthesize, and systematize indicators and components related to biophilic urban design, a task that constitutes the main focus of the present study. Specifically, this research aims to provide: (1) researchers, designers, and urban planners with an improved understanding of the benefits of nature; and (2) a comprehensive and organized framework of indicators and components extracted from the reviewed literature. A holistic overview of the existing scholarship and findings in the field of biophilic urban design may contribute to clarifying research directions and informing related design practices. Ultimately, this study seeks to employ biophilia theory and innovative practices presented in recent review studies (over the past five years) to develop a systematic meta-analysis of influential components drawn from the examined sources.
Methodology
The present review study employed a comparative–analytical approach and was conducted in 2023. The research applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify key components (both explicit and latent) and to capture stakeholders’ perspectives on the complex and often unpredictable dynamics of the system under study.
The structural analysis method was implemented in three stages:
- Identification and formulation of influential components.
- Evaluation of components within a matrix framework.
- Identification of key components for scenario building.
Findings
In the first stage of the structural analysis, 60 components influencing biophilic city design were identified. These components were evaluated by an expert panel using a structured questionnaire, and ultimately 54 components were confirmed as the main factors, grouped under five dimensions: institutional, natural, economic, social, and health.
In the next stage, the impact matrix of components was completed by the expert panel and prepared for analysis using MICMAC software. The first step of MICMAC analysis involved entering the data and generating the direct influence matrix of the components. The resulting matrix, sized 54×54, was obtained after two rounds of statistical iteration. From the set of relationships assessed in the software, low, moderate, and high-impact links were distinguished, with the final outputs presented in Figures 1 and 2, depicting both direct influences and the existing potential within these relationships.
Figure 1. Ranking of components based on influence
Figure 2. Ranking of components based on dependency
The results indicated that the components existence of laws, biophilic programs, availability of funding for biophilic activities, and biomimicry demonstrated the highest influence with the lowest dependency, while the components promotion of physical and mental health, human–nature compatibility, and functionality and health showed the highest dependency with the lowest influence. The critical factors identified included 22 influential components, 14 dependent components, 7 independent components, and 11 key bidirectional components that can guide the system toward sustainability (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Distribution of influence, dependency, and potential of the studied components in the MICMAC output diagram
It is noteworthy that the key components, often referred to in the literature as linking or dual components, possess both strong influence and high dependency. If utilized effectively in design, these components can enable the successful implementation of biophilic urban design. Among the most important key components were strengthening the human–nature relationship, reinforcing a broad spectrum of natural values, and fostering participation (Figure 3).
In other words, the bidirectional target components identified occupy the upper-right quadrant of the influence–dependence diagram, which signifies their capacity for both high influence and high dependency. These components, also known as trust factors, rapidly absorb and transmit changes within the system due to their interdependencies, thereby holding significant potential to destabilize or reconfigure system sustainability (Figure 3).
In contrast, the upper-left quadrant of Figure 4 contains components with low dependency and high influence, primarily existence of laws, biophilic programs, funding availability, and biomimicry. These function as the driving forces of the system, capable of injecting energy, producing change, and influencing other system components. Meanwhile, components positioned in the lower-right quadrant, such as physical and mental health, human–nature compatibility, and functionality and health exhibit the highest dependency and lowest influence, functioning as system outcomes directly affected by the driving forces. The lower-left quadrant represents the independent components, characterized by minimal influence and dependency.
The results of the direct influence matrix, potential direct influence matrix, indirect influence matrix, and potential indirect influence matrix are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. These results highlight both the current and potential future interrelationships among components, thereby facilitating foresight and scenario planning. According to the structural analysis, the components reinforcing a wide range of natural values, existence of laws, biophilic programs, and strengthening the human–nature relationship exhibited the highest direct influence, while physical and mental health promotion, human–nature compatibility, and functionality and health showed the lowest direct influence.
Discussion
The present study aimed to employ biophilic theory and recent innovative findings to identify the components influencing biophilic urban design.
Modern cities today are dominated by vehicles, long considered symbols of human civilization and urban advancement. Uncontrolled and continuous urban construction has neglected environmental cycles within urban fabrics. The challenges arising from urbanization have prompted urban designers and planners to develop structured programs under the framework of urban environmental conservation. Among the most significant and recent urban design approaches emphasizing a reciprocal and extensive relationship between humans and nature is biophilic urbanism, whose historical development and design principles were discussed in this study.
According to the findings, complexity and order, as well as biomorphic shapes and patterns, emerged as independent components, whereas promotion of physical and mental health, functionality and well-being, and human–nature compatibility exhibited the highest dependency. The most significant bidirectional components were strengthening human–nature relationships, reinforcing a broad spectrum of natural values, and fostering participation, which carried the greatest weight and strategic positioning. It is important to note that only three examples of each type of component were highlighted for illustration, while the total included 11 bidirectional components, 7 independent components, 14 influential components, and 22 dependent components. Bidirectional components are so named due to their simultaneous influence and dependency. In this study, these components are referred to as target components, as they can destabilize the system; with careful planning and optimal utilization, these components can be directed toward either influence or dependency to establish a balanced and highly sustainable system.
The modern biophilic urban planning and design approach addresses urban challenges arising from the separation of nature and cities, such as environmental pollution, degradation of natural elements and spaces, diminished vitality in human–nature interaction, traffic congestion, and reduced nature-based economic dynamism. Simultaneously, it provides a pathway toward sustainable urban development. What distinguishes biophilic urban planning from other approaches derived from the sustainable development paradigm is its emphasis on deep sensory interactions, education, culture, and nature-based civic activities, alongside the presence of nature and conservation of natural elements and spaces, as key principles in urban planning and design.
Implementing biophilic urban design yields positive impacts across environmental, functional, social, psychological, and economic dimensions. Noraie and Shokrani (2021) proposed a multidimensional approach in biophilic urban design, composed of 39 indicators spanning social vitality, economic dynamism, green transportation, environmental sustainability, and efficient urban management.
Urban planners and designers can prioritize components based on their strong interconnections, selecting those with the highest effectiveness to maximize the impact of biophilic design within a given study area or project. Consistent with this study, Beiginezhad and Ameri Sefat (2016) have emphasized the positive influence of biophilic architecture, resulting from human–nature interaction, on physical and mental well-being. Asadi and Khatibi (2021) have highlighted the importance of form, morphology and structure, transportation and accessibility, land use and activities, landscape systems, education and awareness, ecosystems, management and policymaking, and energy in biophilic city design.
Based on the results, the following recommendations are proposed to improve urban biophilic design:
- Bidirectional (key) components identified in this study should be leveraged to maximize system-wide influence in planning and design.
- Key components can be aligned with influential components to optimize potential and capacity and enhance system sustainability.
- Independent components, being neutral in influence and dependency, can be utilized to strengthen biophilic design strategies.
- Institutional dimensions, often composed of influential components, can be employed to modify target indicators, e.g., through investment or lawmaking aligned with system goals.
- Social dimensions are distributed across dependent and bidirectional components, indicating the sensitivity of this dimension.
- Careful study and utilization of nature-related indicators can result in more effective planning and design.
- From a developmental perspective, biophilic design not only creates a sustainable site but also mitigates potential harm to humans and the environment to the extent that is systematically planned and designed.
Conclusion
A total of 54 components across five dimensions of institutional, natural, economic, social, and health were identified as the main factors influencing biophilic urban design. Among these, 22 components were classified as influential, 14 as dependent, 7 as independent, and 11 as key bidirectional components
Acknowledgements: The authors express their sincere gratitude to all individuals who assisted them in conducting this research.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the dissertation of Mr. Rasoul Jafarizadeh.
Authors’ Contributions: Jafarizadeh R (first author): Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist (25%); Akbar Abdulahzadeh Taraf A (second author): Methodologist/Discussion Writer/Introduction Writer (25%); Haghlesan M (third author): Statistical analyst/Discussion Writer/Methodologist (25%); Saghafi Asal A (fourth author): Discussion Writer/Methodologist (25%).
Funding: The required financial resources were provided from personal income
Keywords:
References
1. - Amundsen M (2018). Q &A with Juhani Pallasmaa on architecture, aesthetics of atmospheres and the passage of time. Ambiances. Environnement sensible, architecture et espace urbain. [Link] [DOI:10.4000/ambiances.1257]
2. Andreucci MB, Loder A, Brown M, Brajković J (2021). Exploring challenges and opportunities of biophilic urban design: Evidence from research and experimentation. Sustainability. 13(8):4323. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su13084323]
3. Asadi S, Khatibi SM (2021). Formulating biophilic urban design criteria to organize central texture of cities. Life Space. 1(1):91-115. [Persian] [Link]
4. Beatley T (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning & design. Washington D.C: Island Press. [Link] [DOI:10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9]
5. Beatley T (2017). Biophilic cities and healthy societies. Urban Planning. 2(4):1-4. [Link] [DOI:10.17645/up.v2i4.1054]
6. Beiginezhad MA, Ameri Sefat AA (2016). Investigating the features of biophilic architecture in Iranian native buildings. International Conference on Innovation in Science and Technology. 500-510. [Persian] [Link]
7. Bolten B, Barbiero G (2020). Biophilic design: How to enhance physical and psychological health and wellbeing in our built environments. Visions for Sustainability. (13):11-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-09439-2_2]
8. Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, Cochran B, De Vries S, Flanders J, et al (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances. 5(7). [Link] [DOI:10.1126/sciadv.aax0903]
9. Brielmann AA, Buras NH, Salingaros NA, Taylor RP (2022). What happens in your brain when you walk down the street? Implications of architectural proportions, biophilia, and fractal geometry for urban science. Urban Science. 6(1):3. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/urbansci6010003]
10. Browning MH, Rigolon A, McAnirlin O, Yoon H (2022). Where greenspace matters most: A systematic review of urbanicity, greenspace, and physical health. Landscape and Urban Planning. 217:104233. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104233]
11. Cacique M, Ou SJ (2022). Biophilic design as a strategy for accomplishing the idea of healthy, sustainable, and resilient environments. Sustainability. 14(9):5605. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su14095605]
12. Jones C, Kammen DM (2014). Spatial distribution of U.S. household carbon footprints reveals suburbanization undermines greenhouse gas benefits of urban population density. Environmental science & technology. 48(2):895-902. [Link] [DOI:10.1021/es4034364]
13. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (2005). Preference, restoration, and meaningful action in the context of nearby nature. In: Barlett PF, editor. Urban place: Reconnecting with the natural world. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 271-298. [Link]
14. Kaplan S (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15(3):169-182. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2]
15. Kavathekar A, Bantanur S (2021). An evaluation of performance and wellbeing of users through biophilic indicators: A review. International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction. 10(1):1-7. [Link] [DOI:10.7492/IJAEC.2021.005]
16. Kellert SR (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. London: Yale university press. [Link] [DOI:10.12987/9780300235432]
17. Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington D.C: Island Press. [Link]
18. Kellert SR, Heerwagen J, Mador M (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. [Link]
19. Kellert SR, Calabrese EF (2015). The practice of biophilic design. London: Terrapin Bright LLC. 3:21-46. [Link]
20. Kondo MC, Fluehr JM, McKeon T, Branas CC (2018). Urban green space and its impact on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15(3):445. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijerph15030445]
21. Labaune O, Deroche T, Teulier C, Berret B (2020). Vigor of reaching, walking, and gazing movements: On the consistency of interindividual differences. Journal of Neurophysiology. 123(1):234-242. [Link] [DOI:10.1152/jn.00344.2019]
22. Labib SM, Lindley S, Huck JJ (2020). Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green-blue spaces on human health: A systematic review. Environmental Research. 180:108869. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108869]
23. Lee HC, Park SJ (2018). Assessment of importance and characteristics of biophilic design patterns in a children's library. Sustainability. 10(4):987. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su10040987]
24. Little S (2022). Small-scale urban greening: Creating places of health, creativity, and ecological sustainability by Angela Loder. Landscape Journal. 41(1):115-116. [Link] [DOI:10.3368/lj.41.1.115]
25. Loder, A (2020). Small-scale urban greening: Creating places of health, creativity, and ecological sustainability. England: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315642857]
26. McGee B, Park NK, Portillo M, Bosch S, Swisher M (2019). DIY biophilia: Development of the biophilic interior design matrix as a design tool. Journal of Interior Design. 44(4):201-221. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/joid.12159]
27. Noraie H, Shokrani SH (2021). Presenting the framework of applying the biophilic approach in the urban planning of metropolises. 1th National Conference of New Technologies in the Environment and Sustainable Development with Corona and Environment Approach. University of Birjand. [Persain] [Link]
28. Ottelin J, Heinonen J, Nässén J, Junnila S (2019). Household carbon footprint patterns by the degree of urbanisation in Europe. Environmental Research Letters 14(11):114016. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/ab443d]
29. Patuano A, Shentova R, Aceska A (2022). Infrastructure and health: The salutogenic approach, interdisciplinarity and new challenges for planning and design. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 15(4):645-658. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/IJMPB-09-2021-0237]
30. Pouso S, Borja Á, Fleming LE, Gómez-Baggethun E, White MP, Uyarra MC (2021). Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health. Science of the Total Environment. 756:143984. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143984]
31. Ruszczyk HA, Broto VC, McFarlane C (2022). Urban health challenges: Lessons from COVID-19 responses. Geoforum. 131:105-115. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.03.003]
32. Ulrich RS (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington D.C: Island Press. 73-137. [Article]
33. Van den Berg MM, van Poppel M, van Kamp I, Ruijsbroek A, Triguero-Mas M, Gidlow C, et al (2017). Do physical activity, social cohesion, and loneliness mediate the association between time spent visiting green space and mental health?. Environment and Behavior. 51(2):144-166. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0013916517738563]