Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 40, Issue 3 (2025)
GeoRes 2025, 40(3): 193-202 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/12/27 | Accepted: 2025/04/9 | Published: 2025/08/23
Received: 2024/12/27 | Accepted: 2025/04/9 | Published: 2025/08/23
How to cite this article
Jafarizadeh R, Abdulahzadeh Taraf A, Haqhlesan M, Saghafi Asl A. Components of Biophilic Urban Design in District 22 of Tehran. GeoRes 2025; 40 (3) :193-202
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1673-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1673-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 Center (T.C.), Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2- Department of Architecture and Urban Engineering, Ilkhchi Center (I.C.), Islamic Azad University, Ilkhchi, Iran
2- Department of Architecture and Urban Engineering, Ilkhchi Center (I.C.), Islamic Azad University, Ilkhchi, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (42 Views)
Background
Biophilic urbanism is an approach that strengthens the connection between humans and nature by integrating natural elements into urban environments, aiming to enhance health, well-being, and sustainability. This approach addresses environmental and social challenges arising from urbanization and climate change and has become particularly essential in Iran, especially in Tehran, due to issues such as air pollution, limited green spaces, and high population density.
Previous Studies
Multiple studies have emphasized the importance of the human–nature connection in urban environments. The biophilia theory, proposed by Kellert & Wilson (1993), describes the innate human need to interact with nature. Beatley & Newman (2013) consider this connection essential for a healthy and meaningful life. Ryan et al. (2014) demonstrate that biophilic design can enhance health and performance through nature-based approaches. Africa et al. (2019) highlight the role of this approach in creating cohesive projects that integrate buildings, sites, and residents. McDonald et al. (2016) have reported the positive effects of urban tree planting on air quality in the Global South. Studies by Johnson et al. (2022) and Bauman et al. (2012) also showed that urban nature moderates temperature, manages runoff, and improves residents’ physical and mental health. Additionally, Khazaee Nezhad & Beigi (2021) noted the deep interaction of Iran’s historic cities with climate and natural resources.
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to identify the key factors influencing biophilic urban design in District 22 of Tehran.
Research Type
The present study was of a descriptive-analytical type.
Research Society, Place and Time
The statistical population of this study consisted of the residents of District 22 in Tehran, with a total population of 209,991. The study was conducted in 2024 in District 22, which is considered one of Tehran’s newly developed urban areas.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling method in this study was random sampling. The statistical population included 209,991 residents of District 22 in Tehran, and based on Cochran’s formula, with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the sample size was determined to be 384 individuals.
Used Devices & Materials
The primary data collection tool was a questionnaire designed based on components and indicators derived from previous studies and expert interviews. The questionnaire included 35 questions across five sections (health, economic vitality, green transportation, social life, and environmental sustainability) and was structured using a 5-point Likert scale. Data analysis was conducted using AMOS 28 and statistical tests such as regression, Pearson correlation, and factor analysis. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the instrument, and scientific validation methods were employed to evaluate its validity..
Findings by Text
In the three stages of questionnaire distribution and refinement, all items received more than 60% positive responses, and no questions were removed (stages one and two). In the third stage, the main indicators were identified and coded as follows: A (social life), B (economic vitality), C (green transportation), D (environmental sustainability), and E (health) (Table 1).
Table 1. Components influencing the design of a biophilic city in district 22 of Tehran
Based on regression analysis using AMOS 28, all effect paths were significant (p < 0.05). The highest path coefficient was for environmental sustainability (D = 0.831), followed by health (E = 0.793), economic vitality (B = 0.784), social life (A = 0.751), and green transportation (C = 0.725) (Table 2). The adjusted R² values ranged between 0.6 and 0.8 for all indicators, with the highest explanatory power for environmental sustainability (0.831) and the lowest for green transportation (0.725) (Table 3).
Table 2. Path coefficients of the causal model
Table 3. Coefficient of determination of parameters (p-value = 0.001)
Path analysis showed that social life had the greatest overall effect (0.541) on the biophilic city, followed by environmental sustainability (0.483), economic vitality (0.451), health (0.356), and green transportation (0.362). Direct and indirect effects of each indicator are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4. The impact of indicators on the biophilic city
Pearson correlation results indicated that several criteria had a strong positive relationship (0.6 < r < 0.8) with the biophilic city, including the duration of citizens’ presence in urban nature, participation in ecological restoration, number of open recreational centers, length of bike paths, number of CNG stations, and safety in natural spaces. Other criteria showed a moderate positive relationship (0.4 < r < 0.6), such as municipal budget allocation, per capita pedestrian paths, number of bicycle stations, and metro station coverage (Table 5).
Table 5. Correlation coefficients of indicators with the biophilic city parameter
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study are consistent with previous research in the field of biophilic cities. Similar to Newman and Jennings (2012), environmental sustainability demonstrated the highest explanatory power (0.831), emphasizing the importance of green infrastructure and environmental protection. The role of green transportation in reducing the carbon footprint and improving environmental quality aligns with the findings of Suzuki and Nijkamp (2018). Social life, with a total effect of 0.541, emerged as the most influential indicator, consistent with Gehl (2011) and Montgomery et al. (2021) regarding the importance of social interactions and public spaces. Economic vitality (total effect 0.451) also highlighted the role of sustainable economic development in enhancing urban quality of life, in line with UN-Habitat (2022) and Jacobs (1961). Furthermore, the strong relationship between natural and ecological indicators and public well-being supports the results of Kellert (2016) and Jafarizadeh et al. (2023). Overall, this study underscores the multidimensional interplay of social, economic, environmental, and green transportation indicators in realizing biophilic cities.
Suggestions
To enhance green transportation, it is recommended to develop bicycle lanes and dedicated public transportation routes, expand metro and bicycle stations, provide financial incentives for CNG and electric vehicles, and implement educational programs to encourage citizens. In the field of environmental sustainability, the protection of natural resources, expansion of ecological green spaces, control of greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, and the design of green corridors with tree planting are essential. To improve citizens’ health, creating safe walking and cycling paths, increasing access to healthcare services near parks, and holding educational workshops on the benefits of spending time in nature are suggested.
Conclusion
The indicators of social vitality, economic dynamism, environmental sustainability, and green transportation play a significant role in promoting a biophilic city in District 22 of Tehran.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is extracted from the first author’s Thesis.
Authors’ Contributions: Jafarizadeh R (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist/Statistical Analyst (40%); Abdulahzadeh Taraf A (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Haqhlesan M (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Saghafi Asl A (Fourth author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Biophilic urbanism is an approach that strengthens the connection between humans and nature by integrating natural elements into urban environments, aiming to enhance health, well-being, and sustainability. This approach addresses environmental and social challenges arising from urbanization and climate change and has become particularly essential in Iran, especially in Tehran, due to issues such as air pollution, limited green spaces, and high population density.
Previous Studies
Multiple studies have emphasized the importance of the human–nature connection in urban environments. The biophilia theory, proposed by Kellert & Wilson (1993), describes the innate human need to interact with nature. Beatley & Newman (2013) consider this connection essential for a healthy and meaningful life. Ryan et al. (2014) demonstrate that biophilic design can enhance health and performance through nature-based approaches. Africa et al. (2019) highlight the role of this approach in creating cohesive projects that integrate buildings, sites, and residents. McDonald et al. (2016) have reported the positive effects of urban tree planting on air quality in the Global South. Studies by Johnson et al. (2022) and Bauman et al. (2012) also showed that urban nature moderates temperature, manages runoff, and improves residents’ physical and mental health. Additionally, Khazaee Nezhad & Beigi (2021) noted the deep interaction of Iran’s historic cities with climate and natural resources.
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to identify the key factors influencing biophilic urban design in District 22 of Tehran.
Research Type
The present study was of a descriptive-analytical type.
Research Society, Place and Time
The statistical population of this study consisted of the residents of District 22 in Tehran, with a total population of 209,991. The study was conducted in 2024 in District 22, which is considered one of Tehran’s newly developed urban areas.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling method in this study was random sampling. The statistical population included 209,991 residents of District 22 in Tehran, and based on Cochran’s formula, with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the sample size was determined to be 384 individuals.
Used Devices & Materials
The primary data collection tool was a questionnaire designed based on components and indicators derived from previous studies and expert interviews. The questionnaire included 35 questions across five sections (health, economic vitality, green transportation, social life, and environmental sustainability) and was structured using a 5-point Likert scale. Data analysis was conducted using AMOS 28 and statistical tests such as regression, Pearson correlation, and factor analysis. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the instrument, and scientific validation methods were employed to evaluate its validity..
Findings by Text
In the three stages of questionnaire distribution and refinement, all items received more than 60% positive responses, and no questions were removed (stages one and two). In the third stage, the main indicators were identified and coded as follows: A (social life), B (economic vitality), C (green transportation), D (environmental sustainability), and E (health) (Table 1).
Table 1. Components influencing the design of a biophilic city in district 22 of Tehran
Based on regression analysis using AMOS 28, all effect paths were significant (p < 0.05). The highest path coefficient was for environmental sustainability (D = 0.831), followed by health (E = 0.793), economic vitality (B = 0.784), social life (A = 0.751), and green transportation (C = 0.725) (Table 2). The adjusted R² values ranged between 0.6 and 0.8 for all indicators, with the highest explanatory power for environmental sustainability (0.831) and the lowest for green transportation (0.725) (Table 3).
Table 2. Path coefficients of the causal model
Table 3. Coefficient of determination of parameters (p-value = 0.001)
Path analysis showed that social life had the greatest overall effect (0.541) on the biophilic city, followed by environmental sustainability (0.483), economic vitality (0.451), health (0.356), and green transportation (0.362). Direct and indirect effects of each indicator are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4. The impact of indicators on the biophilic city
Pearson correlation results indicated that several criteria had a strong positive relationship (0.6 < r < 0.8) with the biophilic city, including the duration of citizens’ presence in urban nature, participation in ecological restoration, number of open recreational centers, length of bike paths, number of CNG stations, and safety in natural spaces. Other criteria showed a moderate positive relationship (0.4 < r < 0.6), such as municipal budget allocation, per capita pedestrian paths, number of bicycle stations, and metro station coverage (Table 5).
Table 5. Correlation coefficients of indicators with the biophilic city parameter
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study are consistent with previous research in the field of biophilic cities. Similar to Newman and Jennings (2012), environmental sustainability demonstrated the highest explanatory power (0.831), emphasizing the importance of green infrastructure and environmental protection. The role of green transportation in reducing the carbon footprint and improving environmental quality aligns with the findings of Suzuki and Nijkamp (2018). Social life, with a total effect of 0.541, emerged as the most influential indicator, consistent with Gehl (2011) and Montgomery et al. (2021) regarding the importance of social interactions and public spaces. Economic vitality (total effect 0.451) also highlighted the role of sustainable economic development in enhancing urban quality of life, in line with UN-Habitat (2022) and Jacobs (1961). Furthermore, the strong relationship between natural and ecological indicators and public well-being supports the results of Kellert (2016) and Jafarizadeh et al. (2023). Overall, this study underscores the multidimensional interplay of social, economic, environmental, and green transportation indicators in realizing biophilic cities.
Suggestions
To enhance green transportation, it is recommended to develop bicycle lanes and dedicated public transportation routes, expand metro and bicycle stations, provide financial incentives for CNG and electric vehicles, and implement educational programs to encourage citizens. In the field of environmental sustainability, the protection of natural resources, expansion of ecological green spaces, control of greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, and the design of green corridors with tree planting are essential. To improve citizens’ health, creating safe walking and cycling paths, increasing access to healthcare services near parks, and holding educational workshops on the benefits of spending time in nature are suggested.
Conclusion
The indicators of social vitality, economic dynamism, environmental sustainability, and green transportation play a significant role in promoting a biophilic city in District 22 of Tehran.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is extracted from the first author’s Thesis.
Authors’ Contributions: Jafarizadeh R (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist/Statistical Analyst (40%); Abdulahzadeh Taraf A (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Haqhlesan M (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Saghafi Asl A (Fourth author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Keywords:
References
1. Africa J, Heerwagen J, Loftness V, Ryan Balagtas C (2019). Biophilic design and climate change: Performance parameters for health. Frontiers in Built Environment. 5:00028. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fbuil.2019.00028]
2. Alijani S, Pourahmad A, Nejad HH, Ziari K, Sodoudi S (2020). A new approach of urban livability in Tehran: Thermal comfort as a primitive indicator. Case study, district 22. Urban Climate. 33:100656. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100656]
3. Ayla NM (2024). Urban biophilia in Ankara: Enhancing the environmental experience through biophilic design in the Alacaatli neighborhood [dissertation]. Ankara: Middle East Technical University. [Link]
4. Banister D (2019). A future for sustainable development?. In: What next for sustainable development?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 278-294. [Link] [DOI:10.4337/9781788975209.00027]
5. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW, et al (2012). Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people physically active and others not?. The Lancet. 380(9838):258-271. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1]
6. Beatley T (2014). Imagining biophilic cities. In: Low carbon cities. London: Routledge. p. 123-134. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315766003-15]
7. Beatley T (2017). Making green cities: Concepts, challenges and practice, cities and nature. New York: Springer. [Link]
8. Beatley T, Newman P (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability. 5(8):3328-3345. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su5083328]
9. Behboodzade F, Ekhlassi A, Norouzian-Malek S (2024). The explanation of biophilic design patterns: A systematic review of concepts and approaches. Journal of Sustainable Architecture & Urban Design. 12(1):41-66. [Persian] [Link]
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. Cosens B, McKinney M, Paisley R, Wolf AT (2018). Reconciliation of development and ecosystems: The ecology of governance in the International Columbia River Basin. Regional Environmental Change. 18(6):1679-1692. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10113-018-1355-1]
12. Gehl J (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. [Link]
13. Heymans A, Breadsell J, Morrison GM, Byrne JJ, Eon C (2019). Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability. 11(13):3723. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su11133723]
14. Jacobs J (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. [Link]
15. Jafarizadeh R, Abdulahzadeh Taraf A, Haqhlesan M, Saghafi Asal A (2023). Investigating the factors affecting the design of the biophilic city. Geographical Research. 38(3):391-400. [Persian] [Link]
16. Johnson T, Butcher J, Santell S, Schwartz S, Julius S, LeDuc S (2022). A review of climate change effects on practices for mitigating water quality impacts. Journal of Water and Climate Change. 13(4):1684-1705. [Link] [DOI:10.2166/wcc.2022.363]
17. Kellert SR (2016). Nature in buildings and health design. In: Green exercise. London: Routledge. p. 17-25. [Link]
18. Kellert SR, Wilson EO (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Bergen: Shearwater. [Link]
19. Khazaee Nezhad F, Beigi S (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of livability indicators using the partial least squares approach; Case study: Central part of Bojnord city. Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences. 21(61):395-412. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.52547/jgs.21.61.395]
20. McDonald R, Beatley T (2020). Biophilic cities for an urban century: Why nature is essential for the success of cities. Cham: Springer. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-51665-9]
21. McDonald R, Kroeger T, Boucher T, Longzhu W, Salem R (2016). Planting healthy air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. Arlington County: The Nature Conservancy. [Link]
22. Montgomery MR, Pinchoff J, Chuang EK (2021). Cities and their environments. In: International handbook of population and environment. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 349-374. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-76433-3_17]
23. Newman P, Jennings I (2012). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: Principles and practices. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. [Link]
24. Ruso B, Atzwanger K (2003). Measuring immediate behavioural responses to the environment. The Michigan Psychologist. 4(12). [Link]
25. Ryan CO, Browning WD, Clancy JO, Andrews SL, Kallianpurkar NB (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. International Journal of Architectural Research. 8(2):62-76. [Link] [DOI:10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i2.436]
26. Suzuki S, Nijkamp P (2018). Winners in the urban champions league-a performance assessment of Japanese cities by means of dynamic and super-efficient DEA. Journal of Urban Management. 7(1):6-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jum.2018.01.001]
27. UN-Habitat (2022). Towards green and just cities. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Program. [Link]