1. Introduction
In the last few decades, globalization, climate change, and unplanned cities that are becoming more dense and overcrowded are problems that we have faced and have not only contributed to the lack of control and spread of the current Pandemic but also exposed the vulnerability of cities and their inhabitants. Quarantines imposed in various parts of the world, sanitary restrictions, and isolation have affected the social dynamics of our cities, but more importantly, and in an individual manner, the physical and psychological health of their people.
While concepts such as healthy, sustainable, and resilient cities are still being used, rethinking the city and its dynamics, taking into account the impact of the built environment on human health and well-being [1,2,3,4] is critical to propose design solutions for the post-pandemic urban environment. “Since the disruption of our normal lives during the pandemic, we have no certainty regarding how and where we will live and work in the future. During the pandemic, we were forced to embrace changes in our daily routines, in the way we live [5].” Over the last decades, and even more during the pandemic we are going through, many studies have emerged regarding the value of the human–nature connection [1,6,7,8], where “Their newcomers seek lower prices, less traffic and stress, fewer pandemic-related restrictions, and proximity to nature [5]”.
Therefore, it is possible to propose biophilic design as an answer to this problem, since biophilic design “is essential for providing people opportunities to live and work in healthy places and spaces with less stress and greater overall health and well-being” [1] by reconnecting with nature. Indeed, it is in recent decades and as a result of increasing urban and environmental problems, reconnecting with nature has become vital. “In the face of contemporary concerns for individual and public health and wellbeing—most typically occupational stress, cognitive performance, and mental health—design strategies that embrace qualities from nature have emerged as a legitimate means to enhance the human experience of the built environment [7]”. Then, many nature-based solutions to improve urban environments are effective strategies to address both the immediate challenges of COVID-19 and the long-term threats posed by climate change [9]. According to studies conducted by various researchers during the last decades, innumerable benefits to human health have been found due to the reconnection with nature, which have been documented in several pieces of literature and likewise the design elements that have been selected and studied have been configuring what we know today as biophilic design; from Kellert to Browning, including Beatley, Newman, and Calabrese, among many others that will be explored here. However, all of them have been contained in a proposal that has been useful whenever it is necessary to talk about biophilic design and its application since many researchers make continuous reference to it. These are the 14 biophilic design patterns that were compiled by Terrapin Bright Green [1] and that have been reviewed in this research. More details are given in Section 2.2 Concept definition and variable collection.
Thus, architects, urban planners, and landscape architects are now working on more flexible proposals with a more holistic approach that can generate a positive impact on human health and well-being. At the same time, unresolved problems cannot be left aside, those related to urban growth, population explosion, lack of equity, justice, vulnerability, risk, insecurity, and climate change, among others, directly linked to the healthy, sustainable, and resilient city. Therefore, how would it be possible to continue working on these problems that we bring from previous decades and at the same time respond to current demands where there is special attention to human health and well-being? Although it is hard to find a space that can accommodate all biophilic design elements, many contributory elements can enhance the space and well-being [10]. Therefore, it is imperative to apply the concept of biophilic design not only in new designs but also within existing landscape sites [10]. Numerous studies have shown how biophilic design contributes and links to sustainability [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. In the same sense, it has been shown that the objectives of biophilic design compliment those of sustainable design and urban resilience [13,14], and finally, researchers have shown its close relationship with the healthy city [1,8,14]. Likewise, the relationship between these three trends is explained by their interaction with the built environment, which directly affects human health and well-being. In addition, the relationship among the three concepts is reinforced by being contemplated in the sustainable development goals by 2030 [18], with special emphasis on building resilient urban developments after the pandemic and the importance of improving healthy living [19] and not only goal nine—industry, innovation, and infrastructure, which is about building resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation—but also goal 11—sustainable cities and communities, which is about making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable [20]. Although in goal three—good health and well-being, which is about ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages—the concept of health and well-being is present in each of the UN-Habitat reports, especially from 2020 onwards.
All of the above suggests that it would then be possible to make these three concepts work together: healthy, sustainability, and resilience. However, it is not yet clear how to do so. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that it is possible to create a healthy, resilient, and sustainable environment from biophilic design principles.
2. Materials and Methods
This research collects, analyzes, and compares the principles and elements that define the main trends (Healthy, Sustainable, and Resilient), in order to obtain an overview of their design goals and objectives and by identifying their common variables of design. It aims to demonstrate the following proposition: Biophilic design is the appropriate instrument when we are looking for healthy, sustainable, and resilient environments (See Figure 1).
Therefore, the research method is designed to answer the following research questions: (1) What would be the common variables and elements when seeking to create a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment and (2) How can those resultant elements be linked to biophilic design patterns to achieve solutions focused on improving people’s health and wellbeing through reconnecting with nature. In order to answer these questions, a four-phase approach was designed. Phase 1: Healthy, Sustainable, Resilient, and Biophilic design: approaches and discussion; Phase 2. Concept definition and variable collection; Phase 3: Overlapping concept identification; Phase 4: Building a healthy, sustainable, and resilient biophilic design.
2.1. Healthy, Sustainable, Resilient, and Biophilic Design: Approaches and Discussion
The existing literature on healthy, sustainable, and resilient design is extensive, as well as the one on biophilic design. Although the last one has gained relevance in the last three decades, the concept of biophilia is not new. Erich Fromm was the one who in 1964 introduced the Biophilia concept as a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital. However, the term became popular when Edward Osborne Wilson wrote the book “Biophilia” in 1984 [21], in which he explained the innate affiliation of humans with nature. The fact is that “biophilic design is more complex and richer than the mere application of vegetation in buildings; it broadens the variety through encompassing different types of nature from physical, sensory, metaphorical, morphological, material to spiritual” [16], but it should also be emphasized that “In biophilic cities, residents are directly and actively engaged in learning about, enjoying and caring for the nature around them and have developed important emotional connections with this nature” [22].
However, more recently, studies still demonstrate the positive impact of biophilic design on human health and well-being and recognize the importance of having biophilic designs in cities and environments. Studies, such as those presented in biophilic cities [22], demonstrate their application across scales such as buildings, neighborhoods, communities, and regions, where the inclusion of elements of nature has proven to make a difference and where a proposal of indicators to determine the biophilic city is presented. Even more, research related to biophilic design strategies in cities around the world will serve as a basis for the rest of the cities that want to be added to the biophilic network [14]. Nonetheless, one of the main challenges that still exists is the global application of biophilic design, since what may work and be a successful project for one city may not be so for another, since the socio-cultural elements and the different contexts, as mentioned by Sabido [23], will have a significant influence on how people from different geographical locations perceive these strategies and design proposals. Another important issue that is still under discussion is how much green is appropriate and whether preferences for natural and green are directly related to specific age groups, because, according to some studies, “teenagers and adolescents have been the focus of many studies and their preference for built environments over natural ones has often been noted” and also there are other groups of populations that are very afraid of nature and will be more likely to choose built and mixed urban environments [24].
However, the relationship between the application of biophilic design in architectural and urban projects and its impact on people’s health and well-being has been widely studied by researchers, theoreticians, and scientists [1,2,3,4,6,7,8]. Moreover, “despite this possibility, a growing body of scientific study increasingly reveals that most of our inherent tendencies to affiliate with nature continue to exercise significant effects on people’s physical and mental health, performance, and wellbeing” [8]. These findings have demonstrated the power of nature to influence our mental and emotional conditions. Since “there are many factors that influence and trigger stress, but the built environment can act as a stress reliever for outside stresses, as well as independently trigger positive physiological reactions, a biophilic built environment can provide positive distractions” [14]. Furthermore, the truth is that health care and human well-being have regained strength, especially after the recent pandemic, in which physical and mental health has been affected and its relationship with the built environment has been reaffirmed. The fact is that an area of interest that has received increased attention as a consequence of the pandemic is the propagation of health-oriented building standards [9]. If there is one thing that the pandemic has confirmed, it is the importance of physical and mental health, which has resulted in several studies in which it has been found that during the pre-pandemic period, lockdown, and recovery periods, local ecosystem services, food production, and open space helped maintain communities’ physical and mental health [25]. This makes us reflect on the importance of reconnecting with nature in order to obtain its benefits. Furthermore, according to studies, maintaining contact with nature (blue and green spaces) during COVID-19 confinement reduces the probability of reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety [25]. Therefore, after some research, it is possible to establish that there is a relationship between connection with nature and health issues; in this sense, there exist post-pandemic recommendations at an urban, community, neighborhood, and also building level that focus on prioritizing the needs of urban residents for personal access to green spaces and outdoor areas during the pandemic, in particular, while lockdowns and restrictions are in place [25]. From the above, it is appropriate to say that biophilic design helps to promote nature-based solutions that enable stress reduction and improve human health and well-being during and in post-pandemic times, with which the discussion about the positive impact of biophilic design after COVID-19 lockdown has become relevant.
However, in order to provide a more comprehensive solution and to “rebuild our cities in a post-crisis environment will require a focus on improving their resiliency and addressing some of the most pre-eminent concerns such as improving safety and equity” [26]. In addition to that, “this new reality that requires public health factors to be integrated more thoroughly into the planning and design of city regions” [5]. These new concerns and new demands during the pandemic crisis “demonstrate the interdependency and interlinkages among the various dimensions of sustainability—from health, well-being, and social and economic prosperity to climate and ecosystems” [20]. With all of the above, the challenges that remain unsolved become evident and evidence the existing synergy among these three main trends: Healthy, Sustainable, and Resilience, whose interaction and integration are the concern of the current study.
However, how can the relationship between these three concepts and biophilic design be explained? Their relationship is based on the impact on the health and wellbeing of human beings through the implementation of their principles. At current times, there is evidence of the positive physical and mental health benefits associated with greenery and green elements in living and work environments and the relationship between healthy, sustainable, and resilient environments has begun to be scrutinized on the basis of this connection. Thus, holistic perspectives on health and goals for human health might all be understood through the increasingly popular lens of resilience. There is certainly much value in this frame, as well, and many ways in which biophilic design and planning are helping to advance the agenda of resilient (and sustainable) cities and communities [15]. All of the above demonstrates their interaction, which is supported by research such as that carried out by Beatley and Newman in 2013 [13], who argue that biophilic cities are also sustainable and resilient and demonstrate with a set of examples the benefits of individuals and their families’ health and wellbeing: “the natural features and urban biophilic qualities directly help cities to become more resilient, but also serve more indirectly to encourage healthier lifestyles” [13]. Some findings on this are also reported in studies such as those published by Beatley, 2016 in the Handbook of Biophilic city planning [14] where, based on new evidence, it is demonstrated that “There are important relationships between biophilia or biophilic cities and urban sustainability and resilience and, more specifically, that the former helps to advance the latter. That is movement in the direction of making cities greener, more natural, more biophilic, will also help to make them more resilient. There are many pathways from biophilic design and urban biophilia to urban resilience, many ways in which the conditions of green and biophilic cities will also serve to make a city more resilient in the long run, ecologically, economically, and socially” [8].
In this sense, even if other researchers share the same perspective, such as Kellert [26], Kellert and Calabrese [8], Browning et al. [1], Zong et al. [16], and Cacique et al. [27]. Moreover, even if they have also defined and drawn connections between these three concepts (HSR) and biophilic design, the common denominator in each of those studies, so far conducted is that their relationship is always between one concept to Biophilic designs or two of them related biophilia. So far, the three trends have not been linked or worked together to identify the essential characteristics that link them; thus, this research is relevant because it argues that it is possible to create biophilic solutions that, at the same time, have the potential to create healthier, more sustainable and resilient environments.
2.2. Concept Definition and Variable Collection
This phase focused on identifying the main variables of each concept that can be compared in phase three. To achieve this objective, the main worldwide organizations and the institutions in charge of implementing the strategies at the international level of each of them were reviewed.
Talking about sustainability, in the year 2015, leaders from 193 countries of the world came together to face the future and created an international plan to solve major global problems with a 15-year projection, “a plan called the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This set of 17 goals imagines a future just 15 years off that would be rid of poverty and hunger, and safe from the worst effects of climate change” [16]. These Sustainable Development Goals are organized into 5 pillars, and their variables are (1) People, which include the following goals: no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water, and sanitation; (2) Prosperity, which includes: affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities and sustainable cities and communities; (3) Planet, which includes: responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on land; (4) Peace, which includes: peace, justice, and strong institutions; and (5) Partnership: partnership for the goals. In total, 242 variables were identified.
Regarding resilience, city resilience “describes the capacity of cities to function, so that the people living and working in cities—particularly the poor and vulnerable – survive and thrive no matter what stresses or shocks they encounter” [28]. Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative has done much regarding this matter. Thus, the following variables are those contained in the City Resilient Index by The Rockefeller Foundation-ARUP [28], which were the basis for the collection of indicators. The index has 4 dimensions: (1) Health and well-being of individuals: Minimal human vulnerability, diverse live holds and employment, Effective strategies for human health and life; (2) Economy and society: Collective identity and mutual support, Comprehensive security and rule of law, Sustainable economy; (3) Infrastructure and ecosystems: Reduced exposure and fragility, Effective provision of critical services, Reliable mobility and communications; and (4) Leadership and strategy: Effective leadership and management, Empowered stakeholders, Integrated development planning. In total, 52 variables were taken into account.
For health, the World Health Organization is one of the most important organizations focusing on this topic worldwide. According to WHO 1998, “a healthy city is one that is continually creating and improving those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all the functions of life and developing to their maximum potential” [29]. However, the variables for this research were those obtained from the study conducted by Cacique et al. [27], in which an exhaustive literature review was conducted and the Delphi method was applied among experts from different areas such as government, education, healthcare, and urban planning based on organizations/institutions worldwide in charge to evaluate Healthy Cities. Through an exhaustive bibliographic review, the most important organizations involved worldwide in this matter were studied (World Urban Campaign—UN Habitat, World Health Organization through the World Healthy Cities Project, Building Research Establishment, and Alliance for Healthy Cities) to collect a total of 212 variables. After the application of the Delphi method, the list of variables for the post-pandemic healthy city era was updated. 64 variables were finally obtained, which were organized into 4 dimensions: (1) Natural environment: 10 variables, (2) Built environment: 23 variables, (3) Socioeconomic: 18 variables, and (4) Human health: 13 variables. See Figure 2.
Biophilic design is defined as “the process of basing decisions about the built environment on intuition or credible research—derived from either an appetency for nature or measurable biological responses, respectively—to achieve the best possible health outcomes” [6]. The patterns for this study “have been developed through extensive interdisciplinary research and are supported by empirical evidences and the work of Christopher Alexander, Judith Heerwagen, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, Stephen Kellert, Roger Ulrich, and many others. Over 500 publications on biophilic responses have been mined to uncover patterns useful to designers of the built environment. These 14 patterns have a wide range of applications for both interior and exterior environments, and are meant to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for project-appropriate implementation” [30].
According to Browning et al. [1], the 14 patterns are organized into three categories (see Table 1): Nature in the Space (7 patterns: visual connection with nature, non-visual connection with nature, non-rhythmic sensory stimuli, thermal airflow variability, presence of water, dynamic and diffuse light, connection with natural systems); Natural Analogues (3 patterns: biomorphic forms, material connection, and nature, complexity and order), and Nature of the Space (4 patterns: prospect, refuge, mystery, risk/peril); which will be taken as a basis for the comparison with the HSR overlapping concepts.
As a result, including the 4 concepts that confirm the theoretical framework, 358 variables were collected.
2.3. Overlapping Concept Identification
In order to identify the concepts in common among the three main trends, a content analysis was carried out, as it is the ideal method that “works inductively by summarizing and classifying elements or parts of the text material and assigning labels or categories to them. In this respect, qualitative content analysis searches rather for ‘coherent’ meaning structures in the text material” [31]. Thus, the procedure involved the following:
- (a)
Identification of variables for each of the analyzed concepts (Healthy, Sustainable, and Resilient) through an exhaustive bibliographic review where the selection criterion was the consultation of the main organizations worldwide in charge of the evaluation of Healthy, Sustainable, or Resilient projects.
- (b)
Once the variables for each of the trends were identified, they were grouped in an Excel file, so that an overview of the set of variables found could be compiled.
- (c)
One by one, these variables were reviewed in order to find the concepts or keywords that better represent the purpose of each variable.
- (d)
Once identified, a column was added with that keyword.
- (e)
By using Excel’s word search engine, and through content analysis, each of the variables was compared and the repeated concepts or keywords were searched for.
- (f)
Finally, if the same keyword was common to the three concepts (Healthy, Sustainable, Resilient), then it was selected, resulting in the final list of overlapping concepts.
Finally, from a total of 358 variables previously collected (see Figure 3), we identified: Sustainability—242 variables, Healthy—64 variables, and Resilient—52 variables. The 19 overlapping concepts are identified: safety, crime, risk, green, land, water, pollution, food, affordability, education, adaptability, transportation, housing, policy, planning, environment, economy, community, and management. This allows us to answer the research question (1) What would be the common variables and elements when seeking to create a sustainable, healthy, and resilient environment?
2.4. Building a Healthy, Sustainable, and Resilient Biophilic Design
In this phase, the overlapping concepts identified in the previous stage were reviewed one by one, based on the information contained in the 14 patterns of Biophilic Design by Browning et al. [1].
Therefore, if a concept is included in the objectives, elements of designs, or strategies of any of the patterns, then, these concepts and their related patterns will be linked. As a result, it allows answering the research question: (2) How can the overlapping concepts be linked to biophilic design patterns to achieve solutions focused on improving people’s health and wellbeing through reconnecting with nature.
3. Results
As a result of the interactions between the 19 overlapping concepts, Table 2 shows their interactions with each of the 14 biophilic design patterns and their explanation. In this way, it also evidenced those interactions that still require special attention as they do not have related patterns that meet the requirements for an HSR environment.
Safety is related to patterns #11 and #12. Crime is connected to #11 and #12. Risk is related tothe pattern #1. Adaptability is related to pattern #4. The environment concept is supported by elements of design contained in patterns #4 and #7. Green is connected to patterns #1 and #7, land to patterns #1 and #7, and water to pattern #5. Pollution is connected to pattern #5. Food is connected to pattern #1. Affordability is connected to patterns #4 and #6. Housing is connected to all the patterns. Education is related to pattern #7. Transportation is connected to pattern #1. Planning is not connected to any pattern. Economy is connected to all the 14 patterns. Policy is not connected to any pattern. Community is connected to pattern #7 and management is not connected to any pattern.
From the above, it is possible to state the patterns that are most often repeated and whose design recommendations will be those to be taken into account when seeking to create healthier, more sustainable and resilient environments. These patterns that are most involved are mostly contained within the first category: Nature in space. These are the ones that emphasize the direct presence of elements of nature in space. Although it is possible to meet some of the needs contained in the HSR concepts through non-living and indirect evocations of nature, the importance of being in direct contact with elements of nature, living systems and natural processes, are the ones that allowed us to create a greater number of connections for the HSR overlapping concepts.
A global approach to the process of connection between HSR and biophilic design is finally shown in Table 2, which would be explained as follows: for the case of Pattern #1, which is associated with a direct connection with elements of nature, it highlights the importance of including green infrastructure and explains the benefits that this would have in mitigating the effects of climate and natural disasters in vulnerable environments (OC-3) while contributing to efforts to foster green environments in living or working environments (OC-6) and how all of it is able to promote a positive impact on people’s health and well-being but also to enhance biodiversity and to regenerate the ecosystems (OC-3). The utilization of the suggested design elements in the same pattern allows the presence of vegetation and food plants, which implies the promotion of urban gardens and food production, an undoubtedly concept contemplated by the HSR (OC-10). In this sense, the presence of vegetation and plants would significantly reduce the effects of transport pollution on the environment (OC-14).
Therefore, it is how the relationship between patterns and each overlapping concept has been developed and presented, one by one, in the following table. Furthermore, it considers the benefits of biophilic design and finally shows the design recommendations for each of the identified patterns.
4. Discussion
Overlapping concepts that are not related to biophilic design patterns should be explored in order to find new paths that biophilic design has not yet considered in existing literature, as BD aims to achieve healthy, sustainable, and resilient environments, it would be valuable to explore new patterns that complement the existing ones.
While it is true that the spatial scale of the HSR variables is different from that of the BD, this manuscript raises the possibility of making them work together to promote healthy, sustainable, and resilient environments. Therefore, it is worth further exploring this union and its benefits since the authors believe that the creation of a mixed system (HSRBD), not yet considered by existing research, would allow obtaining the benefits of contact with nature in a flexible and adaptable way to the needs of different spaces, places, age groups of users, cultural differences, and even different countries.
Another aspect that is not explored in the existing literature is the degree of satisfaction that users have when they are in contact with spaces with biophilic design. That is, if an environment meets all the biophilic design patterns, does it mean that it will actually improve the health and well-being of the user? There is a gap between the amount of biophilic design and user satisfaction that needs to be studied further and that the authors consider to be closely linked to the perception and sensations caused by such environments.
Some of the limitations found during this study are the lack of specificity that still exists with respect to biophilic design patterns. Although they have begun to be studied more and more, it has not yet been possible to establish a measurement for each one, there is no gradient as such; therefore, this would complicate when measuring whether an environment is more or less biophilic than another one.
Another limitation is the cultural and generational variation that must continue to be explored. That is, it remains to be correctly determined if the biophilic design can have an international application or if there is a direct relationship between how people perceive and their cultural beliefs, customs, or ages. This is a limitation to think about whether HSRBD wants to be implemented.
This new integrated system could have the potential to measure whether an existing or new environment is healthy, sustainable, and resilient at the same time; however, it should also be able to weight each variable according to the existing conditions in each case study and be able to identify the possible interactions between these three concepts in different environments, i.e., determine how the dynamics of interaction between variables and which ones determine that an environment is sustainable but not resilient or healthy or resilient but not sustainable, etc. Therefore, it is recommended to continue working on the measurement and exploration of the HSRBD variables until they are measurable and adaptable to evaluate specific case studies.
It might also be reasonable to work on the construction of an index to measure these interactions (HSRBD), taking into account the different scales of measurement as well as the spatial conditions in which it can be applied.
This research also discusses the possibility of analyzing these three tendencies (HSR) in a perceptual way, as a response to the emotions experienced by the human being in this re-connection with nature proposed by the biophilic design. This could be the common factor to bring HSR down to the BD scale.
Based on the above, it is recommended to define the types of environments that could be considered which could be classified in relation to their degree of greenness, since the main axis or guideline is the re-connection with nature, HSRBD.
The analysis of the perception of these 19 overlapping concepts is another line of approach to evaluate this system. One recommendation is the possibility of analyzing these three trends (HSR) in a perceptual way since biophilic design in principle focuses on improving human health and well-being, and this improvement can be measured through the perception that users have regarding what is experienced when in contact with biophilic environments; therefore, this could be a common point with HSR. The analysis of the perception of these 19 overlapping concepts could be another line of action to evaluate this system HSRBD.
5. Conclusions
The goal of this work is to demonstrate that it is possible to create sustainable, healthy, and resilient environments by reconnecting with nature through biophilic design. This is the first study that combines the three concepts and put them to work together to find a way to create healthier, sustainable, and resilient environments. The connection of biophilic design to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment is a particular feature of this work in which results provided a more holistic understanding of these concepts while outlining their interactions and the benefits of working together with biophilic design. In addition, other studies have already demonstrated benefits to people’s health and well-being when employing their design principles separately [1,2,3,4,5]; however, the results of this research suggest a special focus on the 19 concepts identified.
This research shows that biophilic design can provide a direct solution to 16 of the 19 overlapping concepts that represent the common goals pursued by the proposals of sustainable and resilient healthy movements [18,29,30]. On the other hand, this paper identified the three concepts, from the HSR model, which are not represented by any of the design patterns, and all of those provide an opportunity to identify new solutions that have not yet been considered by Biophilic Design.
Although the concepts that conform to the HSR model are at an urban scale, this first attempt to link them to biophilic design and each of its solutions and design elements is a first approximation that proposes a solution to the physical, social, cultural, and environmental problems considered in the 19 overlapping concepts and which, based on the results of this research, could find an answer in the biophilic design patterns in which they will find the answer to improve people’s health and well-being by reconnecting with nature.
This study significantly contributes to practical implications by identifying strategies that can support the achievement of the objectives pursued by healthy, sustainable, and resilient cities at the same time; the relationship established between the 14 design patterns and the overlapping concepts among these three tendencies is undeniable.
This research suggests that their application would be favorable for the improvement of individual and collective conditions and to facilitate the recovery of the post-pandemic cities.
The evaluation of the HSR relationships confirms that there are indeed relevant interactions with biophilic design. However, some interactions still need to be further investigated due to the existence of concepts, reported in this research, that have not yet been considered by any of the 14 biophilic design patterns. It also represents an opportunity to consider the annexation of new patterns that can provide solutions to interactions not considered by the existing ones.
This research is mainly aimed at those decision-makers involved in the planning and development of projects such as government, architects, and urban planners. For them, it represents a way to contribute to the development of healthier, more sustainable, and resilient environments by promoting the reconnection of human beings with nature, thereby enabling an improvement in their quality of life already demonstrated by biophilic design.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.C. and S.-J.O.; methodology, M.C. and S.-J.O.; software, M.C. and S.-J.O.; validation, M.C. and S.-J.O.; formal analysis, M.C. and S.-J.O.; investigation, M.C. and S.-J.O.; resources, M.C. and S.-J.O.; data curation, M.C. and S.-J.O.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C. and S.-J.O.; writing—review and editing, M.C. and S.-J.O.; visualization, M.C. and S.-J.O.; supervision, M.C. and S.-J.O.; project administration, M.C. and S.-J.O.; funding acquisition, M.C. and S.-J.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Browning, W.D.; Ryan, C.; Clancy, J. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment; Terrapin Bright Green: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- De Leeuw, E.; Skovgaard, T. Utility-driven evidence for healthy cities: Problems with evidence generation and application. Soc. Sci. Med. 1982, 61, 1331–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arcadis with UN-Habitat. Healthy Pandemic Resilient Cities. Shelter COVID-19 Support-2020. D10013467:42. Available online: https://preparecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/healthy_pandemic_resilient_cities_report_-_shelter_program_003-20200730.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
- Casimir, M.G. Urban regeneration as a public health intervention. J. Soc. Interv. Theory Pract. 2010, 19, 38–51. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47530779_Urban_regeneration_as_a_public_health_intervention (accessed on 11 November 2021).
- Neuman, M.; Chelleri, L.; Schuetze, T. Post-Pandemic Urbanism: Criteria for a New Normal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, C.O.; Browning, W.D. Biophilic Design. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology; Meyers, R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, S.H. Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Ph.D. Thesis, College of Bio-Resources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2022. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.; Calabrese, F. The Practice of Biophilic Design. 2015. Available online: http://www.biophilic-design.com/ (accessed on 3 December 2021).
- UN-Habitat. Cities and Pandemics: Towards a More Just, Green and Healthy Future. 2021. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/cities-and-pandemics-towards-a-more-just-green-and-healthy-future-0 (accessed on 28 January 2022).
- Hady, S.I.M.A. Activating biophilic design patterns as a sustainable landscape approach. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2021, 68, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revell, G.; Anda, M. Sustainable Urban Biophilia: The Case of Greenskins for Urban Density. Sustainability 2014, 6, 5423–5438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities. In Sustainable Built Environments; Loftness, V., Ed.; Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beatley, T.; Newman, P. Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3328–3345. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/8/3328. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beatley, T. Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beatley, T. Biophilic Urbanism: Inviting Nature Back to Our Communities and Into Our Lives. William Mary Environ. Law Policy Rev. 2009, 34, 209. Available online: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol34/iss1/6 (accessed on 21 November 2021).
- Zhong, W.; Schröder, T.; Bekkering, J. Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Front. Archit. Res. 2021, 11, 114–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Totaforti, S. Emerging Biophilic Urbanism: The Value of the Human–Nature Relationship in the Urban Space. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 2020. Available online: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_ (accessed on 20 February 2022).
- United Nations. World Cities Report. The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. 2020. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/wcr/ (accessed on 22 November 2021).
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. 2021. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2022).
- Dias, B. Beyond sustainability–biophilic and regenerative design in architecture. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
- Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sabido, O. Body and senses: The sociological analysis of perception. Fem. Debate 2016, 51, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patuano, A. Biophobia and Urban Restorativeness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- City of St. Louis Planning & Urban Design. Post-Pandemic Urbanism. A Discussion Paper on Planning and Urban Design Considerations for Cities during the Pandemic and After. 2021. Available online: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/planning/ (accessed on 6 November 2021).
- Kellert, S.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Cacique, M.; Okuda, T.; Areces, A.; Ou, S.J. Updating Healthy City Variables for the Post-pandemic Era Using Delphi Method. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering and Architecture; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Rockefeller Foundation|ARUP. City Resilience Index. 2012. Available online: https://mercociudades.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CRI-total-Booklet.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary. Healthy City Definition. 1998. Available online: https://www.who.int/healthpromotion/healthy-cities/en/ (accessed on 18 July 2021).
- Browning, W.D.; Ryan, C.; Kallianpurkar, N.; Laburto, L.; Watson, S.; Knop, T. The Economics of Biophilia, Why Designing with Nature in Mind Makes Financial Sense; Terrapin Bright Green: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Scheufele, B. Content Analysis, Qualitative; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 967–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasar, J.; Fisher, B. Hot spots’ of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. J. Environ. Psychol. 1993, 13, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, F.; Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.; Lau, S.K.; Chung, K. From Biophilic design to Biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’ perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1444–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijesooriya, N.; Brambilla, A. Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 283, 124591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.Configurational framework for extracting the principles of HSR environments.
Figure 1.Configurational framework for extracting the principles of HSR environments.
Figure 2.Healthy City variables.
Figure 2.Healthy City variables.
Figure 3.Healthy, Sustainable, and Resilient overlapping concepts [27].
Figure 3.Healthy, Sustainable, and Resilient overlapping concepts [27].
Table 1.The 14 Patterns of Biophilic design extracted from Browning et al. (2014).
Table 1.The 14 Patterns of Biophilic design extracted from Browning et al. (2014).
| Category | Design Patterns | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Nature in the space | 1. Visual connection with nature | A view of elements of nature, living systems, and natural processes |
| 2. Non-visual connection with nature | Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems, or natural processes | |
| 3. Non-rhythmic sensory stimuli | Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. | |
| 4. Thermal airflow variability | Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments | |
| 5. Presence of water | A condition that enhances the experience of a place through seeing, hearing, or touching water | |
| 6. Dynamic and diffuse light | Leverages varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature. | |
| 7. Connection with natural systems | Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem. | |
| Natural analogs | 8. Biomorphic forms patterns | Symbolic references to contoured, patterned, textured, or numerical arrangements that persist in nature. |
| 9. Material connection and nature | Materials and elements from nature that, through minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or geology and create a distinct sense of place. | |
| 10. Complexity and order | Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature. | |
| Nature of the space | 11. Prospect | An unimpeded view over a distance, for surveillance and planning. |
| 12. Refuge | A place for withdrawal from environmental conditions or the main flow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead. | |
| 13. Mystery | The promise of more information, achieved through partially obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environment. | |
| 14. Risk/peril | An identifiable threat coupled with a reliable safeguard. |
Table 2.Biophilic Patterns linked to Healthy, Sustainable and Resilient overlapping concepts.
Table 2.Biophilic Patterns linked to Healthy, Sustainable and Resilient overlapping concepts.
| Overlapping Concepts (OC) for a HSR | Benefits of Biophilic Design | Connection Between HSR and the 14 Patterns | Design Recommendations According to the Patterns | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Safety | -Helps to protect from outside threats and offers protection from physical danger [1] -Improved comfort and perceived safety (Herzog & Bryce, 2007; Wang & Taylor, 2006; Petherick, 2000) [1] | 11. Prospect: A space with a good Prospect condition feels open and freeing, yet imparts a sense of safety and control, particularly when alone or in unfamiliar environments. 12. Refuge: A space with a good refuge condition feels safe, providing a sense of retreat and withdrawal | 1. Visual connection with nature
|
| 2 | Crime | -Decreases violence and crime [1] -Increases in prospect and decreases in concealment and boundedness may enhance the feeling of safety and reduce crime [32] | 11. Prospect: As an unimpeded view over a distance, for surveillance and planning. 12. Refuge: A good refuge space feels separate or unique from its surrounding environment; its spatial characteristics can feel contemplative, embracing, and protective. | |
| 3 | Risk | -Provides green infrastructure for vulnerable environments and resilient outcomes that support a quick return to normality [13] | 1. Visual connection with nature: Includes the presence and the view of elements of nature, living systems, and natural processes. | |
| 4 | Adaptability | -Psychological responses encompass our adaptability, alertness, attention, this includes responses to nature that impactrestoration and stress management [1]. | 4. Thermal & Airflow Variability: When an individual experiences thermal discomfort, he or she will likely take action to adapt. This pattern intends to create a positive experience and conditions that do not have to reach the point of discomfort. | |
| 5 | Environment | -Promotes the thermal comfort and airflow [33] -Reduce energy consumption through vegetative climatic effects (Hoelscher et al., 2016; Sheweka and Mohamed, 2012) [16] -Reduce the urban heat island effect (Koc et al., 2017; Kabisch et al., 2017) [16] -Improve biodiversity (species diversity preservation and regeneration (Benvenuti, 2014; Fuller et al., 2007) [16] -Reduce energy consumption Africa et al., (2019) [34] | 4. Thermal & Airflow Variability can be characterized as subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments; then, the pattern intends to improve the overall satisfaction of a space. 7. Connection with Natural Systems regarding the access to an outdoor space that allows the diversity of species and their conservation | |
| 6 | Green | -Contributing to efforts to improve the green elements and features of living and working environments. [13] -It introduces elements of nature that have a positive impact on people’s mental and physical health. [16] -Contributes to regenerating the earth’s ecosystems [21] | 1. Visual Connection with Nature. A view of elements of nature, living systems, and natural processes. 7. Connection with Natural Systems. As the awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem. | |
| 7 | Land | -Add natural beauty Bartczak et al., (2013), Chen et al., (2013), Capaldi et al., 2017 [34] -Enhance biodiversity Africa et al., (2019) [34] | 1. Visual Connection with Nature. 7. Connection with Natural Systems. | |
| 8 | Water | -Improve water management (stormwater management, water recycling, and water runoff quality) (Vanuytrecht et al., 2014) [16] stormwater management through permeable surfaces (Beatley, 2011; Stovin, 2009) [33] -Enlarge water area; White et al., (2010) [33] | 5. Presence of Water: A condition that enhances the experience of a place through seeing, hearing, or touching water, hence this pattern can allow better use of the resource, its quality, and management. | |
| 9 | Pollution | -Reduce water pollution (Rowe, 2011; Söderlund and Newman, 2015) [16] | 5. Presence of Water: the presence of bodies of clean water indicates positive emotional responses to environments. Vistas to large bodies of water or physical access to natural or designed water bodies can also have a health response so long as they are perceived as ‘clean’ or unpolluted. | |
| 10 | Food | -Enable food production (Söderlund, 2019, p.200) [16] | 1. Visual Connection with Nature: Regarding vegetation, but also including food baring plants. | |
| 11 | Affordability | -Energy cost reduction. When thermal and airflow variability is implemented in a way that broadens people’s perception of thermal comfort, it may also help reduce energy demands for air conditioning and heating [1] -Reduce energy and construction material costs (Lerner and Stopka, 2016) [16] -Enhance passive solar use Africa et al. (2019), Harrison et al. (2009) [34] | 4. Thermal and Airflow Variability: to provide combinations of ambient and surface temperatures, humidity, and airflow, similar to those experienced outdoors, while also providing some form of personal control and cost reduction. 6. Dynamic and diffuse light. Leverages varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature and take advantage of natural sunlight in the design. | |
| 12 | Housing | -Increase lifespan (Kabisch et al., 2017) [14] -BD can improve overall building performance [34] | All patterns are related to the indoor and outdoor performance of the building, the necessary for the improvement of the housing conditions. | |
| 13 | Education | -Foster better test scores, optimal health, and increased learning rates; can trigger mental restoration, better behavior and enhanced focus in students. (Wolf, 2014) [21] -Increase cognitive performance (attention capacity, creative performance, and memory restoration)(Abdelaal, 2019; Aydogan and Cerone, 2020; Browning et al., 2014; Haähn et al., 2020; Mangone et al., 2017) [16] -Raise environmental awareness (Boiral et al., 2019; Church, 2015) [16] | 7. Connection with natural systems: While biophobia is arguably genetic to a degree, both phobias are learned response mechanisms through direct experience, culture, and education which, according to Salingaros and Masden (2008), includes architectural education. | |
| 14 | Transport | -Reduces the negative effects of transport (or traffic) and enables the creation of green spaces for improved connectivity and transportation [33] | 1. Visual Connection with Nature. There is evidence for stress reduction related to experiencing nature. | |
| 15 | Planning | ------------------------------- | No patterns related | |
| 16 | Economy | -Reduced economic disruption [13] -Increase worker productivity (Aydogan and Cerone, 2020; Gray and Birrell, 2014; Haähn et al., 2020) [16] -Increase retail potential (Söderlund, 2019, p. 152) [16] | All patterns are related, as one of the principles of BD is to enable increased productivity and stress reduction through contact with nature. | |
| 17 | Policies | -------------------------------- | No patterns related | |
| 18 | Community | -Offer public shelter and shade spaces (Hoelscher et al., 2016) [16] -Present examples of collaboration (e.g., architects and engineers) (Aye et al., 2019) [16] -Allows professional institutions and organizations to work together (Jones, 2016) [16] | 7. Connection with natural systems: Design considerations for interactive opportunities, especially for children, patients, and the elderly (e.g., integrative educational curriculum; horticulture programs, community gardens; seasonal cooking/diet). | |
| 19 | Management | ------------------------------- | No patterns related | |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
