Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
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
Abstract (1492 Views)
Aims: The objective of this investigation was to utilize theoretical frameworks and novel functionalities as presented in recent scholarly articles, in order to determine the most efficacious components for the design of a biophilic city.
Methodology: This study employed a comparative analytical research approach in the years 2023-2024. The statistical population consisted of 309 studies that were published in reputable databases such as ISI, WoS, ESI, IWSC, Scopus, as well as Persian studies found in SID, Mogiran, Civilica, etc. databases from 2001 to 2016. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 54 studies were selected through purposive sampling, specifically targeting studies that included the keywords "biophilic" and "green city design". Additionally, an interview was conducted with a panel of experts to identify influential components. The selection of these experts was done through the snowball sampling method. Subsequently, variables that have an impact on biophilic city design were extracted. The reliability of these components was assessed through the use of a questionnaire and the expert opinions. The data obtained were analyzed utilizing structural equations via the Micmac software.
Findings: A total of 54 effective elements of biophilic city design were discerned. The adjustment of laws, implementation of biophilic programs, and allocation of budgets for biophilic and biomimicry undertakings exhibited the highest level of influence while registering the lowest level of susceptibility. Conversely, the components aimed at enhancing physical and mental well-being, performance and health, and fostering human compatibility with nature displayed the greatest level of susceptibility but the least level of influence.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the effective, impressionable, autonomous, and bimodal components encompassed respectively 22, 14, 7, and 11 elements out of 54 ones.
Methodology: This study employed a comparative analytical research approach in the years 2023-2024. The statistical population consisted of 309 studies that were published in reputable databases such as ISI, WoS, ESI, IWSC, Scopus, as well as Persian studies found in SID, Mogiran, Civilica, etc. databases from 2001 to 2016. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 54 studies were selected through purposive sampling, specifically targeting studies that included the keywords "biophilic" and "green city design". Additionally, an interview was conducted with a panel of experts to identify influential components. The selection of these experts was done through the snowball sampling method. Subsequently, variables that have an impact on biophilic city design were extracted. The reliability of these components was assessed through the use of a questionnaire and the expert opinions. The data obtained were analyzed utilizing structural equations via the Micmac software.
Findings: A total of 54 effective elements of biophilic city design were discerned. The adjustment of laws, implementation of biophilic programs, and allocation of budgets for biophilic and biomimicry undertakings exhibited the highest level of influence while registering the lowest level of susceptibility. Conversely, the components aimed at enhancing physical and mental well-being, performance and health, and fostering human compatibility with nature displayed the greatest level of susceptibility but the least level of influence.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the effective, impressionable, autonomous, and bimodal components encompassed respectively 22, 14, 7, and 11 elements out of 54 ones.
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]