15594 Kellert 3p ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page ii

15594_Kellert_3p_ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page ii

Biophilic Design

15594_Kellert_3p_ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page i

15594_Kellert_3p_ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page ii

The Theory, Science, and Practiceof Bringing Buildings to Life

EDITED BY:

Stephen R. Kellert

Judith H. Heerwagen

Martin L. Mador

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Biophilic Design

15594_Kellert_3p_ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page iii

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ●

Copyright © 2008 by Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen, and Martin L. Mador. All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New JerseyPublished simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form orby any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permit-ted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior writtenpermission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to theCopyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressedto the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201)748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and the author have used their best ef-forts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy orcompleteness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of mer-chantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales repre-sentatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable foryour situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor theauthor shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information about our other products and services, please contact our Customer Care De-partment within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax(317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print maynot be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site atwww.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Biophilic design : the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life / edited by Stephen R.Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen, Martin L. Mador.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-470-16334-4 (cloth)

1. Architecture—Environmental aspects 2. Architecture—Human factors. I. Kellert, Stephen R. II. Heerwagen, Judith H., 1944– III. Mador, Martin L., 1949–

NA2542.35.E44 2008720'.47—dc22

2007023228

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

100%TOTAL RECYCLED PAPER

100% POSTCONSUMER PAPER

15594_Kellert_3p_ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page iv

http://www.copyright.com

http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions

http://www.wiley.com

Preface viiStephen R. Kellert and Judith H. Heerwagen

Acknowledgments xi

Prologue: In Retrospect xiiiHillary Brown

PART I The Theory of Biophilic Design 1

Chapter 1 Dimensions, Elements, and Attributes of Biophilic Design 3Stephen R. Kellert

Chapter 2 The Nature of Human Nature 21Edward O. Wilson

Chapter 3 A Good Place to Settle: Biomimicry, Biophilia, and the Return of Nature’s Inspiration to Architecture 27Janine Benyus

Chapter 4 Water, Biophilic Design, and the Built Environment 43Martin L. Mador

Chapter 5 Neuroscience, the Natural Environment, and Building Design 59Nikos A. Salingaros and Kenneth G. Masden II

PART II The Science and Benefits of Biophilic Design 85

Chapter 6 Biophilic Theory and Research for Healthcare Design 87Roger S. Ulrich

Chapter 7 Nature Contact and Human Health: Building the Evidence Base 107Howard Frumkin

Chapter 8 Where Windows Become Doors 119Vivian Loftness with Megan Snyder

Chapter 9 Restorative Environmental Design: What, When, Where, and for Whom? 133Terry Hartig, Tina Bringslimark, and Grete Grindal Patil

Chapter 10 Healthy Planet, Healthy Children: Designing Nature into the Daily Spaces of Childhood 153Robin C. Moore and Clare Cooper Marcus

v

Contents

15594_Kellert_3p_ftoc.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page v

vi Contents

Chapter 11 Children and the Success of Biophilic Design 205Richard Louv

Chapter 12 The Extinction of Natural Experience in the Built Environment 213David Orr and Robert Michael Pyle

Part III The Practice of Biophilic Design 225

Chapter 13 Biophilia and Sensory Aesthetics 227Judith H. Heerwagen and Bert Gregory

Chapter 14 Evolving an Environmental Aesthetic 243Stephen Kieran

Chapter 15 The Picture Window: The Problem of Viewing Nature Through Glass 253Kent Bloomer

Chapter 16 Biophilic Architectural Space 263Grant Hildebrand

Chapter 17 Toward Biophilic Cities: Strategies for Integrating Nature into Urban Design 277Timothy Beatley

Chapter 18 Green Urbanism: Developing Restorative Urban Biophilia 297Jonathan F. P. Rose

Chapter 19 The Greening of the Brain 307Pliny Fisk III

Chapter 20 Bringing Buildings to Life 313Tom Bender

Chapter 21 Biophilia in Practice: Buildings That Connect People with Nature 325Alex Wilson

Chapter 22 Transforming Building Practices Through Biophilic Design 335Jenifer Seal Cramer and William Dee Browning

Chapter 23 Reflections on Implementing Biophilic Design 347Bob Berkebile and Bob Fox, with Alice Hartley

Contributors 357

Image Credits 365

Index 371

15594_Kellert_3p_ftoc.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page vi

T his book immodestly aspires to help mend theprevailing breach existing in our society betweenthe modern built environment and the human

need for contact with the natural world. In this regard,the chapters in this volume focus on the theory, science,and practice of what we call biophilic design, an innovativeapproach that emphasizes the necessity of maintaining,enhancing, and restoring the beneficial experience of na-ture in the built environment. Although we present bio-philic design as an innovation today, ironically, it was theway buildings were designed for much of human history.Integration with the natural environment; use of localmaterials, themes and patterns of nature in building ar-tifacts; connection to culture and heritage; and morewere all tools and methods used by builders, artisans, anddesigners to create structures still among the most func-tional, beautiful, and enduring in the world.

The authors in this book represent widely diversedisciplines, including architects, natural scientists, socialscientists, health professionals, developers, practitioners,and others who offer an original and timely vision ofhow we can achieve not just a sustainable but also a moresatisfying and fulfilling modern society in harmony withnature. Collectively, they articulate a paradigm shift inhow we design and build with nature in mind. Still, bio-philic design is not about greening our buildings or sim-ply increasing their aesthetic appeal through insertingtrees and shrubs. Much more, it is about humanity’splace in nature, and the natural world’s place in humansociety, a space where mutuality, respect, and enrichingrelation can and should exist at all levels and emerge asthe norm rather than the exception.

Biophilic design at any scale from buildings to citiesbegins with a simple question: How does the built en-vironment affect the natural environment, and how willnature affect human experience and aspiration? Most ofall, how can we achieve sustained and reciprocal bene-fits between the two?

The idea of biophilic design arises from the increas-ing recognition that the human mind and body evolvedin a sensorially rich world, one that continues to be crit-ical to people’s health, productivity, emotional, intellec-tual, and even spiritual well-being. The emergenceduring the modern age of large-scale agriculture, indus-try, artificial fabrication, engineering, electronics, andthe city represents but a tiny fraction of our species’evolutionary history. Humanity evolved in adaptive re-sponse to natural conditions and stimuli, such as sun-light, weather, water, plants, animals, landscapes, andhabitats, which continue to be essential contexts forhuman maturation, functional development, and ulti-mately survival.

Unfortunately, modern technical and engineeringaccomplishments have fostered the belief that humanscan transcend their natural and genetic heritage. Thispresumption has encouraged a view of humanity as hav-ing escaped the dictates of natural systems, with humanprogress and civilization measured by its capacity forfundamentally altering and transforming the naturalworld. This dangerous illusion has given rise to an ar-chitectural practice that encourages overexploitation,environmental degradation, and separation of peoplefrom natural systems and processes. The dominant par-adigm of design and development of the modern builtenvironment has become one of unsustainable energyand resource consumption, extensive air and water pol-lution, widespread atmospheric and climate alteration,excessive waste generation, unhealthy indoor environ-mental conditions, increasing alienation from nature,and growing “placelessness.” One of the volume’s au-thors, David Orr (1999:212–213), described this lam-entable condition in this way:

Most [modern] buildings reflect no understandingof ecology or ecological processes. Most tell itsusers that knowing where they are is unimportant.

vii

Preface Stephen R. Kellert and Judith H. Heerwagen

15594_Kellert_3p_fpref.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:13 AM Page vii

Most tell its users that energy is cheap and abun-dant and can be squandered. Most are provisionedwith materials and water and dispose of their wastesin ways that tell its occupants that we are not part ofthe larger web of life. Most resonate with no part ofour biology, evolutionary experience, or aestheticsensibilities.

Recognition of the necessity to change this self-defeating paradigm has led to significant efforts at min-imizing and mitigating the adverse environmental andhuman health impacts of modern development. Theseefforts have resulted in the growth of the sustainable orgreen design movement, dramatically illustrated by theextraordinary rise of the U.S. Green Building Council’sLEED certification and rating system. While com-mendable and necessary, these efforts will ultimately beinsufficient to achieving the long-term goal of a sustain-able, healthy, and well-functioning society.

The basic deficiency of current sustainable design isa narrow focus on avoiding harmful environmental im-pacts, or what we call low environmental impact design.Low environmental impact design, while fundamentaland essential, fails to address the equally critical needsof diminishing human separation from nature, enhanc-ing positive contact with environmental processes, andbuilding within a culturally and ecologically relevantcontext, all basic to human health, productivity, andwell-being. These latter objectives are the essence ofbiophilic design. True and lasting sustainability mustcombine both low environmental impact and biophilicdesign, the result being what is called restorative envi-ronmental design (Kellert 2005). This book, in effect,contends that biophilic design has been until now thelargely missing link in current sustainable design. Thevarious chapters attempt to redress this imbalance.

The notion of biophilic design derives from the con-cept of biophilia, the idea that humans possess a biolog-ical inclination to affiliate with natural systems andprocesses instrumental in their health and productivity.Originally proposed by the eminent biologist and one ofthe volume’s authors, Edward O. Wilson, biophilia hasbeen eloquently described by Wilson in this way(1984:35): “To explore and affiliate with life is a deepand complicated process in mental development. To an

extent still undervalued . . ., our existence depends onthis propensity, our spirit is woven from it, hope rises onits currents.” The idea of biophilia is elucidated else-where (Wilson 1984, Kellert and Wilson 1993, Kellert1997), and described in chapters in this volume byKellert and E. O. Wilson.

Biophilic design is the expression of the inherenthuman need to affiliate with nature in the design of thebuilt environment. The basic premise of biophilic de-sign is that the positive experience of natural systemsand processes in our buildings and constructed land-scapes remains critical to human performance and well-being. Various chapters in the volume cite growingscientific evidence to corroborate this assumption instudies of health care, the workplace, childhood devel-opment, community functioning, and more. More gen-erally, the authors offer insight and understandingregarding the theory, science, and practice of biophilicdesign.

Part I of the book focuses on a conceptual under-standing of biophilia and biophilic design. Chapters byKellert, E. O. Wilson, Benyus, Mador, and Salingarosand Masden offer various biological and cultural under-standings of the human need to affiliate with naturalsystems, and how this inclination can be achievedthrough design of the built environment. The authorsaddress the neglect of the human-nature connection inmodern architecture and construction, a condition theeminent architectural historian Vincent Scully de-scribed in this way (1991:11): “The relationship of man-made structures to the natural world . . . has beenneglected by architecture. . . . There are many reasonsfor this. Foremost among them . . . is the blindness ofthe contemporary urban world to everything that is notitself, to nature most of all.”

A major cause for this blindness has been the lack ofempirical evidence revealing the illogical and self-defeating consequences of designing in adversarial rela-tion to the natural environment. Part II of the bookprovides much of this needed evidentiary material, par-ticularly the many health and productivity benefits ofbiophilic design, as well as the harmful consequences ofimpeding and degrading human contact with naturalsystems and processes. Chapters by Ulrich, Frumkin,Loftness, and Hartig and colleagues delineate a range of

viii Preface

15594_Kellert_3p_fpref.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:13 AM Page viii

health, physical, emotional, and intellectual advantagesof building and landscape designs that facilitate the pos-itive experience of nature. Additional chapters byMoore and Marcus, Louv, and Pyle and Orr describethe importance of nature in childhood maturation, howto foster this connection through the design of residen-tial and educational settings, and the deleterious and po-tentially disastrous consequences of doing otherwise.

Part III focuses on the practical challenge of imple-menting biophilic design, most particularly how totransform conventional and prevailing sustainable de-sign practice. Chapters by Heerwagen and Gregory,Kieran, Bloomer, Hildebrand, Fisk, and Bender provideinsight and guidance regarding the architectural expres-sion of biophilic design, focusing largely on the build-ing and site scale. Additional chapters by Beatley and

Rose emphasize how to foster the human-nature con-nection at the neighborhood, community, and urbanscales, even what Beatley ambitiously calls the creationof “biophilic cities.” The challenge of transforming theprocess of design and development essential to imple-menting biophilic design is addressed in chapters byAlex Wilson, Cramer and Browning, and Fox andBerkebile.

We believe this volume will greatly advance our no-tions of sustainable, biophilic, and restorative environ-mental design. Still, our efforts remain a work inprogress, with much more to learn about the elusive expression of the inherent human need to affiliate with nature in the design and construction of ourbuildings, landscapes, communities, neighborhoods,and cities.

Preface ix

REFERENCES

Kellert, S. 1997. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolu-tion and Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S. 2005. Building for Life: Understanding and Designingthe Human-Nature Connection. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Kellert, S., and E.O. Wilson, eds. 1993. The Biophilia Hypoth-esis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Orr, D. 1999. “Architecture as Pedagogy.” In Reshaping the Built Environment, edited by C. Kibert. Washington, DC:Island Press.

Scully, V. 1991. Architecture: The Natural and the Manmade.New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia: The Human Bond with OtherSpecies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15594_Kellert_3p_fpref.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:13 AM Page ix

15594_Kellert_3p_fpref.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:13 AM Page x

This timely and, we hope, highly relevant bookemerged from a three-day meeting in a beautiful re-treat setting known as “Whispering Pines” in ruralRhode Island in May 2006. This extraordinary settingand gathering of leading scientists, designers, practi-tioners, and others was made possible by the supportof many generous benefactors. We particularly appre-ciate the major assistance of the Geraldine R. DodgeFoundation and its visionary president, David Grant.Additional critical support was provided by the Williamand Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Edward andDorothy Kempf Fund at Yale University, the VervaneFoundation and especially Josephine Merck, the HixonCenter for Urban Ecology at the Yale School of

Forestry and Environmental Studies, and Rev. Albert P.Neilson. Further support for the project was providedby the Henry Luce Foundation.

A number of Yale University students were espe-cially helpful in hosting the symposium and in othervital ways. Particular thanks are due Ben Shepherd.Others who provided critical assistance included Rod-erick Bates, Christopher Clement, Gwen Emery, MarenHaus, Sasha Novograd, Judy Preston, Chris Rubino, JillSavery, Ali Senauer, Adrienne Swiatocha, Terry Terhaar,and Christopher Thompson.

Finally, we very much thank our editor at John Wiley,Margaret Cummins, for her considerable confidence andsupport.

xi

Acknowledgments

15594_Kellert_3p_fack.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:12 AM Page xi

15594_Kellert_3p_fack.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:12 AM Page xii

During a visit to Turkey more than two decadesago, my companions and I shared pilgrimages tothat country’s Arcadian ruins, the rock-cut un-

derworld of Cappadocia, and other rewarding sights. Atone stop along the Aegean coast, we spent the night sea-side at a resort community. With construction detrituseverywhere, it was in a graceless stage of formation, itsplatted but unbuilt streets undoing the modesty of thevillage. A dozen hotels along the beach elbowed for seafrontage, gleaming glass and concrete towers, eachstraining to trump the other as more formally promi-nent, more luxuriously endowed.

In contrast, the entry to our hotel was undistin-guished, even obscure, a suggestive breach in a whitewall, solid for its several-storied height. Over thethreshold, we found ourselves within a long narrowcourtyard open to the elements. The sky overhead (ex-perienced as one would an artwork by James Turrell—not as passive observer, but as participant) was an azureslash. At the far end, the sky ballooned above what ap-peared to be a plaza.

We were seduced down this street that was mostlyself-shaded and cooled by a gentle updraft. Trees andplantings dotted the surfaces, muting the noise of ourprogress. Underfoot, the upended and sea worn cob-ble paving was punctuated with sandstone slabs at theentries to adjacent spaces, texturing our sound as alter-natively smooth or gritty down the length of the cor-ridor.

Overhead, the walls were faced with windows anddoors that opened onto balconies hanging out over thisnarrow street, beaming like so many smiles. Most case-ments were flung open, others still shuttered against themorning. Quite a few were peopled, elbows on sills,whispering shared delight at awakening in this commu-nal scene.

The building was vocalizing, its diverse din a con-temporary rendering of an ancient Mediterranean vil-

lage. From the far end came soft social sounds—foot-falls, a child’s exclamation, the soft rise and fall of trebleand bass voices. Fountains and laughter stippled the air,while clattering silverware broadcast the locale of a café.From here, just as our ears took in the softness of break-ing waves, our nostrils detected and eyes at once con-firmed the full expanse of the Aegean. Magnifying oursenses while buffering us from everything else, the hotelwas channeling the sea.

I remember my sense of gratification as well as cu-rious agitation in taking in this unexpected place, an ex-perience of architectural pleasure that resonated as bothnew and unfathomably familiar. For the first (and sincethen, only) time I knew, as I turned to my companionsand announced with conviction, that a woman had de-signed this building. To my friends’ astonishment, thehotel manager readily confirmed that yes, in fact, awoman-led practice in Istanbul had won the commis-sion.

For years since, I’ve given thought to that sharp, al-most physiological insight, that instant knowing-in-my-bones that arose from a shared design sensibility. Was ithow she closed our eyes and ears to the chaos of thisbeach community, or how she choreographed ourmovements to dilate the experience in time, intensifyingthis sensual introduction to the sea? Perhaps it was herpreference for socialized space, invoking a primordialpractice of sharing exquisite places rather than reserv-ing them for private consumption. In setting itself apart,her retreat, after all, recalled the archetypal Islamic car-avansary—that protective, walled compound found atintervals along desert trading routes where travelers to-gether sought refreshment and protection. How com-pelling was this concept, in contrast to the extravagantresorts next door that claimed visual primacy and exclu-sivity, ignoring the cultural landscape.

Given an emergent environmental consciousness atthe time, I now more fully appreciate this architect’s ac-

xiii

Prologue: In Retrospect Hillary Brown

15594_Kellert_3p_flast.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:12 AM Page xiii

complishment. My ecstatic moment responded to anartistry that was inventive yet contextual—and deeplyecological. Her rendering of bioregion and climate ex-pressed the essence of genius loci—the spirit of the place.Rather than facing the private rooms seaward, shespurned convention by turning them inward, unfoldingthe sea to us as singular, shared experience.

Just as she intensified the revelation of place, this ar-chitect refurbished our faculties by exploiting the intel-ligence and detailed richness of the natural world, usinglocal resources metamorphosed by time and humanagency. She distilled natural materials to their elegantsimplicity and rightness of fit. As with ecological de-signers today, nature was employed here as intrinsic toour biological being, a voice converging through sev-eral senses. Our wayfinding to the sparkling sea was in-tensified with textural, acoustic, and olfactory clues.

Today, many of us realize that successfully commu-nicating the ethical imperative of the green designmovement will depend on innovative and compellingexpression. In this building, long ago, I glimpsed justsuch an aesthetic of persuasion—one fundamentallyplace-based and participatory, experienced through allthe senses. While then, this distinguishing green voicestruck me as gender-specific, I recognize it today as aresponsiveness by no means exclusive to women.

Unnamed at the time, such design sensibilities haverecently coalesced for me around the word biophilic andnow raise central questions framed by a book on bio-philic design. First and not least is the curious signifi-cance of its only recent arrival as a legitimate topic forinvestigation. Why isn’t biophilic design—perhaps suc-cinctly defined as a creative process driven by, or predis-

posed toward, bio-logic, which seeks to protect and en-hance our link with the forces and faces of nature—anobvious and inherent organizing principle of all worksof architecture?

In exploring the dimensions, theories, benefits andpracticalities of biophilic design, these essays under-take a range of inquiries. In each new building en-deavor, as we renegotiate the boundary between manand the elements, what kind of transactions shouldtake place at the interface? How does the wall becomea filter that admits beneficial, yet excludes stressful,sensations? How should we frame a window to func-tion as lens, to better focus on nature while providinga controlled aperture for light, air exchange, and ther-mal conditioning? If human well-being, productivityand health at home, work, or school may be conferredby an occupant’s access to daylight, views of vegeta-tion and fauna, wind currents, and diurnal and sea-sonal information, why aren’t these outcomes alreadya paramount consideration in all building endeavors?Why shouldn’t these natural rights (entitlements, re-ally) feature prominently in our building codes andpermitting processes?

An investigation of this intentional, affirmative con-nection between man and nature makes a provocativecontribution to the case for sustainable design. Biophilicdesign is an emerging voice in building green—a cho-rus increasingly voluble. It is one that attends to thevital shades and nuances of how we experience environ-ments built for life. For today, in a world of impendingclimate change and species loss, this design sensibility,one more intuitively biologic in nature, is taking on evergreater social and political urgency.

xiv Prologue: In Retrospect

15594_Kellert_3p_flast.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:12 AM Page xiv

P A R T I

The Theory ofBiophilic Design

15594_Kellert_3p_c01.f.qxd 12/5/07 11:48 AM Page 1

Biophilic design is the deliberate attempt to trans-late an understanding of the inherent humanaffinity to affiliate with natural systems and

processes—known as biophilia (Wilson 1984, Kellertand Wilson 1993)—into the design of the built envi-ronment. This relatively straightforward objective is,however, extraordinarily difficult to achieve, given boththe limitations of our understanding of the biology ofthe human inclination to attach value to nature, and thelimitations of our ability to transfer this understandinginto specific approaches for designing the built envi-ronment. This chapter provides some perspective onthe notion of biophilia and its importance to humanwell-being, as well as some specific guidance regardingdimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic de-sign that planners and developers can employ to achievethis objective in the modern, especially urban, builtenvironment.

BIOPHILIA AND HUMAN WELL-BEING

As noted, biophilia is the inherent human inclination toaffiliate with natural systems and processes, especiallylife and life-like features of the nonhuman environment.This tendency became biologically encoded because itproved instrumental in enhancing human physical,emotional, and intellectual fitness during the longcourse of human evolution. People’s dependence oncontact with nature reflects the reality of having evolvedin a largely natural, not artificial or constructed, world.In other words, the evolutionary context for the devel-opment of the human mind and body was a mainly sen-sory world dominated by critical environmental featuressuch as light, sound, odor, wind, weather, water, vege-tation, animals, and landscapes.

The emergence during the past roughly 5,000 yearsof large-scale agriculture, fabrication, technology,

3

Dimensions, Elements, andAttributes of Biophilic DesignStephen R. Kellert

1c h a p t e r


4 Dimensions, E lements, and Attr ibutes of Biophi l ic Design

industrial production, engineering, and the modern cityconstitutes a small fraction of human history, a periodthat has not substituted for the benefits of adaptively re-sponding to a largely natural environment. Most of ouremotional, problem-solving, critical-thinking, and con-structive abilities continue to reflect skills and aptitudeslearned in close association with natural systems andprocesses that remain critical in human health, matura-tion, and productivity. The assumption that humanprogress and civilization is measured by our separationfrom if not transcendence of nature is an erroneous anddangerous illusion. People’s physical and mental well-being remains highly contingent on contact with thenatural environment, which is a necessity rather than aluxury for achieving lives of fitness and satisfaction evenin our modern urban society.

Biophilia is nonetheless a “weak” biological ten-dency that is reliant on adequate learning, experience,and sociocultural support for it to become functionallyrobust. As a weak biological tendency, biophilic valuescan be highly variable and subject to human choice andfree will, but the adaptive value of these choices is ulti-mately bound by biology. Thus, if our biophilic tenden-cies are insufficiently stimulated and nurtured, they willremain latent, atrophied, and dysfunctional. Humanspossess extraordinary capacities for creativity and con-struction in responding to weak biological tendencies,and this ability constitutes in a sense the “genius” of hu-manity. Yet, this innovative capacity is a two-edgedsword, carrying with it the potential for distinctive in-dividual and cultural expression, as well as the potentialfor self-defeating expression through either insufficientor exaggerated expression of inherent tendencies. Thus,our creative constructions of the human built environ-ment can be either a positive facilitator or a harmful im-pediment to the biophilic need for ongoing contact withnatural systems and processes.

Looking at biophilic needs as an adaptive product ofhuman biology relevant today rather than as a vestige ofa now-irrelevant past, we can argue that the satisfactionof our biophilic urges is related to human health, pro-ductivity, and well-being. What is the evidence to sup-port this contention? The data is sparse and diverse, buta growing body of knowledge supports the role of con-tact with nature in human health and productivity. This

topic is extensively discussed elsewhere, such as in chap-ters in this book by Ulrich, Hartig, Frumkin, and oth-ers. Still, the following findings are worth noting(summarized in Kellert 2005):

• Contact with nature has been found to enhance heal-ing and recovery from illness and major surgicalprocedures, including direct contact (e.g., naturallighting, vegetation), as well as representational andsymbolic depictions of nature (e.g., pictures).

• People living in proximity to open spaces reportfewer health and social problems, and this has beenidentified independent of rural and urban residence,level of education, and income. Even the presenceof limited amounts of vegetation such as grass and afew trees has been correlated with enhanced copingand adaptive behavior.

• Office settings with natural lighting, natural venti-lation, and other environmental features result inimproved worker performance, lower stress, andgreater motivation.

• Contact with nature has been linked to cognitivefunctioning on tasks requiring concentration andmemory.

• Healthy childhood maturation and development hasbeen correlated with contact with natural featuresand settings.

• The human brain responds functionally to sensorypatterns and cues emanating from the natural envi-ronment.

• Communities with higher-quality environmentsreveal more positive valuations of nature, supe-rior quality of life, greater neighborliness, and astronger sense of place than communities of lowerenvironmental quality. These findings also occur inpoor urban as well as more affluent and suburbanneighborhoods.

These studies provide scientific support for the an-cient assumption that contact with nature is critical tohuman functioning, health, and well-being. As the psy-chiatrist Harold Searles concluded some years ago(1960, 117): “The nonhuman environment, far frombeing of little or no account to human [health and] per-sonality development, constitutes one of the most basi-cally important ingredients of human existence.”


Restorat ive Envi ronmental and Biophi l ic Design 5

RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOPHILIC DESIGN

Unfortunately, the prevailing approach to design of the modern urban built environment has encouragedthe massive transformation and degradation of naturalsystems and increasing human separation from thenatural world. This design paradigm has resulted inunsustainable energy and resource consumption, majorbiodiversity loss, widespread chemical pollution andcontamination, extensive atmospheric degradation andclimate change, and human alienation from nature.This result is, however, not an inevitable by-product ofmodern urban life, but rather a fundamental design flaw.We designed ourselves into this predicament and theo-retically can design ourselves out of it, but only byadopting a radically different paradigm for developmentof the modern built environment that seeks reconcilia-tion if not harmonization with nature.

This new design paradigm is called here “restorativeenvironmental design,” an approach that aims at both alow-environmental-impact strategy that minimizes andmitigates adverse impacts on the natural environment,and a positive environmental impact or biophilic designapproach that fosters beneficial contact between peopleand nature in modern buildings and landscapes.

Recognition of how much the modern built envi-ronment has degraded and depleted the health and pro-ductivity of the natural environment prompted thedevelopment of the modern sustainable or green designmovement, and years of hard work has started to yieldsignificant change in design and construction practices.Unfortunately, the prevailing approach to sustainabledesign has almost exclusively focused on the low-environmental-impact objectives of avoiding and min-imizing harm to natural systems (e.g., Mendler et al.2006). While necessary and commendable, this focus isultimately insufficient, largely ignoring the importanceof achieving long-term sustainability of restoring andenhancing people’s positive relationship to nature in thebuilt environment, what is called here biophilic design.Low-environmental-impact design results in little netbenefit to productivity, health, and well-being. Build-ings and landscapes, therefore, will rarely be sustain-able over time, lacking significant benefits derived from

our ongoing experience of nature. Cutting-edge low-environmental-impact technology inevitably becomesobsolete, and when this occurs, will people be motivatedto renew and restore these structures? Sustainability isas much about keeping buildings in existence as it isabout constructing new low-impact efficient designs.Without positive benefits and associated attachment tobuildings and places, people rarely exercise responsibil-ity or stewardship to keep them in existence over thelong run.

Biophilic design is, thus, viewed as the largely miss-ing link in prevailing approaches to sustainable design.Low-environmental-impact and biophilic design must,therefore, work in complementary relation to achievetrue and lasting sustainability. The major objectives oflow-environmental-impact design have been effectivelydelineated, focusing on goals such as energy and re-source efficiency, sustainable products and materials,safe waste generation and disposal, pollution abatement,biodiversity protection, and indoor environmental qual-ity. Moreover, the detailed specification of design strate-gies to achieve these goals has been incorporated intocertification systems such as the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil’s LEED rating approach.

In contrast, a detailed understanding of biophilic de-sign remains meager (Kellert 2005, Heerwagen 2001).For the remainder of this chapter, therefore, dimen-sions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design willbe described to partially address this need. The follow-ing description identifies two basic dimensions of bio-philic design, followed by six biophilic design elements,which in turn are related to some 70 biophilic designattributes. This specification can assist designers anddevelopers in pursuing the practical application of bio-philic design in the built environment.

The first basic dimension of biophilic design is anorganic or naturalistic dimension, defined as shapes andforms in the built environment that directly, indirectly,or symbolically reflect the inherent human affinity fornature. Direct experience refers to relatively unstruc-tured contact with self-sustaining features of the natu-ral environment such as daylight, plants, animals, naturalhabitats, and ecosystems. Indirect experience involvescontact with nature that requires ongoing human inputto survive such as a potted plant, water fountain, or



aquarium. Symbolic or vicarious experience involves noactual contact with real nature, but rather the represen-tation of the natural world through image, picture,video, metaphor, and more.

The second basic dimension of biophilic design is aplace-based or vernacular dimension, defined as buildingsand landscapes that connect to the culture and ecologyof a locality or geographic area. This dimension in-cludes what has been called a sense or, better, spirit ofplace, underscoring how buildings and landscapes ofmeaning to people become integral to their individualand collective identities, metaphorically transforminginanimate matter into something that feels lifelike andoften sustains life. As René Dubos (1980, 110) argued:

People want to experience the sensory, emotional,and spiritual satisfactions that can be obtained onlyfrom an intimate interplay, indeed from an identi-fication with the places in which [they] live. Thisinterplay and identification generate the spirit ofthe place. The environment acquires the attributesof a place through the fusion of the natural andhuman order.

People are rarely sufficiently motivated to act as re-sponsible stewards of the built environment unless theyhave a strong attachment to the culture and ecology ofplace. As Wendell Berry (1972, 68) remarked: “Withouta complex knowledge of one’s place, and without thefaithfulness to one’s place on which such knowledge de-pends, it is inevitable that the place will be used care-lessly and eventually destroyed.” A tendency to affiliatewith place reflects the human territorial proclivity de-veloped over evolutionary time that has proven instru-mental in securing resources, attaining safety andsecurity, and avoiding risk and danger.

Despite the modern inclination for mobility, mostpeople retain a strong physical and psychological needfor calling some place “home.” This attachment to ter-ritory and place remains a major reason why people as-sume responsibility and long-term care for sustainingbuildings and landscapes. Conversely, lacking a sense ofplace, humans typically behave with indifference towardthe built environment. An erosion of connection toplace has unfortunately become a common affliction of

modern society—what Edward Relph called “placeless-ness,” and described in the following way (1976, 12):

If places are indeed a fundamental aspect of exis-tence in the world, if they are sources of securityand identity for individuals and for groups of peo-ple, then it is important that the means of experi-encing, creating, and maintaining significant placesare not lost. There are signs that these very meansare disappearing and that “placelessness”—theweakening of distinct and diverse experiences andidentities of places—is now a dominant force. Sucha trend marks a major shift in the geographicalbases of existence from a deep association withplaces to rootlessness.

The two basic dimensions of biophilic design can berelated to six biophilic design elements:

• Environmental features• Natural shapes and forms• Natural patterns and processes• Light and space• Place-based relationships• Evolved human-nature relationships

These six elements are then revealed in more than70 biophilic design attributes.

The remainder of this chapter describes these el-ements and attributes of biophilic design. This de-scription is necessarily brief, due to space limitations,and insufficient. Additionally, this initial formulationwill be modified in the future with increasing knowl-edge, and some of this categorization will inevitablyoverlap. This classification should, therefore, beviewed as a work in progress. At the end of the chap-ter, all the design elements and attributes are listed in Table 1.1, and a small number of illustrations areprovided.

Environmental Features

The first and most obvious of the biophilic design ele-ments is environmental features, involving the use of rel-atively well-recognized characteristics of the naturalworld in the built environment. Twelve attributes areidentified, including the following:



1. Color. Color has long been instrumental in humanevolution and survival, enhancing the ability to lo-cate food, resources, and water; identify danger; fa-cilitate visual access; foster mobility; and more.People for good and obvious reasons are attractedto bright flowering colors, rainbows, beautiful sun-sets, glistening water, blue skies, and other colorfulfeatures of the natural world. Natural colors, suchas earth tones, are thus often used to good effectby designers.

2. Water. Water is among the most basic human needsand commonly elicits a strong response in people.The famous architectural critic John Ruskin re-marked in this regard (Hildebrand 2000, 71)): “Asfar as I can recollect, without a single exception,every Homeric landscape, intended to be beautiful,is composed of a fountain, a meadow, and a shadygrove.” Roger Ulrich similarly observed (1993)based on a review of many studies: “Water featuresconstantly elicit especially high levels of liking orpreference.” The effective use of water as a designfeature is complex, well described in the chapter byMador, and often contingent on such considera-tions as perceptions of quality, quantity, movement,clarity, and other characteristics.

3. Air. People prefer natural ventilation over processedand stagnant air. Important conditions include qual-ity, movement, flow, stimulation of other sensessuch as feel and smell, and visual appeal despite theseeming invisibility of the atmosphere.

4. Sunlight. Daylight is consistently identified as animportant and preferred feature by most people inthe built environment. The simple use of naturalrather than artificial light can improve morale,comfort, and health and productivity. This prefer-ence reflects the fact that humans are a largely di-urnal animal, heavily reliant on sight for securingresources and avoiding hazard and danger. Peopledepend on visual acuity to satisfy various physical,emotional, and intellectual needs. Additional con-sideration of the importance of light is addressedin a later section on the more general biophilic de-sign element of light and space.

5. Plants. Plants are fundamental to human existenceas sources of food, fiber, fodder, and other aspects

of sustenance and security. The mere insertion ofplants into the built environment can enhancecomfort, satisfaction, well-being, and performance.

6. Animals. Animals are similarly basic to human ex-istence as sources of food, resources, protection,and companionship, and occasionally as precipita-tors of fear and danger. Designing animal life intothe built environment can be difficult and problem-atic, although sometimes effective in aviaries,aquaria, and even the presence of free-roamingcreatures associated with certain designs like greenroofs. Animals in building interiors typically occurin representational rather than literal form, manythrough the use of ornament, decoration, art, andin stylized and highly metaphorical disguise. Thepresence of animal forms, nonetheless, often pro-vokes satisfaction, pleasure, stimulation, and emo-tional interest.

7. Natural materials. People generally prefer naturalover artificial materials, even when the artificialforms are close or seeming exact copies of naturalproducts. Part of the aversion is likely due to theinability of artificial materials to reveal the organicprocesses of aging, weathering, and other dynamicfeatures of natural materials, even inorganic formslike stone. The patina of time may provoke an in-tuitive understanding among some people of thebenefits flowing from the movement of nutrientsand energies through natural systems.

8. Views and vistas. People express a strong and consis-tent preference for exterior views, especially whenthe vistas contain natural features and vegetation.These views are often most satisfying when thescale is compatible with human experience—for ex-ample, not overly restricted or confined, unfamil-iar, or out of scale or proportion (e.g., too large ortoo high).

9. Façade greening. Buildings with vegetative façades,such as ivy walls or green roofs, often provoke inter-est and satisfaction. This likely reflects the historicbenefits associated with organic materials as sourcesof insulation, camouflaging protection, or even food.Plants on buildings and constructed landscapes can also evoke a powerful vernacular, such as thethatched or vegetative roofs of many cultures.



10. Geology and landscape. The compatible connectionof buildings to prominent geological features isoften an effective design strategy. These structuresare sometimes described as rooted or grounded.Frank Lloyd Wright achieved particular successwith his Prairie-style architecture in part by creat-ing structures that worked in strong parallel rela-tion to rather than dominating their savanna-typelandscape.

11. Habitats and ecosystems. Buildings and landscapesthat possess a close and compatible relationship tolocal habitats and ecosystems also tend to be highlyeffective and preferred. Important ecosystems inthis regard are often wetlands, forests, grasslands,and watersheds.

12. Fire. Fire in the built environment, while a com-plicated and difficult design challenge, is often apreferred feature, generally associated with thebenefits of heating and cooking. The manipulatedexperience of fire within building interiors has longbeen celebrated as a sign of comfort and civiliza-tion, providing pleasing qualities of color, warmth,and movement.

Natural Shapes and Forms

The second biophilic design element is natural shapesand forms. This element includes representations andsimulations of the natural world often found on build-ing façades and within interiors. Eleven attributes areassociated with this design element:

1. Botanical motifs. The shapes, forms, and patterns ofplants and other vegetative matter are a frequentand often important design element of the built en-vironment (Hersey 1999). These representationsoften mimic or simulate plant forms such as foliage,ferns, cones, shrubs, and bushes, both literally andmetaphorically.

2. Tree and columnar supports. Trees have also played avital role in human affairs as sources of food, build-ing material, paper products, heating supply, andother uses. The appearance or simulation of tree-like shapes, especially columnar supports, is a com-mon and often coveted design feature in the builtenvironment. Some of our most appealing struc-

tures contain tree forms and shapes that frequentlyinclude leaf capitals. When revealed in multiples,they can sometimes suggest a forested setting.

3. Animal (mainly vertebrate) motifs. The simulation ofanimal life is widespread in building interiors andfacades, although to a less extent than with plants.The appearance of animal parts is often encoun-tered, such as claws or heads, rather than entirecreatures. Animal forms are frequently revealed inhighly stylized, fictionalized, and sometime con-torted shapes and forms.

4. Shells and spirals. Simulations and depictions of in-vertebrate creatures are widespread design featuresin the built environment, particularly shell and spi-ral forms of actual and imagined mollusks. Theshapes and forms of bees (and their hives), flies,butterflies, moths, and other insects, as well as spi-ders (and their webs) and other invertebrates, arealso common. Some building designs mimic inver-tebrate processes, such as the bioclimatic con-trols of termite mounds, the structural strength ofseashells and hives, and the patterns of webs, a sub-ject considered at the end of this section under the topic of “biomimicry,” and in the chapter byBenyus.

5. Egg, oval, and tubular forms. Egglike and tubularforms are also design elements in some building in-teriors, facades, and exterior landscapes such as gar-dens and fountains. These shapes often occurliterally and metaphorically, both important ex-pressions of ornament and sometimes for structuralpurposes.

6. Arches, vaults, domes. Arches, vaults, and domes inthe built environment resemble or copy formsfound in nature, including beehives, nest-like struc-tures, shell forms, and cliffs. These forms can beused for both decorative and functional purposes.

7. Shapes resisting straight lines and right angles. Nat-ural shapes and forms are often sinuous, flowing,and adaptive in responding to forces and pressuresfound in nature. Natural features are thus rarely re-vealed as straight lines and right angles character-istic of human engineering and manufacturedproducts and structures. The large-scale modernbuilt environment has often been characterized by



standardized and rigid shapes. People nonethelessgenerally prefer designs that resemble the tendencyof organic forms to resist hard mechanical edges,straight lines and angles.

8. Simulation of natural features. This attribute reaf-firms the tendency to simulate rather than replicateactual natural forms in the built environment. Or-namentation and decoration especially employimagined forms only vaguely reminiscent of thosefound in the natural world. These designs are oftenmost successful when they possess a logic that inti-mates functional features occurring in nature, suchas shapes, patterns and processes that suggest struc-tural integrity and adaptive advantage in responseto environmental pressures rather than mere su-perficial decoration.

9. Biomorphy. Some interesting architectural formsbear very little resemblance to life forms encoun-tered in nature, yet are clearly viewed as organic.These resemblances to living forms are usually un-conscious products of design, sometimes called“biomorphy” (Feuerstein 2002). Powerful exam-ples of biomorphic architecture that provoke ob-servers to impute known animal and plant labelseven when the designer did not deliberately createthese life-forms include the birdlike shape of JörnUtzon’s Sydney Opera House and the fernlike orless reverently labeled “pregnant whale” of EeroSaarinen’s Yale University hockey rink.

10. Geomorphology. Some building designs mimic ormetaphorically embrace landscape and geology inrelative proximity to the structure. This relation-ship to the ground can lend the appearance of so-lidity to the built environment, making structuresappear integral rather than separate from their ge-ological context.

11. Biomimicry. Some successful designs borrow fromadaptations functionally found in nature, particu-larly among other species. Examples include thestructural strength and bioclimatic properties ofshells, crystals, webs, mounds, and hives, effectivelyincorporated into the built environment. This ten-dency has been called “biomimicry” by JanineBenyus, elucidated in her book of this title (Benyus1997) and connected to biophilic design in a later

chapter in this volume. The knowledge of bio-mimetic properties is growing rapidly and willlikely result in a revolution of product developmentwith enormous biophilic design implications.

Natural Patterns and Processes

A third biophilic design element is natural patterns andprocesses. This element emphasizes the incorporation ofproperties found in nature into the built environment,rather than the representation or simulation of environ-mental shapes and forms. Fifteen attributes have beenidentified and are described below, although this com-plex element is likely to be altered in the future with ad-ditional understanding.

1. Sensory variability. Human fitness and survival hasalways required coping with a highly sensuous andvariable natural environment, particularly respond-ing to light, sound, touch, smell, and other sensoryenvironmental conditions. Human satisfaction andwell-being continue to be reliant on perceiving andresponding to sensory variability, especially whenthis occurs in structured and organized ways withinthe built environment.

2. Information richness. The cognitive richness of thenatural world reflects its likely being the most intel-lectually challenging environment people will everencounter even in our modern information age.This quality constitutes one of its most beguilingfeatures, and when effectively incorporated into thebuilt environment in actual or metaphorical formcan stimulate curiosity, imagination, exploration,discovery, and problem-solving. Most people,therefore, respond positively to buildings and land-scapes that possess information richness, variety,texture, and detail that mimic natural patternswhen coherently revealed.

3. Age, change, and the patina of time. A fundamental fea-ture of the natural world is aging through time, par-ticularly organic forms. This dynamic progressionevokes a sense of familiarity and satisfaction amongpeople, despite the eventual occurrence of senes-cence, death, and decay. A patina of time is charac-teristic of natural materials, even inorganic ones,and is one reason, as noted above, that artificial



products rarely evoke sustained positive responseeven when they are exact copies.

4. Growth and efflorescence. Growth and developmentare specific expressions of aging that when foundin the built environment typically provoke pleas-ure and satisfaction. Efflorescence marks the pro-gressive unfolding of a maturational process thatwhen encountered in buildings and landscapes, es-pecially through ornamentation, is often highlyappealing (Bloomer 2000). These temporal andtransitional attributes often lend a dynamic quasi-living character to the built environment despite itsimmutable character.

5. Central focal point. The navigability of natural land-scapes is often enhanced by the presence of a cen-trally perceived focal point. This point of referencefrequently transforms what otherwise is a chaoticsetting into an organized one that facilitates pas-sage and way-finding. As the poet Wallace Stevensdescribed (1955): “I placed a jar in Tennessee/ Andround it was, upon a hill./ It made a slovenlywilderness/ surround that hill.” Many successfulbuildings and constructed landscapes similarlyachieve coherence despite complexity and largescale when a centrally organized reference pointhas been effectively incorporated.

6. Patterned wholes. People respond positively to nat-ural and built environments when variability hasbeen united by integrated and patterned wholes.What may have previously been experienced as in-choate becomes structured in a manner that fostersunderstanding and often feelings of mastery andcontrol.

7. Bounded spaces. Humans have a strong proclivity forbounded spaces. This territorial tendency, overevolutionary time, likely fostered resource exploita-tion and security. People also value delineatedspaces within the built environment, which en-hance the recognition of clear and consistentboundaries and place demarcations.

8. Transitional spaces. Transitional spaces within andbetween built and natural environments often fos-ter comfort by providing access from one area toanother. Important passageways in the built envi-ronment include thresholds, portals, doors, bridges,and fenestration.

9. Linked series and chains. Clear physical and temporalmovement in both natural and built environments isoften facilitated by linked spaces, especially whenoccurring in connected chains. These relationalspaces convey meaning and organization, as well assometimes a sense of mystery that both stimulatesand entices.

10. Integration of parts to wholes. People prefer in natu-ral and built environments the feeling that discreteparts comprise an overall whole, particularly whenthe whole is an emergent property consisting ofmore than the sum of the individual parts. This in-tegrative quality fosters a feeling of structural in-tegrity, even in complexes of considerable size anddetail.

11. Complementary contrasts. Meaning and intelligibil-ity, as well as interest and stimulation, in naturaland constructed settings often reveal the blendingof contrasting features in complementary fashion.This can occur through the compatible renderingof seeming opposites, such as light and dark, highand low, and open and closed.

12. Dynamic balance and tension. The dynamic balancingof different and sometimes contrasting forms oftenfosters a sense of strength and durability in bothnatural and built environments. This blending ofvarying forces often produces a quality of creativetension that transforms static forms into organic-like entities.

13. Fractals. Elements in nature are rarely if ever exactcopies of one another, even among highly relatedentities. Snowflakes or leaves of a single species ortree may be highly similar but never the same. Or-derly variation on a basic pattern is the norm,whether it be thematic diversity based on size, orspatial or temporal scale. Related and similar formsare often called “fractals,” and these patterns arefound in some of our most successful buildings andlandscapes. These structures frequently include re-peated but varying patterns of a basic design, suchas ornamentation in parallel or closely linked rowsthat differ slightly from one another.

14. Hierarchically organized ratios and scales. Successfulnatural and built forms often occur in hierarchi-cally connected ways, sometimes arithmetically orgeometrically related. This thematic congruence



can facilitate the assimilation of highly complexpatterns that otherwise might be experienced asoverwhelmingly detailed or even chaotic. Arith-metic and geometric expressions of this tendencyin both natural and built settings include thegolden proportion and the Fibonacci ratio (Por-toghesi 2000).

Light and Space

A fourth biophilic design element is light and space.Twelve design attributes of this element follow, sevenfocusing on qualities of light and five focusing on spa-tial relationships:

1. Natural light. This attribute includes the effects ofdaylighting as previously described, as well as in-clusion of the full color spectrum of natural light.Chapters by Loftness and Frumkin note studiesshowing that natural light is both physically andpsychologically rewarding to people, frequentlycontributing to their health, productivity, and well-being in the built environment.

2. Filtered and diffused light. The benefits of naturallight are often enhanced by modulating daylight,particularly by mitigating the effects of glare. Fil-tered or diffused sunlight can also stimulate obser-vation and feelings of connection by providing avariable and mediated connection between spaces,particularly inside and outside areas such as de-scribed in the chapter by Bloomer.

3. Light and shadow. The complementary contrast oflight and dark spaces can produce significant satis-faction in both buildings and landscapes. The cre-ative manipulation of light and shadow can fostercuriosity, mystery, and stimulation. This attributelikely evolutionarily enhanced human movementand the ability to discern objects over long dis-tances, particularly from a protected refuge.

4. Reflected light. Lighting designs are frequently en-hanced by light reflecting off surfaces such as light-colored walls, ceilings, and reflective bodies likewater. Functional benefits include mitigation ofglare, enhanced penetration of light into interiorspaces, and spying resources at a distance.

5. Light pools. People are often drawn into andthrough interior spaces by the presence of pools of

connected light. Light pools can assist movementand way-finding by providing lighted patches acrossshadowed or obscured areas such as a forest ordarkened halls and passageways. Light pools canalso foster feelings of security and protection, suchas a lighted hearth.

6. Warm light. The perception of warmly lit areas,often islands of modulated sunlight surrounded bydarker spaces, can enhance the feeling of a nested,secure, and inviting interior.

7. Light as shape and form. The manipulation of natu-ral light can create stimulating, dynamic, and sculp-tural forms. Beyond the aesthetic pleasure, theseshapes facilitate mobility, curiosity, imagination,exploration, and discovery.

8. Spaciousness. People prefer feelings of openness innatural and built environments, especially when itoccurs in complementary relation to sheltered pro-tected refuges at the surrounding edges. Effectivedesigns often include spacious settings in close al-liance with smaller spaces, which in contemporaryarchitecture can often be encountered in airports,train stations, and some commercial and educa-tional buildings.

9. Spatial variability. Spatial variability fosters emo-tional and intellectual stimulation. Spatial diversityis often most effective when in complementary re-lation to organized and united spaces.

10. Space as shape and form. Space can be creativelymanipulated to convey shapes and forms. This ef-fect can add beauty to the built environment,which stimulates interest, curiosity, exploration,and discovery.

11. Spatial harmony. The manipulation of space in thebuilt environment tends to be most effective whenit blends light, mass, and scale within a boundedcontext. This achievement evokes a sense of har-mony, which fosters a sense of security and facili-tates movement within diverse settings.

12. Inside-outside spaces. Appealing interior spaces inthe built environment often appear connected tothe outside environment. These areas also markthe transition of nature with culture. Importantdesign forms in the built environment that evokethis quality include colonnades, porches, foyers,atriums, and interior gardens.



Place-Based Relationships

A fifth biophilic design element is place-based relationships.This element refers to the successful marriage of culturewith ecology in a geographical context. The connectionof people to places reflects an inherent human need toestablish territorial control, which during the longcourse of our species’ evolution facilitated control overresources, attaining safety, and achieving security. Loca-tional familiarity—the yearning for home—remains adeeply held need for most people. Eleven attributes ofplace-based relationships are described, the last (place-lessness) being the antithesis of the others rather than astand-alone attribute.

1. Geographic connection to place. Secure feelings of con-nection to the geography of an area often fosterfeelings of familiarity and predictability. This canbe achieved by emphasizing prominent geologicalfeatures associated with the siting, orientation, andviews of buildings and landscapes.

2. Historic connection to place. Meaningful relation toplace often marks the passage of time, which fostersa sense of participation and awareness of an area’sculture and collective memory. Buildings and land-scapes that elicit this continuity with the past en-courage the belief that the present and future aremeaningfully linked to the history of a place.

3. Ecological connection to place. Places are sustained byan affirmative connection to ecology, particularlyprominent ecosystems such as watersheds and dom-inant biogeographical features (e.g., mountains,deserts, estuaries, rivers, and oceans). The design ofthe built environment inevitably refashions nature,but this can occur in ways that do not diminish theoverall biological productivity (e.g., nutrient flux),biodiversity, and ecological integrity of proximateecological communities. Humans, like any ecolog-ically transformative organism (e.g., elephants onthe savanna, sea otters in a kelp bed), can add as wellas subtract value from their natural systems. Thedesign of the built environment can, therefore, as-pire to achieve net ecological productivity.

4. Cultural connection to place. Cultural connection toplace integrates the history, geography, and ecol-ogy of an area, becoming an integral component of

individual and collective identity. The need for cul-ture is a universal human need, sustained over timeby repetition, normative events, and the architec-tural heritage of a people, particularly its treasuredand distinctive vernacular forms.

5. Indigenous materials. A positive relation to place isgenerally enhanced by the utilization of local andindigenous materials. Native resources can providea vivid and resonant reminder of local culture andenvironment, as well as require less energy formanufacture and transport.

6. Landscape orientation. Buildings and landscapes thatcompatibly connect to the local environment con-tribute to a sense of place. These constructions typ-ically emphasize landscape features such as slope,aspect, sunlight, wind direction, and others thattake advantage of prevailing biometeorologicalconditions. This orientation to landscape frequentlyevokes a sense of being a part of and embeddedwithin local settings, rather than being separatedfrom them.

7. Landscape features that define building form. Land-scape features can embellish and distinguish build-ing form, particularly prominent geologicalfeatures, natural objects, and water. The built envi-ronment can, therefore, integrate with rather thanbe isolated from its biophysical context. When thisfails to occur, even extraordinary buildings can beperceived as standing apart, perhaps impressiveproducts of human engineering but largely abstractforms divorced from context and barren.

8. Landscape ecology. Effective place-based designs re-inforce landscape ecology over the long term. Thiscan be achieved through design that considerslandscape structure, pattern, and process such asecological connectivity, biological corridors, re-source flows, biodiversity, optimal scale and size,ecological boundaries, and other parameters offunctioning natural systems (Dramstad et al. 1996).

9. Integration of culture and ecology. The fusion of cul-ture with ecology fosters long-term sustainability.The result marks the point where nature and hu-manity are positively transformed and mutuallyenriched by their association. When this occurs,buildings and landscapes often provoke considerable



loyalty, responsibility, and stewardship among thepeople who reside nearby.

10. Spirit of place. The spirit of a place signifies a levelof commitment and meaning that people extend toboth natural and built environments when they be-come cherished components of individual and col-lective identity, more than simply inanimate matter.The spirit of a place metaphorically signifies thebuilt environment having become life-life and serv-ing as the motivational basis for long-term stew-ardship and responsibility. While not technicallyalive, these structures and places give rise to andsustain human culture and ecology over time.

11. Avoiding placelessness. “Placelessness” is the antithe-sis of place-based design, to be avoided wheneverpossible. One of the insidious and damaging ef-fects of much modern architecture has unfortu-nately been the divorce of design from connectionto the culture or ecology of place. This corrosiveseparation of the built environment from its bio-cultural context has resulted in the decline ofhuman-nature relationships and environmentalsustainability.

Evolved Human-Nature Relationships

The sixth and final biophilic design element is evolvedhuman-nature relationships. The term is somewhat mis-leading, as all the described biophilic design elementspresumably reflect biologically based human affinitiesfor the natural environment. The attributes described inthis section, however, more specifically focus on funda-mental aspects of the inherent human relationship tonature. Twelve attributes are described, the last eight ofwhich are derived from a typology of environmentalvalues developed by the author and described elsewhere(Kellert 1996, 1997):

1. Prospect and refuge. Refuge reflects a structure ornatural environment’s ability to provide a secureand protected setting. In the built environment,this often occurs through the design of comfort-able and nurturing building interiors and secretedlandscape places. Prospect, on the other hand, em-phasizes discerning distant objects, habitats andhorizons, evolutionarily instrumental in locating

resources, facilitating movement, and identifyingsources of danger. Some of our most satisfyingbuildings and landscapes capture the complemen-tary relation of prospect with refuge (Hildebrand2000, Appleton 1975).

2. Order and complexity. Order is achieved in the builtor natural environment by imposing structure andorganization. Extreme order often results in rep-etition, monotony, and boredom. By contrast,complexity reflects the occurrence of detail andvariability. Excessive complexity can also be trou-blesome, making it difficult to assimilate detail andsometimes leading to a sense of chaos. Designs thateffectively meld order with complexity tend to besuccessful, stimulating the desire for variety but inways that seem controlled and comprehensible.

3. Curiosity and enticement. Curiosity reflects thehuman need for exploration, discovery, mystery,and creativity, all instrumental in problem solving(Kaplan et al. 1998). Enticement fosters curiosity.These complementary tendencies can engage theflywheel of human intellect and imagination. Someof our most effective buildings and landscapes fos-ter curiosity, exploration, and discovery of naturalprocess and diversity.

4. Change and metamorphosis. Change is a constant inboth natural and human systems, reflected in theprocesses of growth, maturation, and metamorpho-sis (Bloomer 2000). Many powerful designs capturethis dynamic and developmental quality, where oneform or state appears to flow into another in aquasi-evolutionary sequence.

5. Security and protection. A fundamental objective ofthe built environment is ensuring protection fromthreatening forces in nature. Yet, the most success-ful designs over the long run never accomplish thisneed at the expense of other equally legitimate en-vironmental values. Security in the built environ-ment must not excessively insulate or isolate peoplefrom the natural world.

6. Mastery and control. Buildings and constructed land-scapes reflect the human desire for mastery andcontrol over nature. When accomplished with mod-eration and respect, mastering nature facilitates thesatisfactory expression of human ingenuity and



cleverness that fosters self-confidence and self-esteem.

7. Affection and attachment. Affection for the naturalworld has been a critical component in engenderingthe human capacities for bonding and attachment,important in a largely social creature. Buildings andlandscapes that elicit strong emotional affinities fornature are typically recipients of lasting loyalty andcommitment.

8. Attraction and beauty. The aesthetic attraction to na-ture is one of the strongest inclinations of thehuman species. This biologically encoded tendencyhas been instrumental in fostering the capacities forcuriosity, imagination, creativity, exploration, andproblem solving. Some of our most successfulbuildings and landscapes foster an aesthetic appre-ciation for natural process and form.

9. Exploration and discovery. Nature is the mostinformation-rich and intellectually stimulating en-vironment that people ever encounter. Buildingsand constructed landscapes that facilitate opportu-nities for exploration and discovery of naturalprocess elicit considerable interest and apprecia-tion, even when these environmental features arelargely revealed in representational ways.

10. Information and cognition. Intellectual satisfactionand cognitive prowess can be fostered through de-signs that emphasize the complexity of naturalshapes and forms. This can be achieved throughthe direct and indirect experience of nature, as wellas by the creative use of ornamentation in the builtenvironment that fosters critical thinking andproblem solving.

11. Fear and awe. It may seem odd to emphasize nega-tive and unwanted feelings such as fear and aver-sion of nature as components of biophilic design.Yet, protecting ourselves from threatening ele-ments of the natural world has always been a pri-mary objective of the built environment. Fear ofnature can also be a motivational basis for design-ing peril and adventure into the built environment,such as overhanging precipices or proximity tofearsome forces like rushing water. Feelings of awe

for the natural world can further combine rever-ence with fear, and some of our most celebratedstructures achieve this effect through extolling ma-jestic natural features that engender an apprecia-tion for powers greater than ourselves.

12. Reverence and spirituality. Some of our most cher-ished buildings similarly affirm the human need forestablishing meaningful relation to creation. Thesedesigns provoke feelings of transcendence and en-during connection that defy the aloneness of a sin-gle person isolated in space and time. Structures thatachieve this reverential feeling of connection are alsotypically sustained generation after generation.

CONCLUSION

Six biophilic design elements and roughly 70 attrib-utes have been described, and are summarily listed inTable 1-1. A small number of illustrations are providedat the chapter’s conclusion depicting some of thesedesign features. This categorization is a work inprogress, which inevitably will be modified and im-proved over time.

All design of the built environment, including thebiophilic desire to harmonize with nature, reflects whatRené Dubos called the active “wooing of the earth”(Dubos 1980). This objective, in other words, results insome degree of deliberate refashioning of nature to sat-isfy human needs, but in ways that celebrate the in-tegrity and utility of the natural world. Thus, humanintervention, if practiced with restraint and respect, canavoid arrogance and environmental degradation. Withhumility and understanding, effective biophilic designcan potentially enrich both nature and humanity. AsDubos remarked (1980, 68):

Wooing of the earth suggests the relationship be-tween humankind and nature [can] be one of respectand love rather than domination. The outcome ofthis wooing can be rich, satisfying, and lastingly suc-cessful if both partners are modified by their associ-ation so as to become better adapted to each other.


15594 Kellert 3p ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page ii

Documents

Transcript of 15594 Kellert 3p ffirs.f.qxd 12/5/07 12:03 PM Page ii