The Band Apart - Scent Of August [2011]-JPN
Carmel Kittell
Biophilia in Context looks at the evolution of biophilic design in architecture and planning and presents a framework for relating the human biological science and nature. Design Considerations explores a sampling of factors (e.g., scale, climate, user demographics) that may influence biophilic design decisions to bring greater clarity to why some interventions are replicable and why others may not be. The Patterns lays out a series of tools for understanding design opportunities, including the roots of the science behind each pattern, then metrics, strategies and considerations for how to use each pattern. This paper moves from research on biophilic responses to design application as a way to effectively enhance health and well-being for individuals and society.
This paper was supported by Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. We thank Alice Hartley for editorial assistance, Allison Bernett and Cas Smith for production assistance, the Review Committee and Contributors for their technical guidance and expertise, Georgy Olivieri for her relentless energy and dedication to spreading the word, Stefano Serafini and the International Society of Biourbanism for providing guidance and encouragement.
New research supports measureable, positive impacts of biophilic design on health, strengthening the empirical evidence for the human-nature connection and raising its priority level within both design research and design practice; however, little guidance for implementation exists. This paper is intended to help close the gap between current research and implementation. The intended audiences of this publication are interior designers, architects, landscape architects, urban designers, planners, health professionals, employers and developers, as well as anyone wanting to better understand the patterns of biophilia.
This paper puts biophilic design in context with architectural history, health sciences and current architectural practices, and briefly touches on key implementation considerations, then presents biophilic design patterns. The patterns have been developed through extensive interdisciplinary research and are supported by empirical evidence 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:
Finally, this paper discusses these patterns in a general sense for the purpose of addressing universal issues of human health and well-being (e.g., stress, visual acuity, hormone balance, creativity) within the built environment, rather than program-based or sector-specific space types (e.g., health care facility waiting rooms, elementary school classrooms, or storefront pedestrian promenades). As such, the focus is on patterns in nature known, suggested or theorized to mitigate common stressors or enhance desirable qualities that can be applied across various sectors and scales.
We hope this paper presents the foundation necessary for thinking more critically about the human connection with nature and how biophilic design patterns can be used as a tool for improving health and well-being in the built environment.
Nature themes can be found in the earliest human structures: Stylized animals characteristic of the Neolithic Gbekli Tepe; the Egyptian sphinx, or the acanthus leaves adorning Greek temples and their Vitruvian origin story; from the primitive hut to the delicate, leafy filigrees of Rococo design. Representations of animals and plants have long been used for decorative and symbolic ornamentation. Beyond representation, cultures around the world have long brought nature into homes and public spaces. Classic examples include the garden courtyards of the Alhambra in Spain, porcelain fish bowls in ancient China, the aviary in Teotihuacan (ancient Mexico City), bonsai in Japanese homes, papyrus ponds in the homes of Egyptian nobles, the cottage garden in medieval Germany, or the elusive hanging gardens of Babylon.
The consistency of natural themes in historic structures and places suggests that biophilic design is not a new phenomenon; rather, as a field of applied science, it is the codification of history, human intuition and neural sciences showing that connections with nature are vital to maintaining a healthful and vibrant existence as an urban species.
Artists and designers of the Victorian era, such as influential English painter and art critic, John Ruskin, pushed back against what they saw as the dehumanizing experience of industrial cities. They argued for objects and buildings that reflected the hand of the craftsman and drew from nature for inspiration. In the design of the Science Museum at Oxford, Ruskin is said to have told the masons to use the surrounding countryside for inspiration, and the results can be seen in the inclusion of hand-carved flowers and plants adorning the museum (3. Kellert & Finnegan, 2011 ).
Wright abstracted prairie flowers and plants for his art glass windows and ornamentation. Like many in the Craftsman movement, Wright used the grain of wood and texture of brick and stone as a decorative element. Wright also opened up interiors to flow through houses in ways that had not been done before, creating prospect views balanced with intimate refuges. His later designs sometimes include exhilarating spaces, like the balcony cantilevering out over the waterfall at Fallingwater.
The translation of biophilia as a hypothesis into design of the built environment was the topic of a 2004 conference and subsequent book on biophilic design (10. Eds., Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador, 2008 ) in which Stephen Kellert identified more than 70 different mechanisms for engendering a biophilic experience, and contributing authors William Browning and Jenifer Seal-Cramer outlined three classifications of user experience: Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space.
Alternatively, it could be argued that everything, including all that humans design and make, is natural and a part of nature because they are each extensions of our phenotype. This perspective inevitably includes everything from paperback books and plastic chairs, to chlorinated swimming pools and asphalt roadways.
The key issue is that some designed environments are well-adapted (supporting long term life) and some are not. So while golf courses and suburban lawns may be a savanna analogue, in many cases they require intense inputs of water and fertilizer and thus are unfortunately unsustainable design practices.
Nature in the Space addresses the direct, physical and ephemeral presence of nature in a space or place. This includes plant life, water and animals, as well as breezes, sounds, scents and other natural elements. Common examples include potted plants, flowerbeds, bird feeders, butterfly gardens, water features, fountains, aquariums, courtyard gardens and green walls or vegetated roofs. The strongest Nature in the Space experiences are achieved through the creation of meaningful, direct connections with these natural elements, particularly through diversity, movement and multi-sensory interactions.
Nature of the Space addresses spatial configurations in nature. This includes our innate and learned desire to be able to see beyond our immediate surroundings, our fascination with the slightly dangerous or unknown; obscured views and revelatory moments; and sometimes even phobia-inducing properties when they include a trusted element of safety. The strongest Nature of the Space experiences are achieved through the creation of deliberate and engaging spatial configurations commingled with patterns of Nature in the Space and Natural Analogues.
Periodically throughout this paper, these patterns will be referred to in shorthand by their number 1 to 14 for quick reference. For instance, Presence of Water will appear as [P5] and Prospect will appear as [P11].
Cognitive functioning encompasses our mental agility and memory, and our ability to think, learn and output either logically or creatively. For instance, directed attention is required for many repetitive tasks, such as routine paperwork, reading and performing calculations or analysis, as well as for operating in highly stimulating environments, as when crossing busy streets. Directed attention is energy intensive, and over time can result in mental fatigue and depleted cognitive resources (e.g.,19. Kellert et al., 2008 ; 20. van den Berg et al., 2007 ).
Strong or routine connections with nature can provide opportunities for mental restoration, during which time our higher cognitive functions can sometimes take a break. As a result, our capacity for performing focused tasks is greater than someone with fatigued cognitive resources.
Physiological responses encompass our aural, musculoskeletal, respiratory, circadian systems and overall physical comfort. Physiological responses triggered by connections with nature include relaxation of muscles, as well as lowering of diastolic blood pressure and stress hormone (i.e., cortisol) levels in the blood stream (e.g., 25. Park et al., 2009 ). Short term stress that increases heart rate and stress hormone levels, such as from encountering an unknown but complex and information-rich space, or looking over a banister to 8 stories below, is suggested to be beneficial to regulating physiological health (26. Kandel et al., 2013 ).
The physiological system needs to be tested regularly, but only enough for the body to remain resilient and adaptive. Physiological responses to environmental stressors can be buffered through design, allowing for the restoration of bodily resources before system damage occurs (27. Steg, 2007 ).
b1e95dc632