Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A

critical review
Niranjika Wijesooriya*, Arianna Brambilla
School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, 148, City Road, Darlington, NSW, 2006, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Environmentally sustainable design (ESD) is widely recognised as a key strategy for the mitigation of the
Received 12 May 2020 impact of buildings on the environment. ESD focuses on energy conservation and efficiency by improving
Received in revised form the thermal performance of buildings and promoting the use of renewable sources. Recently, however, it
14 September 2020
has faced criticism for its quantitative emphasis and dependence on technological advancements, as
Accepted 6 October 2020
Available online 8 October 2020
opposed to focusing on the qualitative aspects of the human dimension and tendency to connect with
nature. A switch in focus toward more human-centred approaches could pave the way for biophilic
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s design (BD) to emerge as a potential strategy to bridge this gap. BD is based on the concept of health and
well-being and it underpins the positive effect that enhanced humanenature connectedness can bring to
Keywords: both building occupants and the environment. As both ESD and BD address better the environmental
Biophilia response, a holistic approach to design that is based on both principles may lead to more sustainable
Biophilic design outcomes. This study investigates the potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)
Environmentally sustainable design of adopting BD within the built environment through a systematic literature review on biophilia, BD and
Human-nature connectedness
humanenature connectedness. The results revealed a wide range of benefits, from the improvement of
SWOT analysis
thermal performance to the promotion of pro-environmental behaviour. However, the review also found
Built environment
weaknesses and threats associated with BD, such as biophobia and negative emotions towards nature,
and becoming a design burden posing as a hazard for building operations. This study also identifies
growing trends in BD, as well as research gaps; few studies in the literature, for example, have focused on
education, and this lack of knowledge can be identified as a major threat for its wide use.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Environmentally sustainable design: terminology and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Biophilic design: preliminary definition and impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Aim of current study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Step 1: identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Step 2: screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Step 3: eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Step 4: inclusion for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Analysis framework: SWOT analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Abbreviations: ESD, Environmentally Sustainable Design; BD, Biophilic Design; SWOT, Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats; IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel
for Climate Change’s; BE, Built Environment; GBRT, Green building rating tool; HNC, Human-nature connectedness; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: niranjika.wijesooriya@sydney.edu.au (N. Wijesooriya), arianna.brambilla@sydney.edu.au (A. Brambilla).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124591
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591

3.1.1. Visual aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1.2. Building performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Design and construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Financial restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Psychological barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Durability concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.4. Design restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Contributions towards health and well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Emotional impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.3. Behavioural impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.4. Cognitive impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.1. Functional difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.2. Psychological barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.3. Design restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Growing trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Composition of SWOT criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Research gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1. Introduction principles of sustainability and energy efficiency is usually referred

to as environmentally (or sometimes, ecologically) sustainable
The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2018 design (ESD). Early ESD approaches were based on mitigating
report reiterated the impending consequences of climate change, environmental impact through the minimisation of energy and
offering strong scientific evidence to suggest that the global tem- resource consumption. When a clear and distinguished design that
perature will increase by at least 1.5  C by 2050 (IPCC, 2018). This differed from conventional buildings emerged, it led to the devel-
revelation inspired a global response, with millions of people tak- opment of green building rating tools (GBRT). GBRT provide
ing to the streets as a united front to call for action to mitigate guidelines for design and pre-determined criteria for performance
climate change. These so-called ‘global climate strikes’ were the evaluation based on the idea that these tools could assist in creating
concretisation of environmental concerns that have been raised sustainable building developments (Illankoon et al., 2017). These
throughout history. Awareness of human impact on the environ- certification schemes are mainly target-driven (Gou and Xie, 2017)
ment dates back to middle ages (Istiadji et al., 2018), and it has suggesting an evidence-based (Xue et al., 2019) and building-
evolved through the ages as a social and ethical movement. Several centric design approach (Kellert, 2011).
remarkable writings have shaped this global environmental Recently, the dependence of GBRT on technology and the pro-
movement such as Natural history of Selborne (White, 1788), Man motion of interventions based mainly on advanced technological
and Nature (Marsh, 1864), The limits of the earth (Osborne, 1953), solutions (Hanafi and Naguib, 2013) have been critically discussed
Silent spring (Carson, 1962), and most of these include attempts to (Kayihan et al., 2018), as they often result in design outcomes that
reinforce scientists’ warnings and calls for humanity to take action lack the human dimension and overlook the importance of recon-
(Ripple et al., 2017). necting humans to nature, which fails to fulfil the fundamental
The built environment (BE) has significant impacts on the objectives of the environmental movement (Istiadji et al., 2018).
environment; it accounts for more than 30% of total greenhouse gas This criticism is supported by numerous studies on the benefits of
emissions (Fink, 2011) and contributes considerably to climate enhancing humanenature connectedness (HNC) (Browning et al.,
change (IPCC, 2014). Buildings are the largest energy consumers 2014), as well as evidence regarding the negative effect of
(Duarte et al., 2018), they are responsible of more than 40% of global humans’ disconnection from nature (Abdelaal, 2019), which can
energy consumption, which exceeds the percentage of even the escalate to become serious psychological difficulties (Kayıhan,
transport sector (Fink, 2011). Half of this consumption is due to 2018).
heating and cooling (Park and Ko, 2018), which is expected to Recent studies have highlighted that HNC is an essential
double by 2050, resulting in a 50%e150% contribution towards CO2 parameter for designing sustainable and comfortable buildings,
emissions (IPCC, 2014). based on the argument that although humans spend 95% of their
However, buildings also offer the greatest potential for carbon time indoors, ‘we are really outdoor animals’ (Baker, 2006). This
emissions reduction, with a mitigation potential almost three times concept builds upon the biophilia hypothesis, which assumes that
higher than that of the transport sector (IPCC, 2014). Furthermore, humans have an inherent desire to connect with nature (Wilson,
Hegeneder (2020) identified the construction industry as a 1984), and is further reinforced by trends in modern living,
‘sleeping giant’, stating that ‘future proofing buildings and con- which, along with urbanisation, have greatly reduced humans’
struction is among the most cost-effective measures to combat opportunities for contact with nature (Keller, 2016). The built
climate change’. environment plays a major role in this disconnection (Klaniecki
The branch of architecture and design that complies with the et al., 2018), but it can also offer an opportunity to re-establish

2
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
this missing link; biophilic design (BD) is increasingly being rec-
ognised as a strategy that could help bridge humans and nature
(Gillis and Gatersleben, 2015). Therefore, although ESD is starting to
use approaches that promote the humanenature dimension (Xue
et al., 2019), there remains a need to look further into the differ-
ences and commonalities between BD and ESD approaches. This
study investigates the effect of BD in built environments, which can
provide an understanding of whether it is possible to define a
common approach towards healthier and more sustainable futures.
1.1. Environmentally sustainable design: terminology and approach
ESD promotes a sustainable approach to building design, and
although the concept is universally recognised, a consensus on
terminology in the industry has not yet been reached. The ‘E’ in ESD
sometimes represents ‘environment’ (Fazlic, 2008; de Gaulmyn and
Dupre, 2019; Asman et al., 2019), sometimes ‘ecology’ (Kibert, 2016;
Jones, 2013; GhaffarianHoseini, 2012; Yeang, 2008), and at other
times, ‘education’ (Nousheen et al., 2020; MCKeown and Hopkins,
2007). The ‘S’ represents ‘sustainability’ almost universally, while
the ‘D’ sometimes represents ‘development’ (Harding, 2006), and
more often, ‘design’. ESD is not the only term used to identify a
design aimed at improving the environmental performance of
buildings. Indeed, the term ‘sustainable architecture’ is frequently
used to refer to a design that ‘attempts to reduce its environmental
impact through the use of sophisticated systems, conscious use of
resources, efficient use of energy and water for operations’
(Kayıhan, 2018) or to identify architecture that comprises sustain-
able elements or strategies (Chansomsak and Vale, 2008). The same
concept has been identified as ‘design for sustainability’ by Hoyos
and Fiorentino (2016). Finally, one of the most recognised terms
is ‘green building’, the popularity of which has grown with the
development of sustainability certification schemes that began
with BREEAM (BRE, 2013) in 1998.
The ESD approach relies strongly on design frameworks and
GBRT to measure its success in terms of achieving sustainability
goals (Gou and Xie, 2017). As a response to the growing demand for
tailored rating systems, numerous GBRT have been developed to
suit different socioeconomic and environmental conditions across
the world (Al-Qawasmi et al., 2019), with a common focus on the
minimisation of the environmental impact of buildings (Illankoon
et al., 2017). These tools usually include criteria that are recog-
nised as key parameters for achieving sustainability, however, they
are often criticised for merely creating checklists to assess building
performance (Yeang and Spector, 2011), rather than contributing to
and promoting a holistic (Gou and Xie, 2017) and human centred
design approach (Xue et al., 2019).
1.2. Biophilic design: preliminary definition and impacts
Current ESD approaches fail to provide an integrated design tool
that reaches beyond the narrow focus of avoiding harmful envi-
ronmental impacts, which translates to a focus only on the thermal
efficiency of the building envelope (Kellert, 2011). Although the
thermal efficiency of new buildings is a fundamental and essential
parameter of sustainable design, it fails to address the equally
critical concerns of increasing human separation from nature, the
enhancement of positive contact with environmental processes,
and the importance of building within a culturally and ecologically
relevant context, these objectives are the essence of BD.
The literature reveals strong evidence of improvement in mood,
cognition, and health and other benefits for humans when they are
in close contact with nature (Browning et al., 2014). Furthermore,
the degree of perceived connection with nature or HNC level is not
only intrinsically correlated with happiness (Capaldi et al., 2014),
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
but it can also induce sustainable attitudes (Nisbet et al., 2009) and
pro-environmental behaviours (Tam et al., 2013).
BD represents the missing link in current sustainable design
approaches (Kayıhan, 2018), focusing on design outcomes that can
‘breed satisfaction, enhance morale or motivate people’ and instil
occupants with a sense of ‘sustaining the environment’ (Kellert,
2016). Louv (2008a,b) suggested that the main difference be-
tween traditional sustainable design and BD is that ‘sustainable or
green design is essentially about conserving energy and leaving a
small footprint on the earth; BD is about conserving energy and
producing human energy’. This definition clearly captures the dif-
ference of focus between the two approaches, indicating that sus-
tainable design may have a passive connotation, as it is focused on
‘reduction’, while BD may have a positive one, with its emphasis on
‘production’.
Kellert and Wilson, 1993 defined BD as a ‘deliberate attempt to
translate an understanding of the inherent human affinity to affil-
iate with natural systems and processes known as biophilia’, a
definition further emphasised by Kellert (2011), who stated that
‘the positive experience of natural systems and processes in our
buildings and constructed landscapes remains critical to human
performance and well-being’.
1.3. Aim of current study
BD, with its multiple benefits to health, psychological and
emotional well-being (Browning et al., 2014), has the potential to
enrich the generally weak social sustainability criteria of current
GBRTs, which are traditionally focused on resource conservation
(Kayıhan, 2018). Thus, including BD principles in certification
schemes is of utmost importance (Xue et al., 2019). Recently, some
certification bodies have attempted to include additional biophilic
criteria within their credit award framework, often as voluntary
extra credits (USGBC, 2013). However, this is only a first step; BD
has not been fully integrated into the award systems, which high-
lights the lack of a systematic approach to harness the potential of
BD within ESD.
Furthermore, recent investigations into well-known GBRT-
certified architectural projects unveiled that, while the concept of
biophilia is not mentioned, the majority do show powerful exam-
ples of integration of natural elements (Kayıhan, 2018). This opens
questions regarding the readiness of current GBRT to integrate BD
concepts and about the common design processes shared by the
two approaches that might facilitate this integration. This paper is a
step towards this task, and it aims to identify the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of BD. It presents a
systematic literature review on BD, with the goal of identifying its
current position in the built environment. This study also reveals
the potential benefits of adopting BD and the existing challenges
that must be overcome, ultimately paving the way for the
enhancement of HNC within sustainable built environments.
2. Methodology
The methodology used relies on the systematic literature review
method, which is an efficient and extensively-used approach, to
review, summarise, evaluate and communicate existing scientific
evidence pertaining to a particular subject area (Babalola et al.,
2019) while assuring a transparent (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014)
and replicable process (Peiro et al., 2019). Among the different
systematic literature review frameworks currently available
(Higgins and Green, 2008), the Preferred Reporting Items for Sys-
tematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) method (Mohler
et al., 2009) has been identified as the most suitable for this
study. The PRISMA method consists of a four-step approach,
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
including:
(1) Identification: search of relevant records in different
databases;
(2) Screening: selection of relevant literature;
(3) Eligibility: compliancy check of selected records against
eligibility criteria; and
(4) Inclusion and exclusion: selection of the eligible records.
These four steps in relation to this study are presented below, in
Fig. 1.
2.1. Step 1: identification
Three databases were used to identify records: Scopus, Web of
Science, and Jstor. These databases are the ones most commonly
used for systematic reviews in the field and they provide compre-
hensive coverage (Peiro et al., 2019). The keywords used for the
search were ‘biophilia’, ‘biophilic design’, ‘biophilic’, ‘biophilic ar-
chitecture’, ‘human nature connectedness’, ‘human nature
connection’ and ‘human nature relationship’.
Subject area was the first exclusion criterion. The fields included
were social sciences, environmental science, art and humanities,
psychology, energy, and multidisciplinary studies. Fields such as
biodiversity conservation, anthropology, sociology, veterinary ser-
vices, geography, forestry, biology and horticulture were not rele-
vant subject areas for this study and were therefore excluded. The
Fig. 1. Systematic review process: Adapted from the PRISMA flow chart (Mohler et al., 2009).
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
Jstor search using the keyword ‘human nature connectedness’
resulted in 14,184 documents, but the majority were from the fields
of anthropology, biological sciences, ecology and evolutionary
biology, history, language and literature, philosophy, political sci-
ence, religion, and sociology that was excluded during the
identification.
The results from the three separate databases were then com-
bined together to remove duplicates, resulting in 712 documents.
2.2. Step 2: screening
In the second phase, all of the abstracts were reviewed to refine
the selection list, and the following exclusion criteria were used to
further narrow the selection of articles for eligibility:
 Focus on planning or urban dimension,
 Focus on animal human connectedness,
 Ecology and forestry studies,
 Philosophy and phenomenological studies, and
 Research on evolutionary studies.
This step allowed the exclusion of 550 documents, leaving 162
articles for the next step. The majority of the excluded records had
been generated by the keyword ‘human nature connect’, indicating
that the topic is highly adopted by other research fields.
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
2.3. Step 3: eligibility
The goal of the third step was to rank the remaining records so
as to identify the documents with the highest potential for this
study. All the documents were read and ranked according to a 3-
point scale. The three ranking criteria used to assess their poten-
tial applicability to the scope of the study were: focus on the built
environment, focus on sustainable architecture, and applicability of
the conclusions. By the end of this phase, each document had been
assigned a rating between 0 and 9 for each criterion (Table 1).
2.4. Step 4: inclusion for analysis
In the last step, the assigned ratings were applied as inclusion
criteria in a trifold inclusion-exclusion process that was used to
identify the final document selection. High priority was given to
articles that focused on sustainable architecture, however, some
studies with a rating of 2 in criteria C were also found to be eligible,
mainly because the conclusions were applicable to the built envi-
ronment. The majority of the studies selected through the filtering
process were focused on health and well-being, which highlights
that research on BD has been intrinsically connected to the well-
being of building occupants. Table 2 shows the inclusion process
and the selection criteria used for this step of the analysis.
2.5. Analysis framework: SWOT analysis
The analysis was performed using a top-down approach within
the SWOT analysis framework. SWOT analysis is a tool, developed in
1960s, that allows identification of the strengths, weaknesses, op-
portunities and threats of a situation (Learned et al., 1965). While it
is primarily applied to strategic management (Phadermrod et al.,
2019), SWOT has also been used as a tool across disciplines to un-
derstand the impacts of internal and external factors on a particular
situation. Bayhan and Karaca (2019), for example, applied the
SWOT framework to ESD to ascertain the impact of biomimicry on
sustainable construction projects, and they concluded that this
framework could provide a better understanding for construction
industry professionals to more effectively achieve sustainability
goals.
Using the SWOT analysis framework, each document was
carefully analysed to identify and categorise concepts, findings and
conclusions into the four SWOT dimensions. Generally, strengths
and weaknesses are internal factors that can be controlled from
within and can either support or hinder the achievement of targets,
whereas opportunities and threats are identified as external factors
(Wenping and Xuelan, 2012). In this study, the following classifi-
cation has been adopted for SWOT dimensions:
 Strengths: potential benefits to building performance, control-
lable through design;
Table 1
Eligibility criteria.
0 1
Criteria A: Conclusions are not articulated to Conclusions are not applicable in the
Identified SWOT be included in the SWOT built environment
Concepts
Criteria B: Study does not have a clear focus on Focus can be interpreted but no direct
Focus on the Built BE implication for BE
Environment
Criteria C: Does not relate to sustainable Weak relationship with sustainable
Relates to architecture architecture, can be interpreted
Sustainable
Architecture
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
 Opportunities: potential benefits to building occupants (real or
perceived);
 Weaknesses: negative impacts on building performance, can be
controlled through design; and
 Threats: potential negative impacts on building occupants that
are external to the building and may take place in the building
operation.
2.6. Scope and limitations
This study adopted a systematic literature review to analyse the
most relevant publication on the topic of biophilic design and
environmentally sustainable design. However, it uses only three
databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and Jstor, representing the first
limitation of this study, even if these databases are the most
complete and comprehensive in the discipline. Similarly, the key-
words employed for the literature search phase may limit the re-
sults found and included in this study. Indeed, a cross-reference
phase unveiled that some studies explored the impacts of natural
elements on building performance and their occupants without
nominating or referring to biophilic design. The scope of this study
was limited to analyse those researches that identify biophilia as a
strategy to improve the building performance, thus mitigating the
potential limitation given by the selection of the keywords.
3. Results and discussion
The documents were analysed in order to identify all parame-
ters, effects and implications of BD on buildings and their occu-
pants. The underlying approach was to identify and classify the
concepts and impacts that BD and ESD may have in common, as
well as those that could be used to bridge the two approaches and
provide a thoughtfully holistic approach to sustainable design.
3.1. Strengths
The literature revealed many strengths associated to BD that can
be further explored as potential criteria within ESD; they are shown
in Table 3.
The majority of the strengths identified in the literature are
related to the visual aspects of architecture, however benefits
related to indoor air quality, heat reduction, energy performance
and comfort also surfaced during the analysis. The analysis also
identified an important strength in the possibility of using design
outcomes as environmental education tools, which highlights the
importance of the education dimension in relation to BD. The
strengths found in the analysis can be grouped into three main
categories based on their areas of impact, as shown in the concept
map in Fig. 2. The literature reveals that BD shifts the focus to
building occupants, but it also contributes to the improvement of
2 3
Conclusions are weak, but can be Conclusions include
related to the built environment concepts for SWOT
Study can be applicable to BE Study is narrowly focused
on an aspect of BE
Study can be related to sustainable Study is based on
architecture sustainable architecture
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591

Table 2
Inclusion-exclusion process.

Iteration: Inclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria:

LEVEL 1 Full rating for all criteria Rating of 0 for all criteria
LEVEL 2 Rating of 3 for criteria C, and 2 or above for the others Rating of 0 for criteria C and 1 or below for the others
LEVEL 3 Rating of 2 for criteria C and 2 or above for the others Rating of 1 for criteria C and 1 or below for the others

Table 3
Strengths of adopting biophilic design within environmentally sustainable design.

Add natural beauty Bartczak et al. (2013), Chen et al. (2013), Capaldi et al., 2017
Improve indoor air quality Kraus (2018)
Improve thermal comfort Africa et al. (2019), Revell & Anda (2014), Sheweka and Mohamed (2012), Almusaed (2011), Baker (2006)
Improve visual comfort Baker (2006)
Reduce internal heat Africa et al. (2019), Revell and Anda (2014), Almusaed (2011)
Improve acoustic performance Almusaed (2011)
Add visual interest Abboushi et al. (2019), Dematte et al. (2018)
Improve aesthetics Lee (2019), Kayıhan (2018), Joye (2011)
Reduce energy consumption Africa et al. (2019)
Improve building quality Lee (2019)
Enhance passive solar use Africa et al. (2019), Harrison et al. (2009)
Enhance environmental awareness Boiral et al. (2019), Stavrianos (2016), Bruce and Baxter (2015), Church (2015)
Induce place attachment Kayıhan (2018)
Increase productivity during construction Obiozo and Smallwood (2013), Gray and Birrell (2014)
Reduce construction costs Mangone et al. (2017)
Provide diversity Mangone et al. (2017)
Ability to use virtual reality Yin et al. (2018), Baker (2006)
Enhance biodiversity Africa et al. (2019)

the overall building performance, which indicates that BD could be
used as a strategy to achieve and improve ESD performance criteria.
3.1.1. Visual aspects
BD offers great potential to add natural beauty to a building
(Capaldi et al., 2017; Bartczak et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2013), arouse
visual interest (Abboushi et al., 2019; Dematte  et al., 2018), and
improve the overall aesthetics and quality of the building itself (Lee,
2019). Bartczak et al. (2013) studied the decision process involved
in the design of a living wall, and they reported that its contribution
to aesthetics was rated as the most important aspect. Furthermore,
Chen et al. (2013) investigated users’ perceptions of modern hor-
ticulture and reported that its aesthetic value was rated among the
benefits.
Abbhoushi et al. (2019) focused on the use of fractal geometry
depicting natural elements, concluding that one major benefit is its
effect on visual interest. Dematte et al. (2018) compared occupants’
perceptions regarding wall finishings, and they found that wood-
based finishings used as biophilic elements provide more positive
sensory experiences than plastered finishings. The possibility of
enhancing HNC through virtual reality has also been explored in
the literature (Yin et al., 2018; Baker, 2006), and it was found to be a
reliable and viable option that could provide another avenue for BD
elements to be incorporated in restricted indoor settings.
3.1.2. Building performance
BD can improve overall building performance, especially in
relation to indoor air quality (Kraus, 2018) and thermal comfort
(Africa et al., 2019; Baker, 2006). Indeed, elements of BD can be
used to modify building microclimates and reduce indoor heat
levels. Africa et al. (2019) conducted an extensive study on the
adoption of BD as a strategy to respond to climate change,

Fig. 2. Biophilic design strengths concept map.

6
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
identifying multiple biophilic aspects that actively contribute to
improving the performance of buildings; for example, external
living walls can be used to cool the external façade, which reduces
overheating, both on the surface and in indoor spaces, through
shading and evapotranspiration. At the same time, the presence of
natural elements may have a psychological effect on building oc-
cupants’ perceptions of thermal sensation, and thereby contribute
to an increase in overall thermal comfort levels (Revell and Anda,
2014; Sheweka and Mohamed, 2012). However, the effects of BD
span beyond the building performance sphere Revell and Anda
(2014) demonstrated that vertical-flow constructed wetlands can
effectively mitigate the heat island effect in urban context.
Almusaed (2011) reported on the successful use of plants as
acoustic insulation, in addition to thermal insulation. Thus, BD can
positively influence the indoor environment and increase the sus-
tainability performance of design interventions, clearly conforming
to ESD design criteria.
3.1.3. Design and construction
BD can affect the building process from very early in the design
phase e indeed, Obiozo and Smallwood (2013) demonstrated that
working on a project that used a high number of biophilic elements
could influence the cognitive function of workers, resulting in
higher productivity on site. Similarly, the use of buildings as
educational instruments (Boiral et al., 2019; Stavrianos, 2016;
Church, 2015) can strengthen the overall building programme
inducing behavioural change.
Furthermore, Mangone et al. (2017) found that BD may lead to a
significant reduction of costs: in their study, they highlighted that
building occupants identify natural outdoor spaces as possible
activity-based working places that provide diverse opportunities
for various activities. As single multipurpose spaces can save re-
sources and cost, the authors identified this as a sustainable
strategy.
Furthermore, some authors discussed the benefits of integrating
BD from the early design concept phase. Biophilic elements can
enhance place attachment and sense of belonging (Townsend and
Barton, 2018; Kayıhan, 2018; Browning et al., 2014; Kellert, 2011),
which contributes to a more socially sustainable outcome. Within
Kellert’s (2011) design framework, place attachment is identified as
a strength for an occupant’s spatial experience within a building.
Lee (2019) advocated for the inclusion of BD early in the design
process, and he demonstrated that BD, when applied to hotels, can
increase the perception of overall building quality.
Therefore, while the literature does contain different and frag-
mented studies on the effects of BD in the building process, it is
clear that integrating natural or biophilic elements into the design
benefits the whole design process and building lifecycle, indicating
that the shift towards a human-centred design approach has po-
tential to improve the built environment.
3.2. Weaknesses
To successfully incorporate BD into ESD frameworks, it is
important to understand and identify the weaknesses that must be
addressed in order to create a useful and reliable design framework.
The literature review identified fewer possible weaknesses than
strengths and opportunities; they are reported below, in Table 4.
The identified weaknesses can be grouped into four themes (see
Fig. 3): financial restrictions, psychological factors, design re-
strictions, and durability. Financial restrictions include concerns
regarding construction and maintenance costs, financial decisions,
and the need for more land. Lack of knowledge, indexes, design
guidelines, and design methods were identified as design re-
strictions, along with space restrictions and requirements for
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
strong design responses. Structural stability includes durability is-
sues and shorter lifespan of building components, while psycho-
logical implications include concerns about subjectivity and
differences in cultural perceptions of potential benefits.
3.2.1. Financial restrictions
The adoption of BD as a main design approach is challenged by
the increased costs associated with construction, maintenance, and
higher requirements of land, which hinders a diffusion of BD on a
larger scale.
Construction costs are generally already higher in ESD,
compared to a standard design approach, and BD has the potential
to add even more cost, which could make the choice of adopting
biophilic elements inefficient in some cases (Riley et al., 2019; Xue
et al., 2019; Mandasari and Gamal, 2017; Shepley et al., 2016; Blair,
2014). Furthermore, the use of natural elements in building designs
could lead to a shorter life span of building components, and
consequently, to increases in maintenance costs (Riley et al., 2019;
Prabowo and Dewi, 2017).
The concern over land requirements is explained by Soga et al.
(2015), who highlighted the existing misconception that the suc-
cess of BD depends on the size of the design interventions and the
quantity of natural elements incorporated in the projects. Clearly,
this misconception can lead to increases in the amount of space
dedicated to nature, which minimises the space allowed for
income-generating functions and could therefore result in financial
weaknesses and economic liability. This idea was supported by
Church (2018) and Kellert (2016), who emphasised that although
larger natural settings within the urban environment could provide
an immersive experience, they could also result in the use of larger,
higher-value land areas, which would reduce the overall economic
benefits for landlords.
3.2.2. Psychological barriers
Subjectivity and cultural preconceptions may alter the percep-
tion of BD, which could result in psychological barriers that hinder
the adoption of BD within ESD, as it adds a further level of
complexity to the design process. Indeed, the perception and effects
of BD change significantly across cultures (Fox and Xu, 2017; Berto
et al., 2018), a fact that weakens the argument for its adoption in a
broader ESD strategy. Joye and De Block (2011) argued that the
biophilia hypothesis itself is inherently weak, as providing strong
supporting evidence for it depends on individuals’ personal per-
ceptions. For example, Estok (2017) stressed that personal traits
may engender negative emotions related to BD, while Fox and Xu
(2017) found significant differences in cultural perceptions of
humanenature interactions between the populations of China and
England, which could be explained by the influence of evolutionary
and social-cultural constructions on HNC.
It is clear, then, that BD carries misconceptions and psycholog-
ical barriers that may be difficult to break, but it will be necessary
for these to be overcome in order to incorporate BD into an ESD
framework.
3.2.3. Durability concerns
The studies on BD revealed a number of concerns around
durability, and consequently, financial viability and structural is-
sues. With regard to materials and durability, Riley et al. (2019)
identified that BD interventions such as green facades are charac-
terised by a shorter life span in comparison to the rest of the
building structure. This shortfall actively hinders the diffusion of BD
principles in relation to sustainable architecture (Parsaee et al.,
2019). However, Aye et al. (2018) analysed the challenges faced
by engineers in providing solutions to integrate natural elements in
urban settings, demonstrating that there is no additional structural
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591

Table 4
Weaknesses of biophilic design.

Increased requirement of land Church (2018), Soga et al. (2015)

Lack of knowledge Shepley et al. (2016), Fexas (2010)
Lack of agreed method Parsaee et al. (2019), Istiadji et al. (2018)
Lack of evaluation tools, index or guidance Parsaee et al. (2019)
Dependent on subjective perception Berto et al. (2018), Estok (2017), Fox and Xu (2017), Joye and De Block (2011)
Increased maintenance cost Riley et al. (2019), Prabowo and Dewi (2017)
Dependence on cultural diversity for perception Fox and Xu (2017)
Increased cost Riley et al. (2019), Xue et al. (2019), Mandasari and Gamal (2017), Shepley et al. (2016), Blair (2014)
Decreased structural stability Aye et al. (2018)
Requirement of strong design response for perception Kellert, S. (2016), Zhang et al. (2014), Church (2015)
Reduced lifecycle Riley et al. (2019)

Fig. 3. Biophilic design weaknesses concept map.

risk associated with them compared to standard construction so-
lutions. This structural design issue is also related to a lack of
technological understanding about biophilic elements, which may
lead to inappropriate engineering solutions or strategies (Aye et al.,
2018).
3.2.4. Design restrictions
Lack of knowledge, indexes, design guidelines, and design
methods were identified as design restrictions, along with space
restrictions and requirements for strong design responses. The
literature identifies a significant lack of knowledge regarding BD
principles and elements (Istiadji et al., 2018) as well as a lack of an
agreed-upon methodology, industry benchmarks or design guide-
lines (Parsaee et al., 2019). The absence of tools and references that
could be used by designers to incorporate BD principles in their
work is a major barrier to its diffusion and integration into ESD
frameworks.
Extending this discussion, Shepley et al. (2016) identified a lack
of knowledge in the area of post-occupancy behaviour and a
perception of BD as a weakness, specifically in reference to the
importance of understanding and quantifying the effect of BD on
building occupants. This issue highlights the strong diffidence some
designers have towards BD, which is aggravated by the fact that the
restorative potential of biophilia depends on the strength of the
design response (Berto et al., 2018).
Some case studies do suggest that these weaknesses can be
successfully overcome through design interventions (Riley et al.,
2019) and design frameworks (Xue et al., 2019). However, more
research and examples are necessary to provide a thorough strat-
egy to promote BD and enable it to gain the trust necessary to
incorporate it into ESD (Parsaee, 2019).
8
3.3. Opportunities
Most of the literature presented results or conclusions that
could be categorised as opportunities. Table 5 summarises the
opportunities and relevant literature.
These opportunities have been grouped into four sub-
categories: health and well-being, emotional, behavioural, and
cognitive (see Fig. 4). The health and well-being category include all
those effects that positively influence the human body, such as
recovery improvements, stress reduction, anxiety reduction, and
lowering blood pressure. BD can also influence the psychological
sphere of human emotions, such as happiness, satisfaction, positive
emotions, visual preference and self-esteem. In the cognitive
category, there are the studies that present proof of increased
cognitive efficiency, creativity and productivity. The behavioural
opportunities category includes the enhancement of resilience to
disaster, improved physical activity, improvements to social inter-
action, and increased awareness and adoption of a pro-
environmental attitude.
3.3.1. Contributions towards health and well-being
Evidence suggests that BD has a significant impact on the health
and well-being of building occupants (Browning et al., 2014; Reeve
et al., 2012; Kayıhan, 2018; Africa et al., 2019; Walimbe and
Chitgopkar, 2018). Mangone et al. (2017) concluded, based on the
stress-reduction theory, that nature can reduce stress levels, which
outlines that exposure to nature that is non-threatening is a key
determinant in decreasing stress hormone levels. There are several
studies that demonstrate the positive effects on building occupants’
well-being. Schnell et al. (2019) demonstrated that nature in gen-
eral has a positive impact on health, while Kayıhan (2018) and
Africa et al. (2019) provided evidence on the health benefits of
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591

Table 5
Opportunities stemming from biophilic design.

Promotes health and well-
being
Provides restorative potential Abdelaal and Soebarto (2019), Scopelliti et al. (2019), Stoltz and Schaffer (2018), Berto et al. (2018), Rosenbaum et al. (2018), Mangone
Induces pro-environmental
behaviour
Enhances social interaction
Enhances satisfaction
Provides relaxation
Increases happiness
Impacts positive emotion
Reduces heart rate
Decreases blood pressure
Decreases skin conductance
Increases resilience to disaster Africa et al. (2019), Block et al. (2019), Tidball and Aktipis (2018)
recovery
Enhances self-esteem
Improves recovery
Reduces stress
Reduces anxiety
Promotes physical activity
Increases productivity
Impacts creativity
Impacts visual preference
Improves cognition
Africa et al. (2019), Schnell et al. (2019), Stoltz and Schaffer (2018), Walimbe and Chitgopkar (2018), So € derlund and Newman (2017),
Noone et al. (2017), Tran (2017), Obiozo and Smallwood (2015), Browning et al. (2014), Reeve et al. (2012), Kayıhan (2018), Kellert
(2018)
et al. (2017)
Whitburn et al. (2020),Africa et al. (2019), Rosa and Collado (2019), Boiral et al. (2019), Lin et al. (2018), Marczak and Sorokowski (2018),
Soga et al. (2016), Fink (2016), Krasny et al. (2014), Zhang et al. (2014), Tapia-Fonllem et al. (2013), Van der Wal et al. (2013), Clowney
(2013), Fink (2011), Kayihan (2018), Hunn (2014)
Africa et al. (2019), Noone et al. (2017), Stavrianos (2016), Scott et al., 2014, Munro and Grierson (2016), Chen et al. (2013), Obiozo and
Smallwood (2013)
Tifferet and Vilnai-Yavetz (2017), Obiozo and Smallwood (2013), Scott et al., 2014
Hagerhall et al. (2015)
Capaldi et al. (2014), Zelenski and Nisbet (2014), Howell, and Passmore (2013)
Africa et al. (2019), Haviland-Jones et al. (2013), Obiozo and Smallwood (2013), Yin et al. (2018)
Pearson et al., 2019
Pearson et al., 2019, Yin et al. (2018)
Yin et al. (2018)
Stavrianos (2016)
Pati et al. (2016), Ottosson et al. (2015)
Pati el al. (2016), Beil and Hanes (2013), Obiozo and Smallwood (2013), Mangone et al. (2017)
Pati et al. (2016)
Stoltz, J. and Schaffer, C. (2018)
Sanchez et al. (2018), Obiozo and Smallwood (2015), Obiozo and Smallwood (2013), Mangone et al. (2017)
Sanchez et al. (2018), Mangone et al. (2017)
Dematte  et al. (2018), Garofalo-Khan Garo  falo-Khan, 2018, Weinberger et al. (2017), Mangone et al. (2017), Hauge (2015)
Abdelaal and Soebarto (2018), So € derlund and Newman (2017), Benfield et al. (2015), Yin et al. (2018)

Fig. 4. Biophilic design opportunities concept map.

biophilic elements within the built environment. Some studies
focused on specific building typologies, such as schools (Walimbe
and Chitgopkar, 2018), offices (Tran, 2017), construction sites
(Obiozo and Smallwood, 2015), even prisons (So €derlund and
Newman, 2017) and urban settings (Stoltz and Schaffer, 2018). All
concluded that BD could reduce stress and anxiety, and it was
associated with (self-reported) improved well-being. Furthermore,
some research provided evidence that showed that BD is beneficial
for patients affected by dementia (Noone et al., 2017).
Natural elements and settings generally used in BD have a
strong restorative capacity (Abdelaal and Soebarto, 2019; Beil and
Hanes, 2013), and it has been shown that subjects exposed to
both natural and built environments rate the former as more
effective in reducing their stress levels. This restorative potential
has also been found at historical sites (Scopelliti et al., 2019) and in
9
cities with urban greenery (Stoltz and Schaffer, 2018). Furthermore,
Berto et al. (2018) studied the perceived restorative value of visiting
parks, while Rosenbaum et al. (2018) reported on similar effects
through incorporating natural elements in lifestyle centres.
Besides the psychological benefits of BD, some studies corre-
lated exposure to nature with improved physiological effects. For
example, Ottosson et al. (2015) demonstrated that contact with
nature can induce a faster recovery from ‘freezing of gait’ in pa-
tients with Parkinson’s disease. Pati et al. (2016) exposed subjects
to simulated nature (a photographic composition of the sky on a
ceiling), and found that it can reduce blood pressure, stress and
anxiety. Similarly, Pearson et al., 2019 concluded that patients in
hospital rooms with tree murals showed improvements in heart
rate and systolic blood pressure. Yin et al. (2018) used virtual reality
depicting nature and elements of actual nature and found a positive
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
effect on blood pressure, heart rate, decreased skin conductance,
improved memory and increased positive emotions in both
situations.
3.3.2. Emotional impacts
Nature has a strong effect on emotions and feelings. Capaldi
et al. (2014) studied the relationship between happiness and
HNC, concluding that people who are more connected with nature
are happier, regardless of their demography. The literature also
shows that BD can induce happiness (Zelenski and Nisbet, 2014),
relaxation (Hagerhall et al., 2015), and more generally, positive
emotions (Yin et al., 2018). Further to this, the presence of natural
elements has been shown to be associated with higher levels of
satisfaction with workplaces (Obiozo and Smallwood, 2013), stores
(Tifferet and Vilnai-Yavetz, 2017) and residences (Scott et al., 2014),
and it can also contribute to higher self-esteem (Stavrianos, 2016).
It is likely that the positive emotions associated with BD are due
to the visual, auditory and olfactory stimulation that comes with it
(Scott et al., 2014). There is some evidence from the research that a
floral scent can have a positive effect on human feelings and
emotions (Haviland-Jones et al., 2013), while other research has
shown that natural visual elements are generally preferred over a
neutral view (Dematte  et al., 2018; Mangone et al., 2017). Thus, the
literature indicates that there is a huge potential for BD to positively
influence the indoor environment.
3.3.3. Behavioural impacts
One of the key opportunities offered by BD is its the ability of
promoting pro-environmental behaviour. Fink (2011) identified
biophilia as a contributor to lower energy consumption and
correlated BD with pro-environmental behaviour. This finding was
further supported by Africa et al. (2019), who correlated BD with
support for climate actions. Lin et al. (2018) reported that greater
connections to nature could foster higher levels of environmental
knowledge, which could change humans’ attitudes towards nature.
Indeed, HNC can enhance individuals’ willingness to conserve
biodiversity (Soga et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Furthermore,
studies have shown that BD and HNC are positively correlated with
increased environmental awareness (Rosa and Collado, 2019; Boiral
et al., 2019; Marczak and Sorokowski, 2018).
This opportunity is further reinforced by the ability of nature to
increase resilience in disaster recovery (Tidball and Aktipis, 2018),
which is also associated with pro-environmental behaviour (Africa
et al., 2019). Block et al.’s (2019) study revealed that a strong
attachment to nature can reduce psychological stress associated
with disaster and symptoms of depression while contributing to
higher resilience in the face of disaster and post-traumatic growth.
It has also been found that BD can improve social interactions
(Africa et al., 2019; Stavrianos, 2016; Noone et al., 2017; Scott et al.,
2014), probably due to visual connectivity and stimuli (Munro and
Grierson, 2016).
3.3.4. Cognitive impacts
While it is clear that BD has emotional, psychological and
physiological impacts on humans, some studies have also shown
that HNC has cognitive impacts as well. Several studies have
demonstrated that BD can enhance productivity (Obiozo and
Smallwood, 2013, 2015), creativity (Sanchez et al., 2018; Mangone
et al., 2017), mnemonic capacity (Yin et al., 2018) and academic
capacity (Abdelaal and Soebarto, 2018). Sanchez et al. (2018)
developed and evaluated a tool to assess the effect of BD on pro-
ductivity in the workplace, and their results showed improvements
in performance, creativity, health and well-being.
Obiozo and Smallwood (2013, 2015) conducted studies on the
effect of BD on productivity at construction sites, and they found a
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
positive correlation that indicated that BD can enhance produc-
tivity. Abdelaal and Soebarto (2018) argued that traditional build-
ings with enhanced HNC can nourish intellectual curiosity and
improve cognitive capacity, which facilitates creativity and inno-
vation. Furthermore, So € derlund and Newman (2017) supported a
similar view with their research on improving mental health in
prisons. Benfield et al.’s (2015) work focused on classroom settings,
and they concluded that students with access to a view of nature
performed better than those with a view of a concrete retaining
wall.
3.4. Threats
A significant number of threats were identified through the
analysis, showing that the adoption of BD as a component of an ESD
certification scheme would not necessarily be a straightforward
process. However, identifying the factors that may hinder the
process would help to strategically plan its implementation. The
threats identified through the SWOT analysis are presented in
Table 6.
A considerable amount of the research included in the analysis
discussed the threats of implementing BD within ESD. The identi-
fied concepts were categorised into three themes: functional dif-
ficulties, psychological barriers and design restrictions, as shown in
Fig. 5. Concepts related to building such as costs, legal restrictions,
creating hazards and land reduction are grouped under functional
difficulties. Psychological barriers include biophobia, negative
emotions towards nature, subjective perception and task depen-
dence. Design restrictions include threats to design involving
incorrect needs assessment, potential structural failures and re-
quirements for individual testing.
3.4.1. Functional difficulties
Biophilic interventions with natural elements demand rigorous
maintenance and consistent replacements and repairs; if they are
not attended to properly, they pose a threat of becoming an envi-
ronmental burden (Riley et al., 2019); this creates unfavourable
conditions for its implementation within ESD. Church’s (2018,
2015) research on urban greenery revealed that similar natural
elements could become hazards if not maintained properly.
Furthermore, considering recent concerns over land scarcity within
the urban context, adopting BD may increase the threat of losing
land for other activities (Church, 2018; Soga et al., 2015), while legal
restrictions (Littke, 2016) could make it harder to acquire larger
amounts of land.
3.4.2. Psychological barriers
Even though BD offers numerous opportunities and positive
psychological effects, the research also points to some negative
aspects of being task dependent (Mangone et al., 2017) considering
their level of impact on different cognitive tasks. The negative
emotions towards nature threat was found differ among occupants
characteristics (Taylor, 2019; Walimbe and Chitgopkar, 2018;
Church, 2018) where more constant psychological conditions such
as biophobia, or ‘fear of nature’ (Estok, 2017), can threaten the long
term use of a building (Taylor, 2019).
The perception of BD is highly subjective (Joye and Block, 2011)
and can be dependent on cultural background (Fox and Xu, 2017),
and therefore, this particular negative impact cannot be controlled
during the design phase. However, the number of studies indicating
the positive impact of nature compared to the ones reporting a
negative impact suggests that BD has potential as a viable and
reliable strategy for increasing the quality of the built environment.
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591

Table 6
Threats of biophilic design.

Presence of animals and related complexities Princiotta (2019), Taylor (2019)

Dependence on personal perceptions Rosenbaum et al. (2018), Pearson et al., 2019, Fox and Xu (2017), Joye and Block (2011)
Dependence on quality Berto et al. (2018), Kellert (2016)
Negative emotions towards nature Taylor (2019), Walimbe and Chitgopkar (2018), Church (2018), McMahan and Estes (2015)
Potential structural failures Aye et al. (2018)
Becoming an environmental burden Church (2018), Aye et al. (2018), Prabowo and Dewi (2017), Church (2015)
Lack of knowledge to correctly identify need Shepley et al. (2016)
Legal barriers Littk (2016)
Land restrictions Church (2018), Soga et al. (2015)
Reduction of land availability for other uses Church (2015)
Rigorous maintenance requirements Riley et al. (2019)
Risk of inducing biophobia Estok (2017), Waite-Chuah (2012)
Task dependency Mangone et al. (2017)

Fig. 5. Biophilic design threats concept map.

3.4.3. Design restrictions increasingly shifting towards a human-centred approach, requiring

Both Riley et al. (2019) and Aye et al. (2018) mentioned that BD deeper investigations into the benefits of HNC.
and biophilic elements may become a threat to a building once it is The number of studies focused on the investigation of the effects
constructed. The growth of natural elements such as greenery of BD on the built environment has seen a constant increase since
cannot be easily predicted during the design phase, and thus, BD 2003; the upward trend increased by 25% in 2008 and by 50% in
requires accurate and specific assessments for understanding how 2019, indicating that the potential of BD is becoming more widely
the natural elements will be integrated once built, as even a minor recognised. One common finding that came up in several papers is
mismatch could pose higher threat in influencing a psychological the compelling need for more and deeper research (Wener and
state (Shepley et al., 2016) both in positive and negative manner. Carmalt, 2006; Gillis and Gatersleben, 2015; Walimbe and
Chitgopkar, 2018; Purani & Kumar, 2018; Parsaee et al., 2019;
4. Findings Boiral et al., 2019; Joye, 2007). For example, Wener and Carmalt
(2006) explored the behavioural aspects of sustainable design,
The SWOT analysis revealed numerous concepts highlighting
the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that BD could
bring to ESD. A closer investigation of the results provides inter-
esting findings that have generally been overlooked. This literature
review reveals that BD is a growing research trend that has been
expanding into a number of publications and subject areas. This is a
clear indication that BD and its benefits are multidisciplinary in
nature and may therefore be difficult to capture and frame in the
context of only one discipline. Furthermore, the SWOT analysis
revealed a larger number of factors were identified as opportu-
nities, while the other three SWOT areas provided fewer results.

4.1. Growing trend

The increasing amount of literature with regard to the effects of

BD and the built environment (see Fig. 6) may be a sign that ESD is Fig. 6. Volume of research literature on biophilic design.

11
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
and their wok revealed a consistent research gap in the area of
biophilia and high-rise buildings, while Walimbe and Chitgopkar
(2018) focused on the under-researched area of educational
buildings and BD.
Further research gaps identified in the analysis are related to
other design phases, such as the post-occupancy evaluation stage
which is necessary for understanding the extent of the impact BD
has on building occupants (Joye, 2007) and the design stage, for
which more information is necessary to empower designers with
necessary skills and attitudes (Parsaee et al., 2019). Gillis and
Gatersleben (2015) emphasised this point by stating that there is
also a need to understand more about the specific contribution of
different design features not only in terms of well-being as was the
focus of thieir review, but also in terms of sustainability, and to
better understand how different factors work together to achieve
positive outcomes and optimize building design.
Furthermore, Boiral et al. (2019) identified a lack of research on
the implications of HNC on organisations, while similarly, Purani
and Kumar (2018) claimed that their research was the first to
combine literature from environmental psychology, services mar-
keting and green marketing; they asserted that their study may
even open up a totally new area of research to explore one that
would have crucial implications for marketers.
It is clear, then, that the studies included in this review highlight
the multidisciplinary nature of BD and underline a significant
research gap and lack of understanding of biophilia and its effect on
humans, buildings and markets.
4.2. Composition of SWOT criteria
The composition of the SWOT analysis is not evenly distributed,
as is shown in Fig. 7. Almost 60% of the literature revealed factors
that could lead to opportunities, where only 13% focused on
strengths. Only 10% of literature offered results that exposed
weaknesses, while 17% uncovered the potential threats involved
with the implementation of BD (see Fig. 6).
The majority of the studies looked into the psychological and
behavioural aspects of BD, identifying opportunities that could be
harnessed while a building is in operation. Several studies, how-
ever, acknowledged that while BD is not always explicitly
mentioned, it remains a clear driver of the design (Gillis and
Gatersleben, 2015). Kayıhan (2018), for example, stated that
‘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’. Additionally, while there is a large
Fig. 7. Composition of SWOT criteria.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
body of research on the use of plants to improve indoor quality
(Rainey, 2017), which was pioneered by a NASA study (Wolverton
et al., 1989), it does not necessarily identify the research as a
study on BD.
Looking at some other scientific evidence, Safikhani et al. (2014)
reported on a successful study that found a vertical green wall can
reduce the air temperature by between 3 and 4  C, and similar
research has been performed on the ability of plants to purify water
(Ostroumov, 2017). Furthermore, numerous studies have reported
on plants effectiveness as a wetland (Liang et al., 2003; Vrhov
sek
et al., 1996; Liu et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2019). With regard to wa-
ter, this review also found research on its contribution to heat
reduction (de Gracia and Cabeza, 2015) used as phase change ma-
terials in building envelope. These examples taken randomly from
studies shows the need for systematic exploration into strengths of
BD, where natural elements and processes have often been adopted
in design but not specifically framed as BD.
4.3. Research gaps
It is clear from the imbalanced composition of the SWOT anal-
ysis that some areas of BD have not been deeply studied, which
points to possible research gaps. To explore this further, the
selected documents were divided into the following categories,
according to their focus:
 Research: review studies and research aimed at identifying
research agendas;
 Education: research based on the educational aspects of BD and
HNC;
 Policy: studies aimed at developing new frameworks that have
potential policy implications;
 Operation: research focused on assessing building performance,
including post-occupation; and
 Design: studies focused on the design process.
A breakdown of the amount of literature for each category is
shown in Fig. 8.
The largest volume of literature in this analysis was in the design
category, due to the fact that many of the studies concluded by
offering strong recommendations for design. For example, ‘Sense-
sensitive design’, proposed by Mazuch (2017), discussed strategies
for school design, Walimbe and Chitgopkar’s (2018) introduced BD
principles, restorative environmental design by Abdelaal and
Soebarto (2019), and others. Studies on construction sites in
which the performance of site workers was evaluated (Obiozo and
Smallwood, 2013) were also included in this category.
The category of research-based studies included existing liter-
ature reviews ‘Happiness and BD’, by Capaldi et al. (2014) and
‘Human Nature Relationship and Pro-Environmental Behaviour’ by
Rosa and Collado (2019) are examples of the most comprehensive
research papers included in this category. Browning et al., ’s 2014
Fig. 8. Focus of BD research literature.
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
study also covered a large amount of literature and outlined the
positive impacts of BD on health and well-being, while Reeve et al.
(2012) conducted a review and a survey on the health and benefits
of BD in urban settings.
A smaller amount of research included in the analysis dealt with
policy and frameworks. The earliest, from Kellert et al. (2011), was
remarkable in that it offered a platform for a drastic adoption of BD
in architecture; this framework supported both ESD and conven-
tional research. However, very few other suggestions for frame-
works were found, and the works of Kellert et al. (2011), Kellert and
Calabrese (2015), Browning et al. (2014), Xue et al. (2019), Marshall
and Williams (2019), and Abdelaal (2019) were the only ones that
looked at this category in BD. The majority of the literature in this
area was published in 2019, which highlights the growing trends in
this area, as ‘having a document such as SWTG can begin the pro-
cess of this becoming the first choice, the new normal’ (Marshall
and Williams, 2019).
The education category had the smallest number of articles,
with only three documents. Two studies evaluated BD in the
context of architectural studios, one focused on a tactical process
(Demers and Potvin, 2017), while the other looked at BD as the
main design question (Kayiihan et al., 2018). The third one, from
Hoyos and Fiorentino (2016), drew on examples from a range of
studies that reported on bio-inspired designs, human ecology, and
other similar factors. In this research, the focus was on industrial
design and biomimicry, and therefore, it did not consider BD as an
independent design strategy.
5. Conclusions
This study identified and analysed the existing literature on the
effect of BD on the built environment, with the goal of exploring its
potential overlaps with current ESD frameworks. This paper pre-
sents a systematic literature review and SWOT analysis aimed at
identifying the strengths, opportunities, threats and weaknesses of
BD.
The high number of strengths and opportunities identified in
the analysis indicates that BD can offer multiple benefits to the built
environment. Indeed, BD can be implemented to improve the
building design process, shift the design process towards a human-
centred approach, and improve building occupants’ comfort and
well-being. However, in order to harness these benefits and
incorporate BD into the broader ESD framework, further research is
required. The analysis unveiled existing knowledge gaps that
hinder the application of BD, and further research on design
methodology, natural processes and ESD education will be essential
for future integration of BD into ESD.
This study also highlighted the many opportunities BD can bring
to buildings and to their occupants, but found that few studies have
focused on the translation of the benefits of BD into a clear design
framework. Design frameworks, typically based on GBRT are
commonly used in ESD, while only a handful of frameworks were
found in BD. This suggests that the integration of BD principles into
a design may happen more voluntarily and randomly during the
design process. The lack of clear design guidelines that could be
used from the early design stage, may result in the integration of BD
features later in the process, which could bring about an increased
use of resources and a poor design response; the need for further
research here is clear.
Moreover, the scarcity of research papers on BD in education
also indicates the need for more structured design frameworks that
could be adopted within design studios. Indeed, architecture edu-
cation has been quick to respond to the environmental movement
and incorporate sustainability and ESD into design studios, but not
much has been found that is specific to BD. The education of future
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
designers will be essential for the promotion of a holistic approach
to ESD design that integrates BD at its base. To better understand
the methods and strategies that might be successful, as well as the
challenges of bringing BD into ESD, more research is needed.
Thereafter, new education tools, methods and approaches could be
introduced in order to strengthen the integration of aspects of BD
within ESD studios.
Authors contributions
NW data analysis and writing, AB supervision and revision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Garofalo-Khan Garo falo-Khan, L., 2018. Sensorial interior landscapes. In: The Inte-
rior Architecture Theory Reader. Routledge, pp. 153e161.
Abboushi, B., Elzeyadi, I., Taylor, R., Sereno, M., 2019. Fractals in architecture: the
visual interest, preference, and mood response to projected fractal light pat-
terns in interior spaces. J. Environ. Psychol. 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2018.12.005, 57-7.
Abdelaal, M.S., 2019. Biophilic campus: an emerging planning approach for a sus-
tainable innovation-conducive university. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1445e1456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.185.
Abdelaal, M., Soebarto, V., 2018. History matters: the origins of biophilic design of
innovative learning spaces in traditional architecture. Archnet-IJAR 12 (3),
108e127. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i3.1655.
Abdelaal, M.S., Soebarto, V., 2019. Biophilia and Salutogenesis as restorative design
approaches in healthcare architecture. Architect. Sci. Rev. 62 (3), 195e205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1604313.
Africa, J.K., Heerwagen, J., Loftness, V., Ryan Balagtas, C., 2019. Biophilic design and
climate change: performance parameters for health. Front. Built Environ. 5, 28.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00028.
Al-Qawasmi, J., Asif, M., El Fattah, A.A., Babsail, M.O., 2019. Water efficiency and
management in sustainable building rating systems: examining variation in
criteria usage. Sustainability 11 (8), 2416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082416.
Almusaed, A., 2011. Biophilic And Bioclimatic Architecture ). Springer.
Asman, G.E., Kissi, E., Agyekum, K., Baiden, B.K., Badu, E., 2019. Critical components
of environmentally sustainable buildings design practices of office buildings in
Ghana. J. Build. Eng. 26, 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100925.
Aye, E., hackett, D., pozzuoli, C., 2018. The intersection of biophilia and engineering
in creating sustainable, healthy and structurally sound built environments. WIT
Trans. Ecol. Environ. 217, 663e673. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP180561.
Babalola, O., Ibem, E.O., Ezema, I.C., 2019. Implementation of lean practices in the
construction industry: a systematic review. Build. Environ. 148, 34e43. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.051.
Baker, N., 2006. Cultural responses to primitive needs. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 86
https://doi.org/10.2495/ARC060011.
Bartczak, C., Dunbar, B., Bohren, L., 2013. Incorporating biophilic design through
living walls: the decision-making process. Constructing Green: The Soc. Struct.
Sustain. 307.
Bayhan, H.G., Karaca, E., 2019. SWOT analysis of biomimicry for sustainable
buildingseA literature review of the importance of kinetic architecture appli-
cations in sustainable construction projects. In: IOP Conference Series: Mate-
rials Science and Engineering, vol. 471. IOP Publishing, 082047, 8.
Beil, K., Hanes, D., 2013. The influence of urban natural and built environments on
physiological and psychological measures of stressda pilot study. Int. J. Envi-
ron. Res. Publ. Health 10 (4), 1250e1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph10041250.
Benfield, J.A., Rainbolt, G.N., Bell, P.A., Donovan, G.H., 2015. Classrooms with nature
views: evidence of differing student perceptions and behaviors. Environ. Behav.
47 (2), 140e157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513499583.
Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Barbiero, P., Senes, G., 2018. An individual’s connection to
nature can affect perceived restorativeness of natural environments. Some
observations about biophilia. Behav. Sci. 8 (3), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/
bs8030034.
Blair, S., 2014. Report Links Green Office Buildings to Worker Health, productivity,
vol. 273. ENR (Engineering News-Record), 15.
Block, K., Molyneaux, R., Gibbs, L., Alkemade, N., Baker, E., MacDougall, C., et al.,
2019. The role of the natural environment in disaster recovery:“We live here
because we love the bush”. Health Place 57, 61e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.healthplace.2019.03.007.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Brotherton, M.C., 2019. Nature connectedness and
environmental management in natural resources companies: an exploratory
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
study. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 227e237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.174.
BRE, 2013. BREEAM International New Construction Technical Manual 2013. BRE
Group Training, UK.
Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design.
Terrapin Bright Green, LLC, new York.
Bruce, F., Baxter, S., 2015. From natures prototypes to natural prototyping, 03-04. In:
DS 82: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering and
Product Design Education (E&PDE15), Great Expectations: Design Teaching, vol.
9. Research & Enterprise, Loughborough, UK, pp. 272e277, 2015.
Capaldi, C.A., Dopko, R.L., Zelenski, J.M., 2014. The relationship between nature
connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 5, 976. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.
Capaldi, C.A., Passmore, H.A., Ishii, R., Chistopolskaya, K.A., Vowinckel, J.,
Nikolaev, E.L., Semikin, G.I., 2017. Engaging with natural beauty may be related
to well-being because it connects people to nature: evidence from three cul-
tures. Ecopsychology 9 (4), 199e211. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2017.0008.
Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin.
Chansomsak, S., Vale, B., 2008. The Buddhist approach to education: an alternative
approach for sustainable education. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 28 (1), 35e50. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02188790701850063.
Chen, H.M., Tu, H.M., Ho, C.I., 2013. Understanding biophilia leisure as facilitating
well-being and the environment: an examination of participants’ attitudes to-
ward horticultural activity. Leisure Sci. 35 (4), 301e319. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01490400.2013.797323.
Church, S.P., 2015. Exploring Green Streets and rain gardens as instances of small
scale nature and environmental learning tools. Landsc. Urban Plann. 134,
229e240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.021.
Church, S.P., 2018. From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human
connectedness to nature. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 61 (5e6), 878e903. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182.
Clowney, D., 2013. Biophilia as an environmental virtue. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26
(5), 999e1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9437-z.
de Gaulmyn, C., Dupre, K., 2019. Teaching sustainable design in architecture edu-
cation: critical review of easy approach for sustainable and environmental
design (EASED). Front. Architect. Res. 8 (2), 238e260. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foar.2019.03.001.
de Gracia, A., Cabeza, L.F., 2015. Phase change materials and thermal energy storage
for buildings. Energy Build. 103, 414e419. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2015.06.007.
Dematte , M.L., Zucco, G.M., Roncato, S., Gatto, P., Paulon, E., Cavalli, R., Zanetti, M.,
2018. New insights into the psychological dimension of woodehuman inter-
action. Eur. J. Wood and Wood Prod. 76 (4), 1093e1100kl. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00107-018-1315-y.
Demers, C.M., Potvin, A., 2017. Erosion in architecture: a tactile design process
fostering biophilia. Architect. Sci. Rev. 60 (4), 325e342. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00038628.2017.1336982.
Duarte, R., Sanchez-Choliz, J., Sarasa, C., 2018. Consumer-side actions in a low-
carbon economy: a dynamic CGE analysis for Spain. Energy Pol. 118, 199e210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.065.
Estok, S.C., 2017. Material ecocriticism, genes, and the phobia/philia spectrum.
Neohelicon 44 (2), 297e313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-017-0395-8.
Fazlic, S., 2008. March). Design strategies for environmentally sustainable resi-
dential skyscrapers. In: CTBUH 8th World Congress, Dubai, pp. 1e11.
Fexas, M.P., 2010. Green roofs and vegetated systems for a sustainable future.
Australian Garden History 21 (4), 8e12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24918708.
Fink, H., 2011. Promoting behavioral change towards lower energy consumption in
the building sector. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 24 (1e2), 7e26. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13511610.2011.586494.
Fink, S.H., 2016. Human-nature for climate action: nature-based solutions for urban
sustainability. Sustainability 8 (3), 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030254.
Fox, D., Xu, F., 2017. Evolutionary and socio-cultural influences on feelings and at-
titudes towards nature: a cross-cultural study. Asia Pac. J. Tourism Res. 22 (2),
187e199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1217894.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., 2012. Ecologically sustainable design (ESD): theories,
implementations and challenges towards intelligent building design develop-
ment. Intell. Build. Int. 4 (1), 34e48. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17508975.2011.630062.
Gillis, K., Gatersleben, B., 2015. A review of psychological literature on the health
and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings 5 (3), 948e963. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948.
Gou, Z., Xie, X., 2017. Evolving green building: triple bottom line or regenerative
design? J. Clean. Prod. 153, 600e607. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.02.077.
Gray, T., Birrell, C., 2014. Are biophilic-designed site office buildings linked to health
benefits and high performing occupants? Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 11
(12), 12204e12222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212204.
Hageneder, C., 2020. Building and Construction: A Sleeping Giant for Climate Action
Downloaded from. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/buildings-
and-construction-a-sleeping-giant-for-climate-action/Feb 25 2020.
Hagerhall, C.M., Laike, T., Kuller, M., Marcheschi, E., Boydston, C., Taylor, R.P., 2015.
Human physiological benefits of viewing nature: EEG responses to exact and
statistical fractal patterns. Nonlinear Dynam. Psychol. Life Sci. 19, 1e12.
Hanafi, M.A., Naguib, M.M., 2013. In: Marinov, A.M., Brebbia, C.A. (Eds.), Bio-
regenerative Rating Technique: a Critical Review, Ecosystems and Sustainable
Development, vol. IX, pp. 233e247. https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO130201.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
Harding, R., 2006. Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation
and challenges. Desalination 187 (1e3), 229e239. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2005.04.082.
Harrison, M., Palmer, T., Jones, T., Thomas, S.E.H., 2009. Cool roof/green roof: ben-
efits and biophiliaeA comparative study. In: 38th ASES National Solar Confer-
ence, 4, pp. 2087e2108. SOLAR 2009.
Hauge, B., 2015. Designing with daylight; the relationship between daylight and
health. In: DS 80-9 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engi-
neering Design (ICED 15) Vol 9: User-Centred Design, Design of Socio-Technical
Systems, Milan, Italy, vols. 27e30, pp. 341e352, 07. 15.
Haviland-Jones, J., Hudson, J.A., Wilson, P., Freyberg, R., McGuire, T.R., 2013. The
emotional air in your space: scrubbed, wild or cultivated? Emotion Space Soc. 6,
91e99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2011.10.002.
Higgins, J.P., Green, S., 2008. Defining the review question and developing criteria
for including studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of In-
terventions, vol. 1.
Howell, A.J., Passmore, H.A., Buro, K., 2013. Meaning in nature: meaning in life as a
mediator of the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being.
J. Happiness Stud. 14 (6), 1681e1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9403-
x.
Hoyos, C.M., Fiorentino, C., 2016. Bio-utilization, bio-inspiration, and bio-affiliation
in design for sustainability: biotechnology, biomimicry, and biophilic design.
Int. J. Des. Objects 10 (3), 1e18. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1379/CGPv10i03.
Hunn, E., 2014. To know them is to love them. Ethnobiol. Lett. 5, 146e150. www.
jstor.org/stable/26423595.
Illankoon, I.C.S., Tam, V.W., Le, K.N., Shen, L., 2017. Key credit criteria among in-
ternational green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 209e220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.206.
IPCC, I. p. o. c. c, 2014. Summary for policy makers. In: Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Retrieved from Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_
reports.shtml#1.
IPCC, I. p. o. c. c, 2018. Global warming of 1.5 C: an IPCC special report on the
impacts of global warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In: The Context of Strengthening the
Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development,
and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Retrieved from. http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1.
Istiadji, A.D., Hardiman, G., Satwiko, P., 2018, December. What is the sustainable
method enough for our built environment?. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science, vol. 213 IOP Publishing, 012016, 1.
Jones, D.R., 2013. ‘The Biophilic University’: a de-familiarizing organizational met-
aphor for ecological sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 48, 148e165. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.019.
Joye, Y., 2007. Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: the case of
biophilic architecture. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 11 (4), 305e328. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305.
Joye, Y., De Block, A., 2011. Nature and I are two’: a critical examination of the
biophilia hypothesis. Environ. Val. 20 (2), 189e215. https://doi.org/10.3197/
096327111X12997574391724.
Kayiihan, S.K., Guney, O.S., Unal, F.C., 2018. Biophilia as the main design question in
architectural design studio teaching. Megaron 13 (1).
Kayıhan, K.S., 2018. Examination of Biophilia Phenomenon in the context of sus-
tainable architecture. In: International Sustainable Buildings Symposium.
Springer, Cham, pp. 80e101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63709-9_7.
Kellert, S.R., 2018. Nature by Design: the Practice of Biophilic Design. Yale University
Press.
Kellert, S., Calabrese, E., 2015. The Practice of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright LLC,
London.
Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.
Kellert, S., Yang, J., 2016. Biophilic urbanism: the potential to transform. Smart
Sustain. Built Environ. 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0035.
Kellert, S., Heerwagen, J., Mador, M., 2011. Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and
Practice of Brining Buildings to Life United Kingdom. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Kibert, C.J., 2016. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery.
John Wiley & Sons.
Klaniecki, K., Leventon, J., Abson, D.J., 2018. Humanenature connectedness as a
‘treatment’for pro-environmental behavior: making the case for spatial con-
siderations. Sustain. Sci. 13 (5), 1375e1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-
0578-x.
Klewitz, J., Hansen, E.G., 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a sys-
tematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 57e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.07.017.
Krasny, M.E., Crestol, S.R., Tidball, K.G., Stedman, R.C., 2014. New York City’s oyster
gardeners: memories and meanings as motivations for volunteer environ-
mental stewardship. Landsc. Urban Plann. 132, 16e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2014.08.003.
Kraus, M., 2018. Exploring determining factors of indoor environment quality (IEQ).
In: International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM: Surveying
Geology & mining Ecology Management, 18, pp. 701e706. https://doi.org/
10.5593/sgem2018V/6.4/S10.087, 4.
Learned, E.P., Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R., Guth, W.D., 1965. Business Policy:
Text and Cases Homewood. Ill. Irwin.
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
Lee, S.H., 2019. Effects of biophilic design on consumer responses in the lodging
industry. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 83, 141e150. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhm.2019.05.006.
Liang, W., Wu, Z.B., Cheng, S.P., Zhou, Q.H., Hu, H.Y., 2003. Roles of substrate mi-
croorganisms and urease activities in wastewater purification in a constructed
wetland system. Ecol. Eng. 21 (2e3), 191e195. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoleng.2003.11.002.
Lin, B.B., Egerer, M.H., Ossola, A., 2018. Urban gardens as a space to engender bio-
philia: evidence and ways forward. Front. Built Environ. 4, 79. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fbuil.2018.00079.
Littke, H., Yang, J., Desha, C., 2016. Becoming biophilic: challenges and opportunities
for biophilic urbanism in urban planning policy. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 5
(1), 15e24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0036.
Liu, G., He, T., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Li, L., Huang, Q., Liu, J., 2019. Study on the purification
effect of aeration-enhanced horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetland on
polluted urban river water. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (13),
12867e12880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04832-9.
Louv, R., 2008a. Children and the Success of Biophilic Design. Biophilic Design: the
Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
Louv, R., 2008b. In: Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J.H., Mador, M.L. (Eds.), Children and
the Success of Bipphilic Design, Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and
Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Willey, pp. 206e221.
Mandasari, A., Gamal, A., 2017. Biophilia as a factor of consumer preferences in
choosing residential property product. ICCREM 2017, 15e26.
Mangone, G., Capaldi, C.A., van Allen, Z.M., Luscuere, P.G., 2017. Bringing nature to
work: preferences and perceptions of constructed indoor and natural outdoor
workspaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 23, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ufug.2017.02.009.
Marczak, M., Sorokowski, P., 2018. Emotional connectedness to nature is mean-
ingfully related to modernization. evidence from the Meru of Kenya. Front.
Psychol. 9, 1789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01789.
Marsh, G.P., 1864. Man and Nature; or. Physical geography as modified by human
action. Sampson Low, Son and Marston.
Marshall, A.J., Williams, N.S., 2019. Communicating biophilic design: start with the
grasslands. Front. Built Environ. 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00001.
Mazuch, R., 2017. Salutogenic and biophilic design as therapeutic approaches to
sustainable architecture. Architect. Des 87 (2), 42e47. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ad.2151.
MCKeown, R., Hopkins, C., 2007. Moving beyond the EE and ESD disciplinary debate
in formal education. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 1 (1), 17e26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
097340820700100107.
McMahan, E.A., Estes, D., 2015. The effect of contact with natural environments on
positive and negative affect: a meta-analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 10 (6), 507e519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern.
Med. 151 (4), 264e269.
Munro, K., Grierson, D., 2016. Towards the development of a space/nature syntax at
Arcosanti. Open House Int. 41 (4), 48e55.
Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2009. The nature relatedness scale: linking
individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior.
Environ. Behav. 41 (5), 715e740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748.
Noone, S., Innes, A., Kelly, F., Mayers, A., 2017. ‘The nourishing soil of the soul’: the
role of horticultural therapy in promoting well-being in community-dwelling
people with dementia. Dementia 16 (7), 897e910. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1471301215623889.
Nousheen, A., Zai, S.A.Y., Waseem, M., Khan, S.A., 2020. Education for sustainable
development (ESD): effects of sustainability education on pre-service teachers’
attitude towards sustainable development (SD). J. Clean. Prod. 250, 119537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119537.
Obiozo, R.N., Smallwood, J.J., 2013. June). Biophilic workplace design: improving
construction ergonomics and workers’ performance through enhanced sus-
tainable and psychosocial value of the worksite. In: Yazdani, S., Singh, A. (Eds.),
Proceedings of New Developments in Structural Engineering and Construction,
the Seventh International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference,
vol. 7. ISEC-, Honolulu, pp. 18e23.
Obiozo, R.N., Smallwood, J.J., 2015. Biophilic construction site model: enhancing the
motivational and humanistic value of the green construction site. J. Construct.
Eng. Manag. 141 (3), 05014018.
Osborn, F., 1953. The limits of the earth. Challenge 33e38.
Ostroumov, S.A., 2017. Water quality and conditioning in natural ecosystems: bio-
machinery theory of self-purification of water. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 87 (13),
3199e3204. https://doi.org/10.1134/S107036321713014X.
Ottosson, J., Lavesson, L., Pinzke, S., Grahn, P., 2015. The significance of experiences
of nature for people with Parkinson’s disease, with special focus on freezing of
gaitdthe necessity for a biophilic environment. A multi-method single subject
study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 12 (7), 7274e7299. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph120707274.
Park, S., Ko, D., 2018. Investigating the effects of the built environment on PM2.5
and PM10: a case study of seoul metropolitan city, South Korea. Sustainability
10 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124552.
Parsaee, M., Demers, C.M., He bert, M., Lalonde, J.F., Potvin, A., 2019.
A photobiological approach to biophilic design in extreme climates. Build. En-
viron. 154, 211e226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.027.
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
Pati, D., Freier, P., O’Boyle, M., Amor, C., Valipoor, S., 2016. The impact of simulated
nature on patient outcomes: a study of photographic sky compositions. HERD:
Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 9 (2), 36e51. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1937586715595505.
Pearson, M., Gaines, K., Pati, D., Colwell, M., Motheral, L., Adams, N.G., 2019. The
physiological impact of window murals on pediatric patients. HERD: Health
Environ. Res. Des. J. 12 (2), 116e129. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1937586718800483.
, M.N., S
Peiro anchez, C.S.G., Gonz alez, F.N., 2019. Source area definition for local
climate zones studies. A systematic review. Build. Environ. 148, 258e285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.050.
Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R.M., Wills, G.B., 2019. Importance-performance analysis
based SWOT analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 44, 194e203. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.009.
Prabowo, H., Dewi, M.P., 2017, November. City face to face with nature. In: AIP
Conference Proceedings, vol. 1903. AIP Publishing LLC, 040014, 1.
Princiotta, S., 2019. Hey kids, don’t feed the wildlife: the dark side of biophilia.
Limnol. Oceanogr. Bull. 28 (2), 64e65. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10314.
Purani, K., Kumar, D.S., 2018. Exploring restorative potential of biophilic service-
scapes. J. Serv. Market. 32 (4), 414e429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2017-
0101.
Rainey, 2017. Nature as physician: the return of the garden to high-tech medical
facilities. In: Beatley, T., Jones, C.L., Rainey, R. (Eds.), TIMOTHY BEATLEY, CARLA
JONES, REUBEN RAINEY, Healthy Environments, Healing Spaces: Practices and
Directions in Health, Planning, and Design University of Virginia Press (2018),
Healthy Environments, Healing Spaces: Practices and Directions in Health,
Planning, and Design. University of Virginia Press, pp. 122e140, 2018.
Reeve, A., Hargroves, C., Desha, C., Newman, P., 2012. Informing healthy building
design with biophilic urbanism design principles: a review and synthesis of
current knowledge and research. In: 10th International Conference on Healthy
Buildings, 2012, pp. 2068e2075, 3.
Revell, G., Anda, M., 2014. Sustainable urban biophilia: the case of greenskins for
urban density. Sustainability 6 (8), 5423e5438. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su6085423.
Riley, B., de Larrard, F., Malecot, V., Dubois-Brugger, I., Lequay, H., Lecomte, G., 2019.
Living concrete: democratizing living walls. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 281e295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.065.
Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., 2017. 15,364
scientist signatories from 184 countries World scientists’ warning to humanity:
a second notice. Bioscience 67 (12), 1026e1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/
bix125.
Rosa, C.D., Collado, S., 2019. Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and
behaviors: setting the ground for future research. Front. Psychol. 10, 763.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00763.
Rosenbaum, M.S., Ramirez, G.C., Camino, J.R., 2018. A dose of nature and shopping:
the restorative potential of biophilic lifestyle center designs. J. Retailing Con-
sum. Serv. 40, 66e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.018.
Safikhani, T., Abdullah, A.M., Ossen, D.R., Baharvand, M., 2014. A review of energy
characteristic of vertical greenery systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40,
450e462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.166.
Sanchez, J.A., Ikaga, T., Sanchez, S.V., 2018. Quantitative improvement in workplace
performance through biophilic design: a pilot experiment case study. Energy
Build. 177, 316e328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.065.
Schnell, I., Harel, N., Mishori, D., 2019. The benefits of discrete visits in urban parks.
Urban For. Urban Green. 41, 179e184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.019.
Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., 2019. Is it really nature that restores people?
A comparison with historical sites with high restorative potential. Front. Psy-
chol. 9, 27e42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02742.
Scott, T.L., Masser, B.M., Pachana, N.A., 2014. Using indoor plants and natural ele-
ments to positively impact occupants of residential aged-care facilities. In: XXIX
International Horticultural Congress on Horticulture: Sustaining Lives, XII 1121,
pp. 7e12. Livelihoods and Landscapes (IHC2014).
Shepley, M.M., Song, Y., Marshall-Baker, A., 2016. Creating an environmentally
sustainable neonatal intensive care unit. N.born Infant Nurs. Rev. 16 (4),
213e217. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.nainr.2016.09.027.
Sheweka, S.M., Mohamed, N.M., 2012. Green facades as a new sustainable approach
towards climate change. Energy Proc 18, 507e520. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2012.05.062.
€derlund, J., Newman, P., 2017. Improving mental health in prisons through Bio-
So
philic Design. Prison J. 97 (6), 750e772. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0032885517734516.
Soga, M., Yamaura, Y., Aikoh, T., Shoji, Y., Kubo, T., Gaston, K.J., 2015. Reducing the
extinction of experience: association between urban form and recreational use
of public greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plann. 143, 69e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2015.06.003.
Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., Yamaura, Y., Kurisu, K., Hanaki, K., 2016. Both direct and
vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve
biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 13 (6), 529. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph13060529.
Stavrianos, A., 2016. Green inclusion: biophilia as a necessity. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 43
(4), 416e429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12155.
Stoltz, J., Schaffer, C., 2018. Salutogenic affordances and sustainability: multiple
benefits with edible forest gardens in urban green spaces. Front. Psychol. 9,
2344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02344.
Tam, K.P., Lee, S.L., Chao, M.M., 2013. Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphism
N. Wijesooriya and A. Brambilla
enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 49 (3), 514e521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001.
Tang, V.T., Rene, E.R., Li, Q., 2019. Application and performance of eco-bag revet-
ment for water purification in lake environments: a case study from rural
China. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. - Aqua 68 (2), 149e156. https://doi.org/
10.2166/aqua.2019.110.
Tapia-Fonllem, C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B., Duro n-Ramos, M.F., 2013.
Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: a measure of pro-ecological,
frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability 5 (2), 711e723. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su5020711.
Taylor, D.E., 2019. College students and nature: differing thoughts of fear, danger,
disconnection, and loathing. Environ. Manag. 64 (1), 79e96. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00267-019-01172-9.
Tidball, K.G., Aktipis, A., 2018. Feedback enhances greening during disaster recov-
ery: a model of social and ecological processes in neighborhood scale invest-
ment. Urban For. Urban Green. 34, 269e280. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ufug.2018.07.005.
Tifferet, S., Vilnai-Yavetz, I., 2017. Phytophilia and service atmospherics: the effect of
indoor plants on consumers. Environ. Behav. 49 (7), 814e844. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013916516669390.
Townsend, J.B., Barton, S., 2018. The impact of ancient tree form on modern land-
scape preferences. Urban For. Urban Green. 34, 205e216. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.004.
Tran, B., 2017. Psychological (and emotional) architecture: the values and benefits of
nature-based architectureebiophilia. Cultural Influences on Architecture. IGI
Global, pp. 200e230.
USGBC, 2013. LEED V4 Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction. U.S.
Green Building Council, Washington, DC.
Van der Wal, A.J., Schade, H.M., Krabbendam, L., Van Vugt, M., 2013. Do natural
landscapes reduce future discounting in humans? Proc. Biol. Sci. 280 (1773),
20132295. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2295.
Vrhov
sek, D., Kukanja, V., Bulc, T., 1996. Constructed wetland for industrial waste
water treatment. Water Res. 30 (10), 2287e2292. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-
1354(96)00114-5.
Waite-Chuah, S., 2012. Living in the comfort zone: at what cost? Sustain. J. Rec. 5
(6), 386e390. https://doi.org/10.1089/sus.2012.9909.
Walimbe, A.S., Chitgopkar, A.S., 2018. Nurturing children’s biophilia through nature
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021) 124591
connectedness in school buildings for a sustainable future. Int. J. Civ. Eng.
Technol. 9 (3), 187e192.
Weinberger, N., Butler, A.G., McGee, B., Schumacher, P.A., Brown, R.L., 2017. Child life
specialists’ evaluation of hospital playroom design: a mixed method inquiry.
J. Interior Des. 42 (2), 71e91. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12097.
Wener, R., Carmalt, H., 2006. Environmental psychology and sustainability in high-
rise structures. Technol. Soc. 28 (1e2), 157e167. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techsoc.2005.10.016.
Wenping, W., Xuelan, L., 2012. The SWOT analysis on the development of renewable
energy constructions in xi’an. In: Future Communication, Computing, Control
and Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 197e205.
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., Abrahamse, W., 2020. Meta-analysis of human connec-
tion to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Conserv. Biol. 34 (1), 180e193.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381.
White, G., 1788. The Natural History of Selborne, Reprinted 1981. Penguin, New
Youk.
Wilson, E., 1984. The drive to discovery: an essay from biophilia. Am. Scholar 53 (4),
447e464.
Wolverton, B.C., Johnson, A., Bounds, K., 1989. Interior landscape plants for indoor
air pollution abatement: final report-september 1989. In: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. Stennis Space Centre, John C.
Xue, F., Lau, S.S., Gou, Z., Song, Y., Jiang, B., 2019. Incorporating biophilia into green
building rating tools for promoting health and wellbeing. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 76, 98e112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.004.
Yeang, K., 2008. Ecomasterplanning. Architect. Des. 78 (5), 128e131. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ad.752.
Yeang, K., Spector, A., 2011. Green Design: from Theory to Practice. Black Dog,
London.
Yin, J., Zhu, S., MacNaughton, P., Allen, J.G., Spengler, J.D., 2018. Physiological and
cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Build.
Environ. 132, 255e262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.006.
Zelenski, J.M., Nisbet, E.K., 2014. Happiness and feeling connected: the distinct role
of nature relatedness. Environ. Behav. 46 (1), 3e23. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916512451901.
Zhang, W., Goodale, E., Chen, J., 2014. How contact with nature affects children’s
biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biol. Conserv. 177,
109e116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011.