Biophilia in Practice: Buildings that Connect People with Nature

Reprinted with permission from Environmental Building News July 2006

Photo: Tom Bender

The Bank of Astoria in Manzanita,
Ore., designed by architect Tom
Bender with SERA Architects, Inc.,
makes extensive use of natural
materials.

Understanding Biophilia
Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, PhD, coined the term biophilia in his book by the same
name (Harvard University Press, 1984), arguing that human beings have an innate and
evolutionarily based affinity for nature. He defined the term as ―the connections that human
beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.‖

Kellert, who coedited The Biophilia Hypothesis with Wilson (Island Press, 1993) and more
recently wrote Building for Life (Island Press, 2005), defines the concept of biophilia in the
latter book as ―a complex of weak genetic tendencies to value nature that are instrumental in
human physical, material, emotional, intellectual, and moral well-being. Because biophilia is
rooted in human biology and evolution, it represents an argument for conserving nature based
on long-term self-interest.‖

Judith Heerwagen, PhD, a psychologist whose research has focused on the relationship
between buildings and psychological well-being and who has written widely on biophilia,
told participants of the Bringing Buildings to Life symposium that ―biophilia evolved to
guide functional behaviors associated with finding, using, and enjoying natural resources that
aided survival and reproductive fitness—and avoiding those that are harmful.‖

Biophilia, she suggests, evolved as an adaptive mechanism to protect people from hazards
and to help them access such resources as food, water, and shelter. This translates in present
conditions into the strong preference people exhibit for features that suggest those
evolutionary roots. ―People will fight to keep biophilic features,‖ Heerwagen says, describing
competition in commercial buildings for offices with views to the outdoors. In workstations
without views, people adapt by surrounding themselves with potted plants, images of nature,
and nature-focused screen savers on their computers.
Why Biophilia Matters
We care about biophilia in building design—or we should care—for two primary reasons.
First, it is becoming increasingly well demonstrated that biophilic elements have real,
measurable benefits relative to such human performance metrics as productivity, emotional
well-being, stress reduction, learning, and healing. And second, from an environmental
standpoint, biophilic features foster an appreciation of nature, which, in turn, should lead to
greater protection of natural areas, eliminate pollution, and maintain a clean environment.
Both the benefits of biophilia and the less tangible arguments are discussed below.

Healing

Photo: Richard Payne; WHR

Architects
At the Christus St. Michael Health
Care Center in Texarkana, Tex.,
designed by WHR Architects, Inc.
of Houston, nearly every hospital
room looks out on trees or other
natural landscaping elements.

The most clearly demonstrated benefits of biophilia are related to health and healing. If the
biophilia hypothesis is correct, all human beings have carried its stamp on their genes for
millennia. Indeed, the historical record reflects that the potential for biophilic features to
produce positive, measurable outcomes on human health and healing has been understood for
centuries. As long as 2,000 years ago, according to Richard Louv in the book Last Child in
the Woods (Algonquin Books, 2005), Chinese Taoists recognized that gardens and
greenhouses were beneficial to health. Leonard Maeger, writing in the English Gardener in
1699, recommended spending time in a garden: ―There is no better way to preserve your
health.‖ In 1859, the pioneering British nurse Florence Nightingale wrote in Notes on
Nursing (reprinted by Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 2005)
that ―variety of form and brilliancy of colour in the objects presented to patients are an actual
means of recovery.‖
More recently, Roger Ulrich, PhD, a professor of architecture and landscape architecture at
Texas A&M University, has quantified the medical benefits of views of nature. In a landmark
study, published in 1984, Ulrich showed that patients recovering from gallbladder surgery
recovered more quickly and required less pain medication if they had a view of trees outside
their windows than if they looked out on a brick wall (see EBN Vol. 13, No. 10). Such
benefits have clear economic advantages.

Ulrich explained to EBN a number of ways in which biophilic design may alleviate pain:
―Exposure to nature appears to reduce pain through different types of mechanisms, including
distraction and stress reduction. Distraction theory holds that pain absorbs attention; the more
attention devoted to pain, the greater the experienced intensity. If patients are diverted by or
become engrossed in a pleasant nature view, they allocate less attention to pain, and
accordingly the intensity is reduced,‖ he says.

―A second mechanism,‖ says Ulrich, ―is suggested by the well-documented finding that
viewing nature effectively lowers stress. When stress is lessened, levels of stress hormones,
such as norepinephrine, often are lowered as well, and this may alleviate the experienced
intensity of pain.‖

When contact with nature involves exposure to natural light or sunlight, yet another pain-
reduction mechanism may come into play, says Ulrich. ―Sunlight exposure elevates
concentrations of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that inhibits pain pathways in the central
nervous system.‖

Surprisingly, despite fairly clear evidence of medical benefits from biophilic measures, very
little research has been conducted to verify these outcomes. Ulrich told participants of
Bringing Buildings to Life that there are still only about 30 pertinent studies on the
relationship between views of nature and healing—despite the potential billions of dollars in
healthcare cost savings that such features could achieve.

Despite the limited available data, many hospital planners have taken the message of nature
contact seriously. At the Christus St. Michael Health Care Center in Texarkana, Tex., for
example, every patient room looks out on a natural, outdoor scene. The Bronson Methodist
Hospital in Kalamazoo, Michigan, includes a garden atrium that the hospital’s website
describes as incorporating light, water, and greenery ―to connect patients and visitors with the
healing powers of nature.‖

When patients cannot be provided with an actual view of nature or direct contact with nature,
representing nature in photographic images and other artwork has also been shown to be
beneficial—though the results are not quite as dramatic. Nature photographs and artwork of
natural scenes are common in the more progressive hospitals today. Expanding on this
concept is the SkyCeiling™, an illuminated ceiling system that provides an illusion of an
attractive sky scene that helps people relax—see sidebar, below.

Visual images can affect health either positively or negatively. At the Bringing Buildings to
Life symposium, Ulrich described a 1992 study he was involved with that examined rates of
recovery from heart surgery with different wall treatments in the recovery rooms. Rooms had
either bare white walls or various types of artwork, including photographs of deep, dark
forests, photographs of open landscape vistas, and rectilinear abstract art. Ulrich and his
fellow researchers found that the closed forest images resulted in little difference to patients
compared with the blank wall, while the open landscape scenes dramatically reduced pain
and anxiety. Significantly, the abstract art hindered patient recovery; in fact, according to
Ulrich, the negative effect of the abstract art was so significant that the researchers
discontinued that aspect of the experiment in the interest of patient health.

Sidebar: Simulating Nature with Luminous SkyCeilings

Attention and Learning

In Last Child in the Woods, Louv quotes a number of experts suggesting that ―nature may be
useful as a therapy for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)‖ and that lack of
contact with nature may be one of the contributors to the dramatic rise in ADHD among
children in recent years—an idea he refers to as ―nature-deficit disorder.‖ While much of the
evidence Louv cites is anecdotal, it is compelling—and leads him to conclude that ―yes, more
research is needed, but we do not have to wait for it.‖ He argues that we should be providing
much greater contact with nature in learning environments.

The Heschong Mahone Group, Inc., in its most recent study of daylighting in schools, found
statistically significant evidence that access to views through windows in school classrooms
improves student performance by 5% to 10% (see EBN Vol. 13, No. 10). While earlier
studies had found a correlation of faster learning with higher daylighting levels, this study
found a stronger correlation of faster learning with views to the outdoors than with
daylighting levels.

Productivity, Creativity, and Satisfaction

Photo: Daniel Aubry

This custom concrete conference
table by Clodagh Design in New
York City features a
C-channel groove planted with
wheatgrass.
In almost any building type, there are benefits to improving the performance and satisfaction
of the people working or living there. We often lump the wide-ranging benefits of human
performance under the rubric of productivity. While measuring productivity is difficult, there
is growing interest in doing so. Researchers from the Rocky Mountain Institute and Carnegie
Mellon University have reported significant improvements in productivity as a result of green
building features, including daylighting and views to the outdoors (see EBN Vol. 13, No. 10).
Even more difficult than demonstrating whether certain building features boost productivity
is figuring out why. At the Bringing Buildings to Life symposium, Kellert cited studies
suggesting that contact with nature improves cognitive functioning on higher-order tasks,
which may explain some of the effects.

A number of researchers have examined whether there is a connection between creativity and
childhood contact with nature. Louv cites various studies that show connections between time
spent with nature during childhood and creativity as adults. In her 1977 book The Ecology of
Imagination in Childhood (Spring Publications, reprinted in 1993), Edith Cobb reported on
her studies of childhood experiences of some 300 autobiographical descriptions of childhood
written by people who gained recognition in adulthood as creative thinkers. ―She concluded,‖
wrote Louv, ―that inventiveness and imagination of nearly all of the creative people she
studied was rooted in their early experiences in nature.‖

Appreciation for Nature

From an environmental standpoint, one of the most compelling reasons to incorporate
biophilic design features in buildings is to inspire interest in—and appreciation of—nature.
This appreciation, in turn, can motivate people to protect the environment and preserve
natural areas.

Photo: Daniel Aubry

Live oak trees extend through the
deck of an internal courtyard at the
Sasanqua Spa in Kiawah Island,
S.C., designed by Clodagh Design
in New York City. Siding on the
wall is made of natural bark.

Richard Forman, PhD, a professor of landscape ecology at Harvard University and a widely
published author in the landscape design and planning fields, argues that, in addition to the
anthropocentric benefits of buildings, biophilic design offers significant benefits to nature
itself. ―Structures can be designed to provide habitat for targeted rare species, to enhance
surrounding natural systems, to attract the richness of fine-scale nature on the texture of
building surfaces, and even to educate people—leading to nature protection elsewhere,‖ he
told EBN.

The potential of buildings to inspire and motivate people about the importance of natural
systems is particularly important with children. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF)
Schoolyard Habitats® program provides educators and school administrators with a
framework for using the school grounds as an interdisciplinary teaching resource that also
enhances natural habitats on the school property. To date, NWF has certified some 2,000
schoolyard habitat sites in 49 states in the United States. Not insignificantly, studies have
found dramatic improvements in student behavior, attendance, attitudes, and performance in
schools with environment-based curriculum such as NWF Schoolyard Habitats, according to
the organization.

Biophilia and Building Design

A Sampling of Biophilic Design Strategies

Efforts to put people in closer contact with nature can focus on building design, landscape
design, interior design, or any combination of the three. Many of the strategies are simply
common sense. Once the benefits of biophilic design are understood, the strategies for
achieving it are fairly intuitive.

Balancing Biophilia with Other Green Design Priorities

The SkyCeiling system described in the sidebar above is a popular strategy for easing stress,
particularly in healthcare facilities—but it comes with a penalty of increased energy
consumption. Incorporating this biophilic feature may make it more difficult to achieve
energy conservation goals. Other strategies, such as large glazing areas of high-visible-
transmittance glass, operable windows, and indoor-outdoor spaces that connect people with
nature, may carry even more significant energy penalties.

On a different level, providing large open areas around buildings—to serve the evolutionarily
based desire to look out on savannah-like vistas that many biophilia proponents suggest we
have—may conflict with the strategy of high-density development, or may encourage sprawl
and development of the most beautiful greenfield sites.

These conflicts are real, but they are surmountable. By understanding these potential conflicts
and working with integrated design teams to address them, all of these goals can be achieved.
Designers may need to work a little harder to maximize energy efficiency elsewhere in the
building to compensate for some energy penalties with biophilic designs, and building
owners or developers may have to invest more in ecological restoration and landscaping to
turn urban brownfield sites into beautiful biophilic assets, but these are doable. Biophilic
design involves understanding potential conflicts and achieving the right balance.
At the same time, significant synergies can be achieved with biophilic design. Green roofs,
for example, can afford contact with natural features in an urban environment while also
reducing the volume and impacts of stormwater runoff and helping to mitigate the urban heat-
island effect (see EBN Vol. 10, No. 11 for more on green roofs). Restoring damaged
ecosystems around a building benefits the ecological health of the area, and walking or
jogging trails around a corporate office may benefit worker health. Increased glazing areas
(key to biophilic design), when implemented effectively, can reduce energy use for electric
lighting and cooling, and natural ventilation (in some climates) can reduce energy
consumption for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.

Integrated, whole-systems, green design is a process of balancing all of these issues—and

biophilia should be one of the issues considered in that process. (For more on integrated
design, see EBN Vol. 13, No. 11.)

Justifying Costs
Convincing clients to spend the money necessary to incorporate biophilic features is a
challenge. Robin Guenther, FAIA, principal of New York City-based Guenther 5 Architects,
which specializes in healthcare design, says that biophilic features often seem like decoration
or ornamentation. ―People haven’t connected them to some core human need,‖ she told EBN.
She often has trouble convincing her healthcare clients to invest in such strategies.

While many of the benefits of biophilic design may be hard to attach specific value to, the
benefits are real and ultimately quantifiable, according to experts EBN spoke with. Vivian
Loftness, FAIA, of Carnegie Mellon University, argues that both the benefits of biophilic
design and problems experienced with conventional design can be measured. There are real
costs associated with headaches, asthma, and depression, she told EBN. ―You can actually
translate those problems into dollars.‖

Real vs. Simulated Nature

Photo: Air Quality Solutions
This living wall, installed by Air
Quality Solutions, Ltd., of Guelph,
Ontario, at the University of
Guelph–Humber, is designed to
remove pollutants from the indoor
air, but also offers biophilia
benefits.

An interesting question comes up in the implementation of biophilic design: to what extent is

it necessary for the biophilic elements to be real? Are artificial representations of nature—
such as SkyCeiling, artificial plants in a building, and wall-hung images of nature—as good
as the real thing?

Some suggest that it is not views of nature, per se, that elicit the positive responses to
biophilic design, but something about those views, objects, or images. James Wise, PhD, an
associate professor of psychology and adjunct professor of environmental sciences at
Washington State University–Tri-Cities, suggests that it is mathematically defined fractal
patterns. Fractals are complex geometric shapes that appear to repeat at finer scales; such
shapes are often found in nature and can be defined mathematically. Wise believes that the
beneficial psychological effects of fractals have the same evolutionary basis as other aspects
of biophilia but that these benefits can be achieved by fractals alone, obviating the need for
actual images of nature. The implication is that we should incorporate fractal-patterned
fabrics, wallcoverings, and artwork—as well as fractal patterns from nature (such as clouds,
ocean waves, tree branches, or ferns) —into our buildings.

The relative merits of real vs. simulated nature is a hot topic of debate. Guenther is of two
minds about this. On the one hand, she has a negative reaction to the representations of
nature. ―It’s a little too kitsch, a little too contrived,‖ she told EBN. On the other hand, she
has healthcare clients who swear by the benefits of products like SkyCeiling, and her research
into biophilia and simulating natural features has lessened her concerns. ―It doesn’t have to
be believable to have an impact on people,‖ she said. The general attitude coming out of the
Bringing Buildings to Life symposium was that the artificial representations of nature aren’t
as good as the real thing, but they are beneficial. Ulrich said that nature simulations are
increasingly common in hospital settings, though actual views of nature are better.

Advancing Biophilia in Buildings

Moving forward with the important concept of biophilic design could be significantly boosted
through three efforts: research into biophilia and human performance, education about
biophilic design, and incentives to spur the implementation of these concepts.
There is clearly a need for more research into the human performance benefits of biophilic
design. Given the magnitude of the benefits that can be realized through biophilic design—
especially the healing benefits—it is remarkable that there hasn’t been more interest in
carrying out research to prove such associations. With healthcare design, Guenther puts a
high priority on ―continued research into the benefits of light and nature on healing.‖
Research to date has been hampered by the lack of buildings to study that incorporate
biophilic features, but that is changing, she says.

The evidence collected to date is compelling, though integrating biophilic design strategies
into buildings on a more widespread basis will require significantly more scientific data
showing tangible benefits of these features. Federal and state agencies should take the lead in
funding this research, but health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and insurance
companies should get involved as well. Loftness has been working to convince the national
Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund such efforts. ―The
NIH should be jumping in with two feet to study the long-term effects of buildings on
health,‖ she says. She has put forward a proposal for both NIH and NSF to devote 1% of their
budgets to address building science and building-related health issues. She believes that this
should be long-term funding—paying for university research programs and supporting PhD
candidates. She expects that the U.S. Green Building Council’s new Research Committee
will play an important role in advancing such priorities.

Even as research is carried out, efforts should be directed toward education about biophilic
design. Architecture schools can play a big role in this, as can continuing education programs
for the design community and healthcare community. The symposium Bringing Buildings to
Life should be replicated on a wide level for both the design community and specialized
building segments, such as healthcare and education.

Finally, there are opportunities for spurring the integration of biophilic design into buildings.
The LEED® Rating System currently rewards certain features that relate to biophilia,
including daylighting and green roofs, but there may be opportunities for more directly
recognizing biophilic designs. LEED version 3, which is currently in development, could
offer points for biophilic features. The next version of the Green Guide for Health Care™
rating system (see EBN Vol. 14, No. 1) will expand its ―places of respite‖ credit based on the
growing body of knowledge about health benefits of both direct and simulated contact with
nature.

—Alex Wilson
For more information
Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection by Stephen
R. Kellert.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.,
2005; 250 pages.
Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard
Louv. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2006;
336 pages.
Special thanks to Jenifer Seal Cramer and Benjamin Shepherd for input on the Biophilic
Design Strategies table.