Investigating the Biophilic Bio-Oriented Approach in the Direction of Designing Compatible with the Environment and Human Health based on the Grand Theory Approach

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Art & Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Birjand, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Art & Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Birjand, Iran.

3 . Assistant Professor, Department of Art & Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Birjand, Iran

4 Professor, Department of Social Determinant of Health Research Center, University of Mashhad Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Environmentally sustainable design is widely recognized as a key strategy to reduce the negative effects of buildings on the environment and has been criticized for its focus and dependence on technological advances, as opposed to focusing on the qualitative aspects of the human dimension and the desire to connect with nature. Has encountered Biophilic design as a potential strategy can pave the way to fill this gap by shifting the focus towards human-centered approaches. Biophilic design is based on the concept of health and well-being, and its basis is to create a positive effect in increasing the relationship between man and nature for the residents of the building and the environment. Since sustainable design and biophilic design better represent environmental responses, they can lead to more sustainable results as a comprehensive approach. The research method in this study is "grounded theory" which is one of the approaches of "qualitative strategy" and is applied and developmental in terms of its purpose. According to the basic theory, three main elements: concepts, classes and categories related to research were created through data conceptualization. The data was open coding including 113 characteristics and in axial coding 10 codes of concepts and in selective coding 6 categories, which was done in the form of library documentary studies according to the opinions of scholars in the field of sustainable biophilic approach. In the MAXQDA 10 software, the data were coded and selected according to the frequency and repetition of the codes. The results showed that in the biophilic approach, the existence of dimensions of direct connection with nature in the field of natural sustainability and the nature of space and place in the field of cultural sustainability caused human interaction with nature in the artificial environment, which subsequently had optimal effects on well-being and health. It can lead to an increase in the quality of life.
1-Introduction
Environmentally sustainable design is widely recognized as a key strategy to reduce the negative effects of buildings on the environment and has been criticized for its focus and dependence on technological advances, as opposed to focusing on the qualitative aspects of the human dimension and the desire to connect with nature. Has encountered Biophilic design as a potential strategy can pave the way to fill this gap by shifting the focus towards human-centered approaches. Biophilic design is based on the concept of health and well-being, and its basis is to create a positive effect in increasing the relationship between man and nature for the residents of the building and the environment. Since sustainable design and biophilic design better represent environmental responses, they can lead to more sustainable results as a comprehensive approach.
 
2-Materials and Methods
In terms of purpose, the current research has analyzed the content with the “grounded theory” or foundational data approach, which is one of the “qualitative strategy” approaches and the collection of information is by the method of library and documentary studies. This method is based on a comparative analysis between sustainable architecture and biophilic architecture and seeks to discover the theory based on four criteria of generalization of understanding and perception, adaptation and appropriateness, and modifiability. The basic theory includes three main elements: concepts, classes and categories, which are the most basic units of analysis and are created through the conceptualization of data. In this research, 120 articles were purposefully collected as a theoretical sample in the period from 1984 to 2022 related to biophilic design and well-being and health. After examining their abstract and text, 25 articles were closely related the main axis of the research was evaluated. According to the basic theory, three main elements: concepts, classes and categories related to research were created through data conceptualization. The data was open coding including 113 characteristics and in axial coding 10 codes of concepts and in selective coding 6 categories, which was done in the form of library documentary studies according to the opinions of scholars in the field of sustainable biophilic approach. In the MAXQDA 10 software, the data were coded and selected according to the frequency and repetition of the codes.
 
3- Results and Discussion
One of the most important concepts in the field of sustainability and human health is the connection with nature, which is made possible by the direct experience of nature by its components in the presented biophilic models. Humans have an inherent and unconscious dependence on nature, which has a positive effect on the spiritual dimensions of human beings and can strengthen the dimensions of spiritual health. Biophilic is a biological approach that can affect humans and their environment through subjective and objective dimensions in architecture. Biophilic architecture is a non-destructive relationship between humans and nature in built environments, thus leading to sustainable design. Biophilia shows that human connection with natural processes and systems is essential for our health. Interaction with nature is the most effective in eliminating environmental stress, and the goal of biophilic design is to reconnect residents and nature in built environments, and it is always necessary for the health of the body, mind, and human well-being.
 
4- Conclusion
Biophilic design is a biological approach that can help the non-destructive relationship between humans and nature in built environments. This approach in completing the sustainable design, which is more prominent in the discussion of technology, can cause the interaction and improvement of the quality of the environment, and as a result, health and well-being, taking into account the mental-psychological needs of humans. This design includes three dimensions of direct experience of nature, indirect experience of nature and the nature of space and place and 14 components, the dimension of direct experience by its components, including visual connection with nature, has the greatest effect on people’s positive perception and interaction. Man strengthens nature in the built environment and operationally completes the concept of natural sustainability. The landscape component in the dimension of the nature of space and place has also caused the connection of man with his region, context and culture, and this cultural stability can lead to a sense of belonging to a place, a sense of shelter and security. Communication with nature is a natural and inherent human need, and biophilic design through its components establishes this connection between humans and the environment and causes spiritual health including: peace, unwavering-absurdity and peace, followed by mental health, including Reducing anxiety and depression brings happiness and satisfaction with life, and as a result, people’s physical health is also strengthened. Therefore, the biophilic approach is an environmentally friendly approach that contributes to human health and well-being in the environment.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdelaal, M. S., & Soebarto, V. (2019). Biophilia and Salutogenesis as restorative design approaches in healthcare architecture. Architectural science review, 62(3), 195-205.
Agar, M. (1996). Schon Wieder? Science in linguistic anthropology. Anthropology Newsletter, 37(1),13-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/an.1996.37.1.13.1
Almusaed, A., & Almssad, A. (2015). Building materials in eco-energy houses from Iraq and Iran, Case Studies in Construction Materials. Elsevier, 2‎(7), 42-54.
Barbiero, G.,& Berto, R. (2021). Biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: an onto- and phylogenetic framework for biophilic design. Environmental Psychology, 1‎(12), 1-13.
Bolten, B., & Barbiero,G. (2020). Biophilic design: how to enhance physical and psychological health and wellbeing in our built environments. Visions for Sustainability, 1(13), 11-16.
Browning, W. D., & Ryan, C. O. (2020). Nature inside: a biophilic design guide. Londn: Routledge.
Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., & Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.
Charmaz, K. (1994). Identity dilemmas of chronically ill men. The Sociological Quarterly, 35(2), 269-288.
Coburn, A., Kardan, O., & Kotabe, H. (2019). Psychological responses to natural patterns in architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 (62), 133-145.
Downton, P., Jones, D., Zeunert, & J., & Roös P.h. (2017). Biophilic Design Applications: Putting Theory and Patterns into Built Environment Practice. The International Conference on Design and Technology, KEG, 59-65.
Ducarme, F., & Couvet, D. (2020). What does ‘nature’ mean. Palgrave Communications, 6 (14), 1-8.
Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings, 5(3), 948-963.
Golparvar Far, N. (2016). Human nature of architecture. Tehran: Tahan (In Persian).
Gou, Z., & Xie, X. (2017). Evolving green building: triple bottom line or regenerative design?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(153), 600-607.
Groth, L; & Wang, D. (2019). Research methods in architecture. Translation: Alireza Ainifar. Tehran: University Press (In Persian).
Heerwagen, J. (2009). Biophilia, health, and well-being. In: Lindsay Campbell & Anne Wiesen, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, (p.p38-57). USA: Gen. Tech. Rep.
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2011). The affective quality of human-natural environment relationships. Evolutionary Psychology, 3‎(9), 451-469.
Illankoon, I. C. S., Tam, V. W., Le, K. N., & Shen, L. (2017). Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. Journal of cleaner production, 24 (164), 209-220.
in the USA. Internet Journal of Historical Geography and Environmental History, 6‎(1), 4-17.
Ismaili, N., Gulabchi, M., & Qabadian, V. (2019). Evaluation of customer attraction focusing on biophilic design features, case study: Sarai Moshir, Shiraz. Armanshahr Architecture and Urbanism Quarterly, 3 (13), 1-17 (In Persian).
Istiadji, A. D., Hardiman, G., & Satwiko, P. (2018). What is the sustainable method enough for our built environment?. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1(213), 1-10.
Kahn Jr. P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental review, 17(1), 1-61.
Kahn, P.H., Kellert, S.R. (2002). Children and Nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (2008). Bringing out the best in people: A psychological perspective. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 826-829.
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island press.
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
Kellert, S., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright LLC.
Kellert, St. R. (2008). Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design, Biophilic Design Journal, The theory, Science and practice of Bringings of life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kellert, St. R. (2018). Biophilic Design Applications, Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design. New Haven: Yale University Press,111-188. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235432-005
Klaniecki, K., Leventon, J., & Abson, D. J. (2018). Human–nature connectedness as a ‘treatment’for pro-environmental behavior: making the case for spatial considerations. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1375-1388.
Krcmarova, J. (2009). E.O. Wilson’s concept of biophilia and the environmental movement
Manzo, L. C, (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9
Mastri Farahani, M., Azmoudeh, M., & Afshari Rad, S. (2022). Evaluation of the components affecting the healing of the design of sustainable treatment centers and the presentation of a practical model, Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 12(3), 105-91 (In Persian).
Mousavi, S.M., Mirzaei, R., Heydari, A., & Asaadi, S.N. (2021). Measuring the effectiveness of biophilic design components on improving the health indicators of patients in medical environments (case study: in the city of Mashhad). Health Management, 12(2), 45-55 (In Persian).
Noghreh kar, A.H., & Taghdir, S. (2013). Examining the capabilities of the architectural space to create a platform to respond to human needs from the perspective of Islam (a case study of Zinat al-Mulk houses in Shiraz and Boroujerdi houses in Kashan). Iranian-Islamic City, 5 (15), 2-34 (In Persian).
Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The qualitative report, 2(4), 1-15.
Peter, H., & Kahn, Jr. (1997). Developmental Psychology and the Biophilia Hypothesis: Children’s Affiliation with Nature. Developmental review, 17(1), 1-61.
Peters, T., & Penna, K. (2020). Biophilic design for restorative university learning environments: a critical review of literature and design recommendations. Sustainability (Switzerland), 17(12), 70-64.
Qalandarian, F., piety, A., & Kamiyar, M. (2015). A comparative study of the relationship between man and the environment in the thinking of sustainable development and Islamic thinking. Islamic Architecture Research Quarterly, 1(4), 62-78 (In Persian).
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M. I., & Laurance, W. F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026– 1028.
Ryan, C. O., & Browning, W. D. (2020). Nature Inside: A Biophilic Design Guide. London: RIBA Publishing.
Ryan,C.O, Browning, W.D., Clancy, J.O., Andrews, S.L., & Kallianpurka, N.B. (2014). Biophilic Design Patterns Emerging Nature-Based Parameters for Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2 (8), 62-75.
Salingaros, N. A. (2015). Biophilia and healing environments. New York: Terrapin Bright Green.
Sevinc kayihan, K., Özcelik guney, S., & Ünal, F. C. (2018). Biophilia as the Main Design Question in Architectural Design Studio Teaching. Megaron, 1(13). 1-12.
Totaforti, S. (2018). Applying the benefits of biophilic theory to hospital design. City Territ Archit, 1 (1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-018-0077-5
Ulrich, R.S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O., Eds., The Biophilia Hypothesis, (p.p73-137).Washington: Island Press.
Zare, G., Faizi, M., Baharond, M., & Masnavi, M.R. (2021). Explanation of biophilic design strategies effective on the health of patients hospitalized in hospitals. Iranian Scientific Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 1 (12), 59-78 (In Persian).
Zhao, Y., Zhan, Q., & Xu, T. (2022). Biophilic Design as an Important Bridge for Sustainable Interaction between Humans and the Environment: Based on Practice in Chinese Healthcare Space. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 1(22), 1-14.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics