Analyzing the Role of Biophilic Intermediate Spaces in Promoting Psychological Well-Being and Social Sustainability in High-Density Urban Settlements

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The increasing density of urban landscapes threatens social sustainability and exacerbates inequalities in access to green spaces. This study redefines biophilic intermediate spaces as essential small-scale green infrastructure that enhances psychological well-being and social cohesion in dense cities. The research aims to identify and prioritize biophilic components to create a sustainable planning framework for high-density urban areas. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, the study screened 43 indicators through the Delphi method and applied the Shannon entropy multi-criteria decision-making technique to assess the weight and priority of each indicator. The analysis revealed key indices impacting the spatial quality of urban residential environments. Findings highlight that, within the environmental dimension, natural complexity, perceptual order, and protected niches are paramount; accessibility is the critical factor in the physical dimension; and shared floor-level spaces and pocket gardens are most significant in the spatial dimension. This reflects a shift from ground-oriented to vertical living, where biophilic intermediate spaces prioritize perceptual quality and equitable access, serving as vital areas for psychological restoration and social interaction. The research suggests innovative strategies for vertically distributing well-being and shows that enhancing social sustainability and quality of life in dense cities relies on recognizing intermediate and shared spaces as accessible micro-biophilic environments. The identified indicators provide a scientific foundation for urban planning and design aimed at fostering resilient and socially equitable urban landscapes, particularly relevant for high-density cities in Iran.
 
Extended Abstract
1-Introduction
The increasing density of urban landscapes threatens social sustainability and exacerbates inequalities in access to green spaces. Rapid urbanization and the increasing density of contemporary cities have profoundly altered the spatial, social, and environmental quality of living environments. The dominance of high-rise residential developments has significantly reduced access to ground-level green spaces, intensifying social inequalities and psychological stress while weakening social cohesion. While urban sustainability discourse has largely emphasized large-scale green infrastructure such as parks and urban forests, the potential of small-scale and transitional spaces within residential complexes remains underexplored. Intermediate spaces such as lobbies, corridors, balconies, terraces, and shared semi-public areas serve as critical interfaces between private and public realms. When designed through a biophilic lens, these spaces can function as micro-green infrastructures that support psychological restoration, daily interaction with nature, and social sustainability. This study aims to identify and prioritize biophilic design components within residential intermediate spaces that most effectively enhance psychological well-being as a core indicator of social sustainability in high-density urban settlements.
 
2-Materials and Methods
This research adopts an applied-developmental objective and follows a descriptive–analytical mixed-method approach conducted in three main stages. First, a systematic review of theoretical and empirical literature related to biophilic design, psychological well-being, social sustainability, and intermediate residential spaces was undertaken. This process resulted in the extraction of 83 preliminary indicators encompassing environmental, physical, and spatial attributes. In the second stage, the Delphi method was employed to validate and refine the extracted indicators. A panel of 20 experts, including university professors and doctoral researchers specializing in architecture, biophilic design, and urban sustainability, participated in four Delphi rounds using a five-point Likert scale. Psychological well-being was assessed through its three theoretical dimensions: positive affect, negative affect reduction, and cognitive life satisfaction. Due to the strong internal correlation among these dimensions, a weighted composite score was used in the final round. Indicators with a mean score below 3.5 were eliminated, resulting in 43 validated indicators. Questionnaire reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha (0.971), and consensus adequacy was verified through Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. In the third stage, the Shannon entropy technique was applied to objectively determine the relative weight and priority of each indicator. Unlike mean-based ranking methods, Shannon entropy accounts for the dispersion and uncertainty of expert judgments, allowing identification of indicators with the highest discriminative power in influencing psychological well-being.
 
3- Results and Discussion
The results reveal a clear hierarchy among biophilic design indicators across three dimensions. In the environmental dimension, indicators related to perceptual order and psychological security—such as natural complexity and symmetry, protected niches, layered visual corridors, and rich sensory information—received the highest entropy weights. Interestingly, widely appreciated features such as open views and water elements showed high mean satisfaction but low entropy weights, indicating limited strategic differentiation due to high consensus. In the physical dimension, accessibility emerged as the most influential factor, surpassing element diversity and size. This finding highlights that proximity and ease of everyday interaction with biophilic elements are more critical than their quantity or scale in dense residential settings. In the spatial dimension, shared floor-level spaces, three-dimensional green spaces (pocket gardens and greenhouses), and balconies ranked significantly higher than traditional courtyards. Although courtyards achieved the highest satisfaction scores, their low entropy weight suggests that they are perceived as standard features rather than transformative elements. These findings collectively indicate a paradigm shift from ground-oriented green spaces toward vertically distributed biophilic environments. Intermediate spaces, when activated through biophilic design, function as restorative social nodes that enhance daily exposure to nature, support informal social interactions, and mitigate psychological stress associated with high-density living.
 
4- Conclusion
This study demonstrates that promoting psychological well-being and social sustainability in dense urban residential environments requires moving beyond quantitative green-space provision toward qualitative, perceptually rich, and accessible biophilic experiences. The integration of biophilic principles into intermediate spaces enables a vertical redistribution of well-being, redefining the role of shared and transitional spaces as essential micro-infrastructures for mental restoration and social cohesion. Methodologically, the use of Shannon entropy allowed the identification of high-impact yet often overlooked design factors, providing a robust decision-making framework for planners and designers. The prioritized indicators offer a scientific basis for developing context-sensitive urban housing policies and design guidelines, particularly relevant to high-density cities in Iran and similar contexts.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abazari, T., Potvin, A., Demers, C. M., & Gosselin, L. (2024). An architectural design framework to promote healthy indoor outdoor connections in Arctic housing. Indoor Environments, 1(4),1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indenv.2024.100053
Afify, R. B., Dorra, M. M., Aboubakr, D., & Shawket, I. M. (2022). Smart biophilic framework to improve productivity of existing office buildings in Egypt. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 10(5), 1931–1947. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2022.100517
Akbari, P., Yazdanfar, S.-A., Hosseini, S.-B., & Norouzian-Maleki, S. (2021). Housing and mental health during outbreak of COVID-19. Journal of Building Engineering, 43, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102919
Al Sayyed, H., & Al-Azhari, W. (2025). Investigating the role of biophilic design to enhance comfort in residential spaces: Human physiological response in immersive virtual environment. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2025.1411425
Almusaed, A. (2010). Biophilic and bioclimatic architecture: Analytical therapy for the next generation of passive sustainable architecture. London: Springer.
Alshehri, R. M., Alzenifeer, B. M., Alqahtany, A. M., Alrawaf, T., Alsayed, A. H., Afify, H. M. N.,... & Alshammari, M. S. (2025). Impact of urban green spaces on social interaction and sustainability: A case study in Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 17(10), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104467
Asojo, A., & Hazazi, F. (2025). Biophilic design strategies and indoor environmental quality: A case study. Sustainability, 17(5), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051816
Benfield, J. A., Taff, B. D., Newman, P., & Smyth, J. (2014). Natural sound facilitates mood recovery. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0028
Berkebile, B., Fox, B., & Hartley, A. (2008). Reflections on implementing biophilic design. In Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador M. L. (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life, (pp. 347–356). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Browning, B. (2014). The economics of biophilia: Why designing with nature in mind makes sense. New York: Terrapin Bright Green.
Browning, W. D., & Ryan, C. O. (2020). Nature inside: A biophilic design guide. London: RIBA
Clark-Havron, H. (2023). Biophilic homes: Analyzing biophilic design in the residential setting. Master's thesis of Arts, University of Cincinnati.
Colantonio, A., & Dixon, T. (2011). Urban regeneration & social sustainability: Best practice from European cities. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Council of Europe. (2021). UN Agenda 2030: The agenda 2030 for sustainable development. https://www.coe.int/en/web/programmes/un-2030-agenda.
Crown Group (2021). Biophilic design and slow living. Retrieved from: https://finance.yahoo.com/ news/biophilic-design-slow-living-turning-160000942.html.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
Diener, E., & Sim, J. H. (2024). In Emotion theory: The routledge comprehensive guide. New York: Routledge.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2. 276
Do, K.-H. (2009). A study about spatial experience on intermedia space of eco-architecture. Journal of the Korean Digital Architecture Interior Association, 9(1), 19–29. https://koreascience.kr/JAKO201113253031726
Downton, P., Jones, D., Zeunert, J., & Roos, P. (2017). Biophilic design applications: Putting theory and patterns into built environment practice. KnE Engineering, 59–65. https://doi.org/10. 18502/keg.v2i2.596
Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 80(4), 536–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-003-6323-z
Fatemi Motlagh, R., Moshari, M., Mahdavinejad, M., Ahmadi, A., & Moeini, M. (2025). A Systematic Review of Eco-Comfort Criteria in Urban Planning and Their Evaluation Using the Delphi Method. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 22(149), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2025.508773.5773(In Persian).
Gong, Y., Zoltán, E. S., & János, G. (2023). Healthy dwelling: The perspective of biophilic design in the design of the living space. Buildings, 13(8), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings13082020
Haq, S. M. A. (2011). Urban green spaces and an integrative approach to sustainable environment. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(7), 601–608. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2011.27069
Harryanto, E. V. Y. (2024). Building healthier cities: The power of biophilic design. https://urbandesignlab.in/building-healthier-cities-the-power-of-biophilic-design/
Hebert, M. (2022). Learning from community housing movements: Six principles for building happier homes. https://happycities.com/blog/learning-from-community-housing-movements-six-principles-for-happy-homes
Hedayati, F., soheili, J., & Rahbarimanesh, K. (2023). Examining the Connection Between the Configuration of In-between Spaces and the Quality of Flexibility by Focusing on Adaptability in Seljuk Grand Mosques. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 20(126), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2023.378019.5311 (In Persian).
HosseinZadeh FallahiNejad, S., & Azargoon, S. (2013). Factors Affecting In‑Between Space and Its Impact on the Quality of Architectural and Urban Space. National Conference on Architecture, Culture and Urban Management, Karaj: Karaj Municipality Higher Education Center & Did Architecture Office. https://civilica.com/doc/256294 (In Persian).
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 12(1), 1-8. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10
Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human–nature connection. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. L. (Eds.). (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kellert, S., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The practice of biophilic design. https://www.biophilic-design.com
Kray, C., Fesenmaier, A., & Kuhn, W. (2013). Transitional spaces: Between indoor and outdoor spaces. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (pp. 14–34). Berlin: Springer.
Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005. 09.002
Lee, H. C., & Park, S. J. (2018). Assessment of importance and characteristics of biophilic design patterns in a children’s library. Sustainability, 10(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10040987
Lu, S., Oh, W., Ooka, R., & Wang, L. (2022). Effects of environmental features in small public urban green spaces on older adults’ mental restoration: Evidence from Tokyo. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9) , 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19095477
Malashenkova, V., & Pyrozhok, O. S. (2024). The influence of biophilic design on human psychology. Regional Problems of Architecture and Urban Planning.18(2024), 329-335. https://doi.org/10.31650/2707
Martin, D., Nettleton, S., Buse, C., Prior, L., & Twigg, J. (2015). Architecture and health care: A place for sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(7), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-9566.12284
Mashayekhi, A. N., Farhangi, A. A., Momeni, M., & Alidousti, S. (2005). Investigating Key Factors Affecting the Application of Information Technology in Iranian Governmental Organizations: Using the Delphi Method. Modares Human Sciences Quarterly, 9(3), 191–232. https://mri.modares.ac.ir/article_242.html (In Persian).
Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784–799. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/665048
Milliken, S., Kotzen, B., Walimbe, S., Coutts, C., & Beatley, T. (2023). Biophilic cities and health. Cities & Health, 7(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2023.2176200
Mirheydarian,M. & Zarghami,E. (2026). A Systematic Review of Biophilic Design Patterns and Strategies in Residential Settings. MANZAR, the Scientific Journal of landscape, 18(74), 32-49. https://doi.org/10.22034/manzar.2025.548759.2374
Mohammed, I., Onur, Z., & Çağnan, Ç. (2023). An exploration of biophilic design features within preschool interiors. Sustainability, 15(15), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511913
Mostafa, A. M., & Alshahrani, A. (2024). Humanizing sustainable development through green spaces: A case study of Saudi cities. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 6, 1-9. https://doi.org/10. 3389/frsc.2024.1416983
Najmeh, H., & Babamiri, M. (2012). Investigating the Relationship Between Green Space and Mental Health. Armaghane Danesh, 17(4), 309–316. http://armaghanj.yums.ac.ir/article-1-244-fa.html (In Persian).
Neale, C., Lopez, S., & Roe, J. (2021). Psychological restoration and the effect of people in nature and urban scenes: A laboratory experiment. Sustainability, 13(11(,1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116464
Pandita, D., & Choudhary, H. (2024). Biophilic designs: A solution for the psychological well-being and quality of life of older people. Working with Older People, 28(4), 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1108/WWOP-01-2024-0003
Peyroveoliya, M., & Soheili, J. (2017). The Quality of In‑Between Space in Historical Passages: Case Study of Sagharisazan Passage in Rasht City. Iranian Architecture and Urbanism, 1396 (13), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2018.62046 (In Persian).
Pooretesami, Z., Moeini, M., & Nikpour, M. (2023). Analyzing the Physical Components of the Interspace and the Biophilic Architecture of a Residential Complex in the Metropolis of Isfahan (case example: Zaytoun residential complex) Life Space Journal, 3(1), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.22094/lsj.2023.704903 )In Persian(.
Raeisi, I., Kharazmi Nezhad, A., & Hafezifar, M. (2010). Architectural design principles of public spaces based on social sustainability approach: A case study in Ardabil, Iran. Design Principles and Practices, 4(4), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1874/CGP/v04i05/ 37968
Rasouli, R., Mooghali, A. R., & Rashidi, M. (2015). Designing a Model for Organizational Sustainability Strengthening of Knowledge Workers: Using Delphi Technique. Journal of Career and Organization Consulting, 6(21), 66–94. https://jcoc.sbu.ac.ir/article_99373.html (In Persian).
Ryan, C. (2015). Non-rhythmic sensory stimuli: Give yourself a break! Terrapin Bright Green. New York: Terrapin Bright Green.
Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., & Kallianpurkar, N. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. Archnet-IJAR, 8(2), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i2.436
Sadat, S. A. (2023). The Model of Vitality in the Intermediate Spaces in Mid-Rise Residential Complexes with the Mobility Approach. PhD Dissertation in Architecture, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. (In Persian).
Shbaita, A. S., Denerel, S. B., & Asilsoy, B. (2024). An evidence-based assessment of biophilic interior design in a traditional context: The case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 16(18), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187979
Song, C., Ali, F., Cobanoglu, C., Nanu, L., & Lee, S. H. J. (2022). The effect of biophilic design on customer's subjective well-being in the hotel lobbies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.07.008
Song, C., Ikei, H., & Miyazaki, Y. (2016). Physiological effects of nature therapy: A review of the research in Japan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(8), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080781
Stigsdotter, U. (2005). Landscape architecture and health. Doctoral dissertation in landscape architecture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Stoiljković, B. (2022). Social cohesion and neighbor interactions within multifamily apartment buildings: Challenges of COVID-19 and directions of action. Sustainability, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020738
Tsunetsugu, Y., Lee, J., Park, B. J., Tyrväinen, L., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2013). Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2013.01.014
United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals. html
Untaru, E. N., Han, H., David, A., & Chi, X. (2023). Biophilic design and its effectiveness in creating emotional well-being, green satisfaction, and workplace attachment among healthcare professionals: The hospice context. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 17, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231192087
Urban Design Lab. (2024). Biophilic urbanism. https://urbandesignlab.in/biophilic-urbanism/
Vachon, G., Rivard, E., Avarello M., St-Jean L. (2017). Imagining sustainable development of Inuit villages in Nunavik: Design to reflect on possibilities. Recherches Amérindiennes au Québec, 47(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.7202/1042905ar
Van Wieren, G., & Kellert, S. R. (2013). The origins of aesthetic and spiritual values in children's experience of nature. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 7(3), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v7i3.243
Wheatley, M. C. (2024). Green urbanism: Enhancing city life through integrated green spaces. Premier Journal of Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.70389/PJES.2024.100007
Wijesooriya, N., & Brambilla, A. (2020). Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2020.124591
Yazdani Rostam, F., Saeideh Zarabadi, Z. S., & Habib, F. (2024a). Theoretical modeling of effective components on biophilic design of spaces between residential complexes. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 14(2), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.71711/ ijaud.2024.796355 (In Persian).
Yazdani Rostam, F., Saeideh Zarabadi, Z. S., & Habib, F. (2024b). Understanding the requirements of biophilic intersection design in residential complexes of Tehran, case study: Phase 1 of Ekbatan Township. Journal of Urban Ecology Researches, 14(4), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.30473/grup.2023.68618.2800 (In Persian).
Yin, J., Zhu, S., MacNaughton, P., Allen, J. G., & Spengler, J. D. (2018). Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Building and Environment, 132, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.006
Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics