The translation of biophilia as a hypothesis into design of the built environment was the topic of a 2004 conference

and subsequent book on biophilic design (Eds., Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador, 2008) in which Stephen Kellert
identified more than 70 different mechanisms for engendering a biophilic experience, and contributing authors
William Browning and Jenifer Seal-Cramer outlined three classifications of user experience: Nature in the Space,
Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space.

The last decade has seen a steady growth in work around and the intersections of neuroscience and architecture, both
in research and in practice; even green building standards have begun to incorporate biophilia, predominantly for its
contribution to indoor environmental quality and connection to place. Popular texts, such as Last Child in the Woods
(Louv, 2008), Healing Spaces (Sternberg, 2009), The Shape of Green (Hosey, 2012), Your Brain on Nature (Selhub
& Logan, 2012), and “The Economics of Biophilia” (Terrapin Bright Green, 2012), are bringing the conversation
mainstream, helping the public grapple with modern society’s dependency on technology and persistent disconnect
with nature. Most recently, biophilic design is being championed as a complementary strategy for addressing
workplace stress, student performance, patient recovery, community cohesiveness and other familiar challenges to
health and overall well-being.

DEFINING NATURE

Views of what constitutes natural, nature, wild, or beautiful greatly vary. While we have no intention of formalizing
an explicit definition, some articulation of what we mean by ‘nature’ will help give context to practitioners of
biophilic design. Simply put, there are two extreme connotations of nature. One is that nature is only that which can
be classified as a living organism unaffected by anthropogenic impacts on the environment – a narrow perspective of
nature (reminiscent of conventional hands-off environmental preservation) that ultimately no longer exists because
nearly everything on Earth has been and will continue to be impacted at least indirectly by humans. Additionally,
this idea of nature essentially excludes everything from the sun and moon, your pet fish Nemo, home gardens and
urban parks, to humans and the billions of living organisms that make up the biome of the human gut.

Alternatively, it could be argued that everything, including all that humans design and make, is natural and a part of
nature because they are each extensions of our phenotype. This perspective inevitably includes everything from
paperback books and plastic chairs, to chlorinated swimming pools and asphalt roadways.

As a middle ground, for the purpose of understanding the context of Biophilic Design, we are defining nature as
living organisms and non-living components of an ecosystem – inclusive of everything from the sun and moon and
seasonal arroyos, to managed forests and urban raingardens, to Nemo’s fishbowl habitat.
For added clarity, we are making the distinction that, in the context of health and well-being in the built
environment, most nature in modern society is designed, whether deliberately (for function or aesthetic),
haphazardly (for navigability or access to resources) or passively (through neglect or hands-off preservation); thus,
we refer back to humankind’s proclivity for savanna landscapes. Humans create savanna analogues all the time. As
designed ecosystems, some, such as the high canopy forests with floral undergrowth maintained by the annual
burning practices of the Ojibwe people of North America, are biodiverse, vibrant and ecologically healthy. Others,
such as suburban lawns and golf courses,