See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324063335

Examination of Biophilia Phenomenon in the Context of Sustainable

Architecture

Chapter · March 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-63709-9_7

CITATIONS READS

0 987

1 author:

Kutlu Sevinç Kayıhan

Gebze Technical University
11 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Birlikte Çalışma Olgusu ve Ofis Kafeler View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kutlu Sevinç Kayıhan on 20 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Examination of
Biophilia Phenomenon
in the Context of
Sustainable
Architecture

Kutlu Sevinç Kayıhan1

1
Gebze Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Gebze/Kocaeli, Turkey
sevinc@gtu.edu.tr

Abstract. Throughout the human history mankind evolved learning to adapt to

the nature, unfortunately this process begun to halt starting with the industrial
revolution. World's population today, most of them living in cities, have been
isolated from the natural environment, combat with the physical and mental
health problems like the loss of productivity, chronic fatigue, depression etc.
due to stress-related disorders. Moving from the estimation that 70% of the
world's population will be living in the cities in the coming years, re-
establishing the human-nature relationship and presentation of the experience
possibilities of nature as a therapy tool for urbanists can be expected to be
significant.
The concept of biophilia defined by social psychologist Erich Fromm in 1964
for the first time defends that there is an instinctive connection need between
human and other living systems. In the case of rupture of this connection,
occurrence of various physical and psychological drawbacks in human health
has been proven by several scientific investigations. Biophilic architecture
arising from the implementation of a psychological originated concept to the
architecture, took place as an intense-studied area in the literature especially in
2000 and beyond. Biophilic design aims to improve the physical and mental
health and welfare of people trying to fulfil the integration need with the nature
in the modern built environment. Biophilic design draws attention to the
emotional aspect of the interaction need with the natural environment while
sustainable design approaches physical and material-oriented to the natural
processes required by people. Sustainable architecture focuses on reducing the
environmental impact of the buildings and remains insufficient to re-establish
the human-nature relationship. Biophilic design aims to fill his gap becoming
the architectural design of life.
In this study, biophilia phenomenon is examined approaching sustainability by
putting the protection of the human and humans’ physical / psychological health
in center. Main design principles of the biophilic architecture are discussed
through current scientific studies and architectural projects.

Keywords: Biophilia, Biophilic architecture, Sustainable architecture, Human-

nature relationship.

1 Introduction

The biophilia concept is formed by the combination of the words "bio" and "philia".
"Bio" means "live, alive". Unlike the phobia, which means deep fears that people feel
about objects in the natural world, "philias" are "the attraction and positive emotions
people feel for certain living spaces, actions, and beings in the natural environment.
Social psychologist Erich Fromm used the term for the first time in 1964. Fromm
says, "Biophilia is the psychological obsession of being attracted by things that are
live and vital." It was used to describe the psychological orientation of "attraction to
everything that is alive" [1].
The term, popularized by E. O. Wilson, known as academician and entomologist, is
defined as "innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes" [2], “innate
emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” [3] or, “inborn
affinity human beings have for other forms of life, an affiliation evoked, according to
circumstances, by pleasure, or a sense of security, or awe, or even fascination blended
with revulsion” [4] In his book, "Biophilia," Wilson suggests that the deep familiarity
of humans to nature and their biology originate from biological production. Wilson
argues that the value of human nature or the acceptance of nature comes to a great
extent from birth. “If Wilson speaks about an innate tendency, he means by that the
structure of our brains at least partially at the time of birth contains certain basic
mental facilities that develop with contact with the external environment in a
somewhat predictable fashion [5].

Figure 1. The components of human settlement (building-human-nature) [6]

Contact with nature is essential to human health and well-being. Based on this theory,
a framework has been developed that will reconnect humans and nature within the
built environment. According to the framework, when the direct relationship breaks
with other forms of life, psychological needs and problems arise in the human mind.
People need to be in connection with natural environment and habitats. The
hypothesis reveals both this need and suggests the recognition of the psychological
and ethical heritage resulting from the evolution that all species in the biosphere have
done together. Architecture must be an element that supports and strengthens this
relationship (Figure 1).

2 Design Principles of Biophilic Architecture

The relationship between biophilia -which is a concept belonging to the field of

evolutionary/developmental psychology and related to various disciplines such as
philosophy- and the built environment – mainly to accomodate human health/welfare,
has been revealed by Kellert's studies. [7] [8] [16] [23] [28] Biophilic design carries
the concept of biophilia to architecture. While green/ecological design approaches
physical and material-focused to the natural processes that people need, biophilic
design draws attention to the emotional direction of the need for interaction with
natural elements. A few definitions belonging to scientists studying on biophilic
design are as follows;
“Biophilic design is the deliberate attempt to translate an understanding of the
inherent human affinity to affiliate with natural systems and processes – known as
biophilia” [2,3] – into the design of the built environment. [8]
“To explore and affiliate with life is a deep and complicated process in mental
development. To an extent still undervalue our existence depends on this propensity,
our spirit is woven from it, hope rises on its currents.” [2]
“Biophilic design is expression of the inherent human need to affiliate with nature in
the design of the built environment. The basic premise of biophilic design is that the
positive experience of natural systems and processes in our buildings and constructed
landscapes remains critical to human performance and well-being” [8]
Biophilic design balances human needs with the value and considerations of natural
environments and processes, and incorporates aspects and qualities of those elements
into architectural design. This serves to reinforce man’s instinctual connection and
relationship with those systems [9]
The importance of the biophilic design can be summarized as follows;
• It has been proven by numerous scientific researches that biophilic principles
provide real, measurable benefits in terms of human performance criteria
such as productivity, emotional well-being, stress-reduction, learning and
healing.
• From an environmental point of view, because biophilic properties take
nature to its focal point, it can lead to the highest level of preservation of the
natural environment, the reduction of pollution and the creation of a clean
natural environment.
It has also been proven in various researches that the places with strong connection
with the natural environment have positive effects on user psychology (increase of
concentration, stimulant and soothing effect etc.). Table 1: Biophilic design patterns &
Biological Responses illustrates the functions of each of the patterns in supporting
stress reduction, cognitive performance, emotion and mood enhancement and the
human body. Patterns that are supported by more rigorous empirical data are marked
with up to three asterisks (***), indicating that the quantity and quality of available
peer-reviewed evidence is robust and the potential for impact is great, and no asterisk
indicates that there is minimal research to support the biological relationship between
health and design, but the anecdotal information is compelling and adequate for
hypothesizing its potential impact and importance as a unique pattern. [10]

Table 1. Biophilic design patterns&Biological Responses [10]

In the studies conducted on visual preferences and reactions, reduced stress levels,
more positive emotional functioning, increased speed of concentration and healing of
the users have been observed in places where the visual connection is established with
the natural environment. The decision to increase natural lighting and ventilation can
profoundly affect the residents' well-being / wellness including health, motivation,
morale, physical and mental well-being and satisfaction.
“The last decade has seen a steady growth in work around and the intersections of
neuroscience and architecture, both in research and in practice; even green building
standards have begun to incorporate biophilia, predominantly for its contribution to
indoor environmental quality and connection to place. Popular texts, such as “Last
Child in the Woods” [11], “Healing Spaces” [12], “The Shape of Green” [13], “Your
Brain on Nature” [14] and “The Economics of Biophilia” [15] are bringing the
conversation mainstream, helping the public grapple with modern society’s
dependency on technology and persistent disconnect with nature. Most recently,
biophilic design is being championed as a complementary strategy for addressing
workplace stress, student performance, patient recovery, community cohesiveness and
other familiar challenges to health and overall well-being.” [10]
Three kinds of experience of nature represent the basic categories of Kellert and
Calabrese’s biophilic design framework. However, it should be kept in mind that the
listed principles are not independent of one another and are in the same network as the
one in the nature. [16]

Figure 2. Experiences and Attributes of Biophilic Design [16]

All these biophilic design qualities are experienced through a variety of human senses
including sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, and movement. The visual sense is by far
the dominant way people perceive and respond to the natural world. When we see
plants, animals, water, landscapes, and other natural features, a variety of physical,
emotional
and cognitive responses are triggered. People also react to indirect visual contact with
nature, especially the sight of striking pictures, natural materials, organic shapes and
forms, and more. Aesthetically attractive nature particularly arouses our interest,
curiosity, imagination, and creativity.
By contrast, when we lack visual contact with the natural world, such as a windowless
and featureless space, we frequently experience boredom, fatigue, and in extreme
cases physical and psychological abnormality. [16]
On the other hand, Terrapin (William Browning and Jenifer Seal-Cramer) outlined
three classifications of user experience;
Figure 3. 14 patterns of Biophilic design [10]

It is seen that in two most prominent classifications on this subject have grouped
highly similar principles in different headings but in fact the headings have close
meaning to each other. For example; “direct experience of nature” can be seen as
“nature in the space”. Same situation is valid for the other two headings; “indirect
experience of nature” and “natural analogues”, “experience of space and place” and
“nature of the space”. At this point in the study, the principles of biophilic design will
be explained using Kellert's classification.

2.1. Direct Experience of Nature

The direct experience of nature refers to actual contact with environmental features in
the built environment including natural light, air, plants, animals, water, landscapes
etc. Direct experience is to connect with the broad self-sustaining features of the
natural world such as a wooded green area, a natural river or unfiltered weather and
light. Natural lighting and ventilation experience qualities with the conscious design
decisions such as large sliding windows, light shelves, consideration of the sun path
and prevailing wind, plant types and quantities and the relationship between
interior/exterior spaces of buildings are common expressions of biophilic design.
Plants, soil, water, geological forms and even other natural features including fire or
animal life, can be designed in buildings and built landscape areas.
A current example of the direct experience of nature and a strongly designed
natural/built environment integration is Herzog & de Meuron and Vilhelm Lauritzen’s
hospital design at Denmark. The hospital organically reaches out into the wide
landscape. Simultaneously its soft, flowing form binds the many components of the
hospital. It is a low building that fosters exchange between staff and patients, and it
has a human scale despite its very large size. The building is scheduled to open in
2020, but could also facilitate an expansion in 2050. [17]
Figure 4. New North Zealand Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, Arch.:
Herzog & de Meuron, Vilhelm Lauritzen (Competition 2013-2014,
project 2014 -) [17]

The hospital is surrounded by nature and contains a garden in its center. The
horizontality of the building and its undulating form responds to the location of the
hospital in the midst of the wide Danish landscape. A horizontal building is an
appropriate building typology for a hospital, because this fosters exchange: across the
various departments, the employees work on a shared goal: the healing of the ailing
human being. [18]

2.2. Indirect Experience of Nature

The indirect experience of nature refers to contact with the representation or image of
nature, the transformation of nature from its original condition, or exposure to
particular patterns and processes characteristic of the natural world. These include
pictures and artwork, natural materials such as wood furnishings and woolen fabrics,
ornamentation inspired by shapes and forms occurring in nature, or environmental
processes that have been important in human evolution such as aging and the passage
of time, information richness, natural geometries, and others. [16]
Examples of such manipulated contact with the natural environment include planters
decorating an interior lobby, fish in an aquarium tank, or formally designed fountains.
Greatly transformed from their natural state, these features typically depend on
continual human management and control to exist. But if these indirect expressions of
nature are well designed, they can be deeply satisfying and beneficial. Designing the
indirect experience of nature often involves manipulating environmental elements [7]
Another example; the Royal Children's Hospital project; provided an opportunity for
deliver new models of care, incorporating innovative international health care
concepts including:
– evidence based design principles
– family-centered design approach
– environmentally sustainable design
– introduction of daylight and nature into work and healthcare settings
– co-location of clinical, research and education facilities
[19]

Figure 5. The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, Designer: Bates Smart
[36]
Building and landscape designs that involve contact with nature are frequently
revealed through representation, allusion and metaphorical expression. Moreover,
such experience occurs far more often than generally recognized and significantly
affects people’s responses to and satisfaction derived from the built environment.
Nature is represented symbolically through various guises –including decoration,
ornamentation, pictorial expression, and shapes and forms that simulate and mimic
nature- and in a wide diversity of building features –such as walls, doors, entryways,
columns, trim, casement, fireplaces, furnishings, carpets, fabrics, art, and sometimes
even an entire façade [7]
According to Browning, Ryan and Clancy’s classification about natural analogues are
as follows;
Biomorphic Forms & Patterns: Symbolic references to contoured, patterned, textured
or numerical arrangements that persist in nature.
Material Connection with Nature: Material and elements from nature that, through
minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or geology to create a distinct sense of
place.
Complexity & Order: Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial hierarchy
similar to those encountered in nature.
[10]
Another example is the five-thousand square meter kinetic façade for the car park of
Brisbane’s domestic terminal. Viewed from the exterior, the buildings entire exterior
face will appear to ripple fluidly as the wind activates 118,000 suspended aluminum
panels as it responds to the ever-changing patterns of the wind. The elevation will
create a direct interface between the installation and its natural environment. [20]

Figure 6. Brisbane Airport Kinetic Parking Garage Facade by ned kahn + UAP [20]

The sculptural façade, poignantly named May–September, appears to shift in

topography and hues, from a brilliant, bold yellow to a cool, deep blue, for passersby
traveling east to west. The effect is mesmerizingly complex even though the
installation itself—approximately 6,500 bent aluminum panels with an articulated
east-to-west color strategy—is relatively simple, with no moving parts. Completed in
May 2014, the 13,000-square-foot installation spans the seven-story garage’s
prominent south elevation. [21]

Figure 7. Urbana Studio designed an interactive aluminum facade for an existing

parking structure at Eskenazi Hospital in Indianapolis. (Serge Hoeltschi) [22]

Symbolic representations of nature can be seen at many modern buildings’ facades

and structures. Ito’s hotel design at Barcelona and Calatrava’s Allen Lambert Galleria
and Atrium at Toronto are good examples regarding on the symbolic representations
of nature.
Figure 8. Facade renovation of Suites Avenue Aparthotel by Toyo Ito, Barcelona,
Spain - The engaging ceiling structure of the Allen Lambert Galleria and Atrium at
Brookfield Place by Santiago Calatrava in Toronto [10]

2.3. Experience of Space and Place

The experience of space and place refers to spatial features characteristic of the
natural environment that have helped to advance human health and wellbeing.
Biophilic design attributes described in this category focus on fundamental aspects of
the inherent human relationship to nature;
– Prospect and refuge- Prospect refers to long views of surrounding settings
that allow people to perceive both opportunities and dangers, while refuge
provides sites of safety and security. This biophilic outcome can be achieved
through such design strategies as vistas to the outside, visual connections
between interior spaces, and the occurrence of secure and sheltered settings.
– Organized complexity- People covet complexity in both natural and human
settings, which signify places rich in options and opportunities. Complex
spaces tend to be variable and diverse, while organized ones possess
attributes of connection and coherence.
– Integration of parts to wholes- People covet settings where disparate parts
comprise an integrated whole. This satisfying integration of space can be
enhanced by a central focal point that occurs either functionally or
thematically.
– Transitional spaces- Successfully navigating an environment often depends
on clearly understood connections between spaces facilitated by clear and
discernible transitions.
– Mobility and wayfinding- People’s comfort and wellbeing often relies on
freely moving between diverse and often complicated spaces. Clearly
understood pathways and points of entry and egress are especially critical to
fostering mobility and feelings of security, while the absence of these
features often breeds confusion and anxiety.
– Cultural and ecological attachment to place- Culturally relevant designs
promotes a connection to place and the sense that a setting has a distinct
human identity. Ecological connections to place can similarly foster an
emotional attachment to an area, particularly an awareness of local
landscapes, indigenous flora and fauna, and characteristic meteorological
conditions. Cultural and ecological attachments to place often motivate
people to conserve and sustain both natural and human built environments.
[16] [8] [23]

Figure 9. Schematic representation of the refuge concept. Drawing: Motloch,

Introduction to Landscape Architecture [24]
“Refuge” and “prospect” is the concept that we psychologically feel safest in
scenarios where we “have our back in a corner” per se, (knowing there isn’t anything
or anyone behind us) and have an unobstructed and welcoming view of the “beyond”,
the social landscape beyond, with a clear understanding and safe vantage point of
what’s happening “out there” [25]

Figure 10. Prospect and refuge - Ability to observe but not have to participate, Sketch
by Alan Maskin at olsonkundig.com [25]

3 Sustainable Architecture from the Point of View of Biophilic Design

Sustainable architecture can be briefly defined as the contemporary architectural

understanding compatible with environmental systems, based on conscious and
responsible use of energies and scarce resources, realized by integrating a working
system of technical intelligence and interdisciplines. It is also known that it stipulates
including the balanced integration of the economic, environmental and social
dimensions in the design process. However, when studies and practices related to
sustainable architecture are examined, it is observed that the focused dimensions
differ. While some researchers and practitioners take the foreground on environmental
and economic contexts like the conservation of natural resources and energy, selection
of sustainable materials, reduction of waste, and so on, the others focus on social and
cultural issues. Sustainability studies are usually focuses on the physical dimension of
the problem, since the inverse proportion between changing consumption patterns and
lifestyles and natural resources is considered a major threat to sustainability at global
and local scale. In this context, the first ideas that come to mind about sustainable
architecture are mainly environmental issues such as conservation of the environment
and conscious consumption of energy.
The main idea of improving the environmental conditions of sustainable architectural
design is a design conception that focuses on the future of the earth, not on human
comfort. Although the arguments that Wilson uses are primarily scientific, the actual
motive for forming the biophilia hypothesis is for its use in nature conservation. One
of Wilson’s main research questions has a purely environmental subtext – how to
ensure more friendly human behavior towards and thinking about other species.
Wilson interprets the environmental movement information obtained from research on
human ecological relationships in biological basis and evolutionary history, and
advocates the need for rebirth of environmental movement. [5] The idea of biophilic
design arises from the increasing recognition that the human mind and body evolved
in a sensorial rich world, one that continues to be critical to people’s health,
productivity, emotional, intellectual, and even spiritual well-being. [8] “… The
biophilia hypothesis proclaims a human dependence on nature that extends far beyond
the simple issues of material and physical sustenance to encompass as well the human
caving for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive, and even spiritual meaning and
satisfaction” [26]
While sustainable design and biophilia may seem closely related, there are many areas
in which they don’t overlap or may even be contradictive. Sustainability as we know
it was first defined by the United Nation’s Brundtland Commission as development
that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” [27] While this is a noble and laudable goal, it is
most commonly addressed in terms of the conservation and management of resources,
materials and energy. Sustainable architecture does not specifically address the
emotional and psychological needs which are a part of biophilia. The definition also
came about as a result of a compromise between economic pressures and
environmental interests and does not address damage already done to the
environment. [9] Although green/ecological/sustainable architecture focuses on
reducing environmental impacts of buildings, it is insufficient to reconstruct the
human-nature relationship. The biophilic design that aims to be the architect of life
aims to cover this inadequacy.
The basic deficiency of current sustainable design is a narrow focus on avoiding
harmful environmental impacts, or so called low environmental impact design. Low
environmental impact design, while fundamental and essential, fails to address the
equally critical needs of diminishing human separation from nature, enhancing
positive contact with environmental processes, and building within a culturally and
ecologically relevant context; all basic to human health, productivity, and well-being.
These latter objectives are the essence of biophilic design. Biophilic design has been
until now the largely missing link in current sustainable design [8]
Kellert exemplifies this inadequacy in an interview. “Imagine a condominium made
entirely of solar panels. Such a structure might have a small ecological footprint, but it
will fail to tap into a resident’s aesthetic tendencies, much less his “love of life.”
Worse, it will ultimately be unsustainable. If it’s a place that doesn’t breed
satisfaction, enhance morale or motivate people (and in fact alienates them), when the
cutting-edge technology that made it energy efficient is no longer cutting edge, and
people don’t want to be there, they won’t sustain that environment.” [28]
The Zuidkas, an experimental project commissioned by the Government Building
Agency, challenges architects with an imaginary office building of over 11,000 square
meters in Amsterdam that demands innovative solutions. The main objective of the
Zuidkas project is to achieve the highest possible score with regard to the fulfillment
of environmental objectives. [29] This is an extraordinary example of a horizontal
farm - The Zuidkas, by Architectenbureau Paul de Ruiter from the Netherlands. The
post makes the case for horizontal vs. vertical farming as perhaps a more realistic
opportunity for integrated urban agriculture. Using rooftop greenhouses, along with
captured waste heat from buildings, shortening the distance from food to fork and
incorporating mixed use into the buildings. [30]

Figure 11. Zuidkas project / Paul de Ruiter, Integrated Urban Agriculture in a Multi-
Use Structure (office building, Amsterdam/Holland) [31]

De Ruiter’s model creates an opportunity to develop a more balanced response to the

demand for energy. Depending on the program, the demand for energy will be
different throughout the course of the day. For instance, in residential units, the
energy demand spikes in the mornings and evenings while, in the case of offices, the
energy demand reaches its highest point at the middle of the day. By placing these
two programmatic components in the same building, energy can cycle from where it is
needed presently to where it will be needed later. It is a logical and yet innovative
approach to addressing an energy solution. [29] Besides the sustainable design
 principles that it has successfully implemented, this project is also a positive example
for the integration of the green with the building.

Figure 12. Zuidkas project / Paul de Ruiter, Integrated Urban Agriculture in a Multi-
Use Structure (office building, Amsterdam/Holland) [31]

“Biophilic design seeks to create a positive connection between people and the
environment as well as promoting health and well-being. “…Yet until the biophilia
hypothesis is more fully absorbed in the science and culture of our times –and
becomes a tenet animating our everyday lives- the human prospect will wane as the
rich biological exuberance of this water planet is quashed, impoverished, cut,
polluted, and pillaged. The biological terrain must be better mapped, so that
government and business leaders have better information on which to base decisions
to shape sustainable development” [32]
With its green façades and roof, Sportplaza Mercator marks the start and end of the
Rembrandtpark. From a distance, it seems like an overgrown fortress flanking and
protecting the entryway to the 19th-century city. Glimpsed through the glass façade, a
modern spa-style complex glistens, complete with swimming pools, fitness space, and
restaurant and party facilities. The entrance seems like a departure hall from which the
various visitors can reach their destination. The building was designed as a city – a
society in miniature – inside a cave. The building is full of lines of sight and keyholes
that offer perspectives on the various visitors, activities and cultures in the building.
Sunlight penetrates deep into the building's interior through all sorts of openings in the
roof. Low windows frame the view of the street and the sun terrace.

Figure 13. The concept of vertical gardens at Sportplaza Mercator. As every wall has its own climate, over
50 different kinds of shrubs, bushes and trees have been planted in the roofs and facades of this sports
centre [31]
Figure 14. Ground floor plan [33]

SportPlaza Mercator is positioned at the entrance to a park in the De Baarsjes

neighborhood. The architects wanted it to fit in with its surroundings, so they added a
camouflaging facade of bushy plants and flowers. Behind the planted walls, the three-
storey building contains swimming pools, a sauna and fitness studios, as well as an
events hall, a fast-food restaurant, a cafe and a nursery. An outdoor pool is also
included at the rear. Windows nestle in amongst the planted exterior but feature tinted
glass to reduce visibility into the swimming-pool halls. Skylights were also added to
bring in more natural light. The building was completed in 2006. [33] [31]
“For workplaces, schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods biophilic design has emerged
as a promising way to add value to the energy-centric concept of sustainable or green
design. As a word and concept, sustainability is surely important, but it suggests
static, bringing our environment up to par, as if we know what constitutes par. Many
of us, particularly the young, hunger for a more powerful frame, one that suggests
creativity …Sustainable or green design is essentially about conserving energy and
leaving a small footprint on the earth; biophilic design is about conserving energy and
producing human energy” [11]

3 Conclusion

In the modern world, as the number of scientific studies increases of people living in
metropolitan areas with regards to the parameters affecting the health and productivity
of users and the speed of healing of the patients the negative effects created due to
living detached from the natural elements are more prominent.
Biophilic architecture as a design approach which emphasizes this theme is a missing
-an important but often overlooked- part of sustainability. It is a fact that only a
physical and material focused sustainable architecture can’t be sufficient, emotional
and psychological factors must be included in the process. Biophilic architecture aims
to bridge the disconnection between the human-natural-built environments and to
create strong links, which requires a design process involving social scientists as well
as architects and technical professionals. In this respect, communication between
architects and social scientists studying on biophilia should be developed and design
teams should be created as interdisciplinary.
It is important that certificate systems which are updating periodically and are used
widely today include biophilic design principles in their criteria. Biophilic design,
focused on the emotional and psychological needs and health of people, will enrich
the generally weak social sustainability criteria of certification systems which are
focused more on resource conservation.
Motivating building users to improve the attachment and the sense of belonging to the
building is as important as reducing energy consumption in terms of sustainability
goal. Biophilic buildings which are felt with natural elements and have rich sensory
stimulants in, support the feeling of belonging and satisfaction of users. When
architectural projects, that have entered into the literature of architecture today are
examined, it is noticed that many of them have powerful examples in terms of
integrating natural elements and buildings, even though the concept of biophilia is not
mentioned in the descriptions. Examples given in the scope of this study also carry
such features. This shows that such a need and tendency has already been formed.
It is known that the success of sustainable architecture is related more to conscious
user behaviors rather than the intelligent systems the building has. Of course,
realization of the user's behavior in the desired direction is possible with the users’
sense of belief, acceptance and satisfaction. In this context, the biophilia phenomenon
in architecture presents a space that designers nowadays have to think thoroughly.

References
1. Fromm, Erich O. The Heart of Man. Harper & Row, (1964).
2. Wilson, E. O., Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-07442-4, p. 1,
35, (1984).
3. Wilson, E. O., “Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic”, in: Kellert, S. and Wilson, E. O.
(eds): The Biophilia Hypothesis, Shearwater Books, Washington DC, p. 31, (1993).
4. Wilson, E. O., “Naturalist”, Shearwater Books, Washington DC, p. 360, (1994).
5. Krcmarova, J., E. O. Wilson’s Concept of Biophilia and the Environmental Movement in
the USA, Internet Journal of Historical Geography and Environmental History, Volume
6, p. 5, (2009).
6. Almusaed, “Biophilic and Bioclimatic Architecture”, p. 40, (2011).
7. Kellert S.R., “Building For Life: Designing and Understanding The Human-Nature
Connection”, Island Press, p. 143, 150, (2005).
8. Kellert S.R., Heerwagen J.H., Mador M.L., “Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and
Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life”, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, p. vii, viii, 3,
13, (2008).
9. Dillon B. R.,” Rebuilding Biophilia” University of Cincinnati, Master of Architecture
Thesis, p. 3, (2008).
10. Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York:
Terrapin Bright Green llc., p. 8, 10, (2014).
11. Louv, R. “Children and the Success of Bipphilic Design”, Chapter 11 (in the “Biophilic
Design”, Kellert S.R.,Heerwagen J.H.,Mador M.L., “Biophilic Design: The Theory,
Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life”, Willey, p. 206, (2008).
12. Sternberg, E. M., “Healing Spaces”, Cambridge: Bleknap Harvard University Press, pp.
343, (2009).
13. Hosey, L., “The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology and Design”, Washington DC, Island
Press, pp. 216, (2012).
14. Selhub, E. M. and Logan, A. C., “Your Brain on Nature, The Science of Nature’s Influence
on your Health, Happiness, and Vitality”, Ontario, John Wiley & Sons, Canada, (2012).
15. Terrapin Bright Green, “The Economics of Biophilia”, New York: Terrapin Bright Green
llc., pp 40, (2012).
16. Kellert, S. and Calabrese, E., “The Practice of Biophilic Design”, p. 9, 10, 11, (2015).
17. https://www.dezeen.com/2014/04/09/herzog-de-meuron-new-north-zealand-hospital-
denmark/ (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
18. https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/401-425/416-new-
north-zealand-hospital.html (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
19. https://www.batessmart.com/bates-smart/projects/sectors/health/the-new-royal-childrens-
hospital-architecture/ (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
20. http://www.designboom.com/art/brisbane-airport-kinetic-parking-garage-facade-by-ned-
kahn-uap/ (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
21. http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/detail/detail-mayseptember-installation-at-
eskenazi-hospital-parking-garage_o (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
22. https://archpaper.com/2014/08/urbanas-shape-shifting-parking-garage-facade/ (accessed
date: Dec. 10. 2016)
23. Kellert, S., “Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development”,
Washington, DC: Island Press, (1997).
24. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/larc301/lectures/archAndSpace.htm (accessed date:
Dec. 10. 2016)
 25. http://empoweringthematuremind.com/murphs-mind-part1-the-psychology-built-
environment/ (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
26. Kellert, S. R. and Wilson, E. O., The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press, USA, p. 5, 20,
1993.
27. United Nations, “Our Common Future”, World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, (1987).
28. https://psmag.com/the-nature-of-design-12d3378b1eb3#.pyfeazlq6 (accessed date: Dec.
10. 2016)
29. http://www.archdaily.com/23307/zuidkas-project-paul-de-ruiter#_=_ (accessed date: Dec.
10. 2016)
30. http://agritecture.com/post/34198285132/zuidkas] (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)
31. Broto, C., Eco-Friendly Architecture, Linksbooks, Barcelona, pp. , 91, pp. 88-99, 166-175,
(2011).
32. McVay, S., “Prelude: A Siamese Connexion with a Plurality of Other Mortals”, in the
“The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press, USA, p. 5, (1993).
33. https://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/13/sportplaza-mercator-by-venhoevencs/ (accessed date:
Dec. 10. 2016)
34. https://tr.pinterest.com/pin/483362972475954565/ (accessed date: Dec. 10. 2016)

View publication stats