Biophilia Upscaling

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Deborah C. Lefosse	--	5370	2023-11-18 07:36:15	\|
2	layout & references	Sirius Huang	-10 word(s)	5360	2023-11-24 04:06:07	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152215702

In response to socio-ecological challenges, cities around the world are implementing greenification and urban forestry. While these strategies contribute to reducing the ecological footprint, they often overlook various social implications. This explains the increasing global attention to Biophilia, which emphasizes human–nature interaction to enhance the quality of urban life. Despite its historical roots spanning centuries, Biophilia is still considered an emerging research field, as shown by debate on evidence-based research and measurement of its multidimensional impacts. Although the beneficial effects of Biophilic Design (BD) are well documented thanks to the small-scale and immediate outcomes, the long-term potential of Biophilic Urbanism (BU) offers less evidence, limiting its utilization and investment.

biophilia biophilic design biophilic urbanism biophilia upscaling

1. Introduction

Rapid and unprecedented urbanization affecting the globe in recent decades is widely recognized as undermining human health, social stability, and economic prosperity ^[1]. Moreover, uncontrolled densification has led to a loss of urban green spaces and biodiversity ^[2]. In response to significant socio-ecological challenges, cities worldwide are implementing programs oriented to healthier design, sustainable planning, and greenification ^[3]. An incremental application of nature in the city through Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs) is turning the concrete jungle into an urban forest, reconnecting the anthropogenic habitat to the biosphere ^[4]. Among NBSs, Green Infrastructures gained strategic resonance expanding landscape planning into a more robust urban design thinking ^[5] and acting as “projective ecologies” of green spaces ^[6]. All such actions are efficient at reducing the environmental impact and achieving ecosystem service goals, but they neglect various social implications, notably the effects of nature on the health and well-being of millions worldwide, who suffered from its absence or enforced distance during the COVID-19 pandemic ^[7]. This circumstance unveiled not only the vulnerable interdependencies between humans and nature but also the reciprocity between planet resource consumption and threats posed by cities, including deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change ^[8].

Against the relentless migration trend from the countryside to the cities, research indicates that rural living is preferable to an urban lifestyle due to the better environmental quality that assures mental and physical health ^[9]. Due to modern habits and a rising technology addiction, we spend 90% of our time indoors. Consequently, recent studies unanimously characterize us as an “indoor generation” ^[10]. Conversely, more and more citizens pay to be immersed in nature, associating it with a restorative praxis for personal well-being ^[11]. This explains the increasing global attention to Biophilia, which relies on the interaction between humans and nature to enhance urban livability, face climate change, and bolster urban sustainability and resilience ^[12]. Since the late 1960s, Biophilia has grown in popularity as a love for life and an innate man’s need to affiliate with all living forms and systems ^[13]. The concept of Biophilia advances the idea that contact with nature plays a fundamental role in human physical and mental well-being ^[14]. Firstly pioneered as a genetic-oriented process ^[15], it was further elaborated in scientific theory—known as Biophilic Hypothesis (BET)—built upon the multidisciplinary evidence ^[14]. Later, Biophilic Design (BD) was introduced as a novel design language aimed at transposing the BET principles into the built environment ^[16]^[17]^[18]. Conceived as complementary support to green architecture, BD offers an emotional way to enjoy the space, maximizing nature’s contribution to making our lives healthier, happier, and more productive ^[19]. BD was very well received by the scientific community owing to an abundance of studies substantiating the impacts of Biophilia on societal, environmental, and economic systems ^[20]. In slightly more than a decade, BET was also extended to the cityscape, where the need for daily human–nature contact is not optional but essential to ensure a higher quality of life and preserve biodiversity ^[21]. The application of Biophilia within the urban context is the legacy of a long-lasting intellectual movement deeply rooted in theories and practices intended to integrate nature and design. Over time, this movement has evolved, associating Biophilia with contemporary concepts, such as Green Urbanism ^[22], sustainability ^[12], and smart cities ^[23].

From its initial applications dating back centuries to the newer global movements, Biophilia continues to be considered an emerging research field, and there remain limitations in broader and intersectoral progress ^[24]. Among the noteworthy issues, scientific objectivity, measurability, and the upscaling process demand further insights. While the concept of Biophilia has gained recognition and support, its scientific foundation is still subjected to ongoing debate, due to the complexity inherent in basic assumptions, such as the human–nature interactions. Since Biophilia involves the emotional sphere, its inherently subjective nature raises scientific inquiries. As hybrid disciplines, design, architecture, and planning are the result of both technological quantities and artistic qualities, but not all spatial qualities are readily quantifiable or standardized ^[25]. Additionally, recent studies confirmed the complexity of addressing the multidimensional effects of green space, necessitating the integration of diverse research disciplines: the high heterogeneity of study designs, exposure assessments, and outcomes underscore the call for greater rigor, precision, and robustness ^[26]. Regarding practical application, the beneficial effects of Biophilic Design (BD) have been extensively documented, primarily due to their small-scale and immediate outcomes. Furthermore, BD is substantiated by applied sciences, which illustrate how mathematical models, specifically fractals underlying Biophilia, have significant practical implications for enhancing the built environment and the well-being of its occupants ^[27]. Yet, although the beneficial effects of Biophilic Design (BD) are well documented thanks to the small-scale and immediate outcomes, the long-term potential of Biophilic Urbanism (BU) offers less evidence, limiting its utilization and investment. Meanwhile, BU is taking place in an increasing number of metropolises, where nature plays a key role in maintaining ecological continuity and safeguarding the local identity within bioregional systems ^[26].

2. Biophilia Concept

Through 38 definitions (Table 1), researchers trace its evolution from the initial hypothesis to grounded theory and practical applications.

Table 1. Chronological selection of Biophilia-related definitions and their conceptual evolution.

Year	Reference	Concept	Definition
1964	^[13]	Biophilous Orientation	“the tendency to preserve life and to fight against death is the most elementary form” (p. 45)
1973	^[28]	Biophilia	“the passionate love of life and of all that is alive; it is the wish to further growth, whether in a person, a plant, an idea, or a social group” (p. 366)
1979	^[29]	Biophilia	“the human bond with other species” (p. 43)
1984	^[15]	Biophilia	“the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (p. 1) “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life” (p. 85) “dependence on other organisms” (p. 118)
1993	^[30]	Biophilia	“the innate emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” (p. 31)
1993	^[14]	Biophilia Hypothesis (BET)	“after humans migrated to the built environment, the evolutionary dependence on nature evolved into thinking about nature for survival and personal fulfillment” (p. 43)
1994	^[31]	Biophilia	“the inborn affinity human beings have for other forms of life, according to circumstances, by pleasure, or a sense of security, or awe, or even fascination blended with revulsion“ (p. 360)
2008	^[32]	Biophilia/BET	“the inherent human inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes, most particularly life and life-like features of the nonhuman environment” (p. 462)
2018	^[33]	Biophilia	“mankind’s innate biological connection with nature” (p. 43)
2008	^[16]	Biophilic Design (BD)	“the deliberate attempt to translate an understanding of the inherent human affinity to affiliate with natural systems and processes—known as biophilia—into the design of the built environment” (p. 13)
2008	^[18]	BD	“a new language for interpreting the built environment” (p. 347) “biophilia represents an abundantly creative moment in design” (p. 349)
2015	^[19]	BD	“is to address these deficiencies of contemporary building and landscape practice by establishing a new framework for the satisfying experience of nature in the built environment” (p. 6)
2018	^[17]	BD	“creating a good habitat for people as a biological organism (animal), in the modern cities and built environment” (p. 12)
2018	^[33]	BD	“the process of basing decisions about the built environment on intuition or credible research—derived from either an appetency for nature or measurable biological responses, respectively—to achieve the best possible health outcomes.” (p. 44)
2018	^[34]	BD	“the emerging practice of designing […] buildings that incorporate important elements of nature” (p. 276)
2009	^[35]	Biophilic Urbanism (BU)	“a creative mix of green urban design with a commitment to outdoor life and the protection and restoration of green infrastructure from the bioregional to the neighborhood level” (p. 227)
2011	^[21]	Biophilic Cities	“Cities that put nature first in its design, planning, and management, they recognize the essential need for daily human contact with nature as well as the many environmental and economic values provided by nature and natural systems. […] A biophilic city is even more than simply a biodiverse city: It is a place that learns from nature and emulates natural systems, incorporates natural forms and images into its buildings and cityscapes, and designs and plans with nature” (pp. 45–46)
2016	^[36]	Biophilic Cities	“1. Biophilic cities are cities of abundant nature and natural experiences. 2. Biophilic cities are biodiverse cities—places with rich flora, fauna, fungi. 3. Biophilic cities are multisensory cities. 4. Biophilic cities are cities of interconnected, integrated natural spaces and features. 5. Biophilic cities immerse us in and surround us with nature; in biophilic cities one does not visit nature, one lives in nature. 6. Biophilic cities are outdoor cities. 7. Biophilic cities embrace the blue as well as the green; the marine and aquatic as well as the terrestrial. 8. Biophilic cities celebrate the small and large; the microscopic to the celestial. 9. Biophilic cities are cities where citizens care about and are engaged with nature; residents of all ages are actively involved in enjoying, watching, learning about, and participating in the nature around them. 10. Biophilic cities foster a profound curiosity; they are cities of awe. 11. Biophilic cities care about and nurture other forms of life; they are cities that value inherent worth and the right for other species to exist. 12. Biophilic cities care about nature beyond their borders. 13. Biophilic cities invest in nature. 14. Biophilic cities are inspired by and mimic nature. 15. Biophilic cities exhibit and celebrate the shapes and forms of nature. 16. Biophilic cities seek an equitable distribution of nature and natural experiences” (p. 25)
2020	^[37]	Biophilic Cities	“Cities that contain abundant nature (trees, greenery, animals, gardens) and opportunities to connect with and experience this nature” (p. 280)
2020	^[38]	Biophilic Cities Network	A global movement of individuals, organizations and partner cities that have signed the Biophilic Cities pledge and agree to work on behalf of more natural cities and urban environments” (p. 284)

The term “Biophilia” comes from the Greek words “bio” (βίος, “life, alive”) and “philia” (φιλία, “love, amity, attachment”); thus, it means “love for life”. Biophilia finds its roots as far back as the 4th century BC, when Aristotle introduced the notion of “philia” as an interspecies relationship, extending its connotation to reciprocity that underpins social, political, and moral values ^[39]. However, the term itself was coined by socio-psychologist Fromm in 1964 to highlight the human tendency to preserve every living being, in contrast to notions of “biophobia” (inherited fear of nature and animals) or “necrophilia” (fascination for death) ^[13]. Even then, he linked this passionate love of life to individual and societal fulfillment across species ^[28]. The concept of Biophilia was popularized by Crafoord Prize-winning biologist Wilson in the homonymous book as an innate emotional affiliation of humans to nature and other species or lifelike processes ^[29]. Drawing on Evolutionary Biology, he assumed that it is rooted in our genetic attitude to live in direct contact with nature ^[15]. This inborn attraction to natural settings and alive organisms, with their beauty and complexity, affects our skills and emotions: as a biological vector, it guides human evolution; additionally, it evokes a sense of pleasure or awe, akin to the sublime ^[30]. The man–nature interrelation has historically driven humanity in search of the right place to live, even considering both safety and aesthetics ^[31]. Joined by social ecologist Kellert, Wilson gathered anecdotal and evidence-based research on biophilic effects from diverse scientific areas to turn his intuition into a ground theory, known as the Biophilia Hypothesis (BET) ^[14]. They argued that our primitive dependence on nature was retained over time and adapted to artificial habitats, forging unedited connections with them to ensure survival and foster identity ^[32]. In an effort to establish a novel research field, they substantiated the mutual advantages of Biophilia for people and the environment ^[14]. Fifteen years later, Kellert took BET to the next step of development. He translated it into real-world scenarios by coining the term Biophilic Design (BD) to best describe our evolving relationship with the natural world ^[16]. BD represents a groundbreaking approach to architectural thinking: it aims to provide a fulfilling human–nature experience even indoors by merging Engineering and Landscape Design to bridge the gaps in contemporary building practices ^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]. Beyond green and sustainable architecture, BD is an evidence-based process that uses nature to convert a building into a living organism interacting with the occupants, thereby enhancing their livability and environmental performances ^[18]^[19]^[33]^[34]. Next, urban planner Beatley introduced Biophilic Urbanism (BU) to shift in scale and extend the BET to cities, metropolises, and bioregions. His works offer several concepts within the realm of BU. He first associated BU with a creative mix of urban design and commitment to protecting outdoor life across multiple scales, applying a “room to region” approach ^[35]. Subsequently, he defined Biophilic Cities as a place where living beings, natural shapes, and systems are perfectly incorporated into buildings and cityscapes, thus prioritizing the need for daily contact with nature in urban design and planning ^[21]. Finally, he added 16 definitions of Biophilic Cities to emphasize their health-enhancing potential, ecological benefits to experience and safeguard urban biodiversity, and the social role of nature in favoring people-to-people exchanges ^[36]. BU carries the global imperative to redefine urbanity ^[37]. With this goal in mind, Beatley established the Biophilic Cities Network, a platform involving individuals, organizations, and cities worldwide to include Biophilia in urban policies and practices ^[38]. Today, Biophilia is also expressed in forms of activism: Söderlund shed light on biophilic social movements, whose supports strive to change urban planning by sharing actions and desires to create healthier and more pleasing cities ^[24]. Krčmářová draws a connection between present-day expressions of Biophilia and its very origin: BET issued by Wilson and his successors appears to have been influenced by analogous bottom-up initiatives, notably the American environmental movements that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries to promote a harmonious relationship between man and the natural environment ^[40]. Amidst a multitude of notions and applications, there is a lack of definitions of Biophilia that emphasize its benefits. Hence, the researchers define Biophilia as a “beneficial experience of interacting with nature—in all its forms—through senses and emotions, whose positive effects are mutually increasing in the built environment when designed according to Biophilic Design and Biophilic Urbanism.” This benefit-oriented notion spotlights both the purpose of this paper and its analytical approach.

3. Biophilia Upscaling

Biophilic Design (BD) and Biophilic Urbanism (BU) offer tangible and daily biophilic experiences within the built environment, across scales. Intensifying natural capital, they amplify its beneficial effects for both individuals and the community. This is why we introduced the term “upscaling”, associating it with Biophilia. The simplest definition of upscaling refers to expanding or increasing the scale, scope, or impact of a particular phenomenon ^[41]. A more detailed and ambitious notion implies delivering higher quantity and quality to a larger target over a wider geographical area, more quickly, more equitably, and more lasting ^[42]. After exploring biophilic effects and the related benefits of urban living, we propose Biophilia Upscaling to emphasize the need to extend Biophilia beyond current limits, moving from concept to implementation (applying), from building to city scale (quantitative upscaling), to make its benefits more diversified and impactful for everyone, everywhere (qualitative upscaling). Through these three actions, Biophilia Upscaling exactly matches the three-metric approach guiding this SLR. The existing literature indicates numerous application metrics supporting a robust Biophilia Upscaling through research by design. From BD to BU, researchers present an overview of design criteria or guidelines laid out chronologically and across scales by leading BET scholars, including the following integrations.

3.1. Biophilic Design

Based on the literature cornerstones, researchers have identified the evolution of the BD theoretical framework in four major steps (Table 2). While providing different tools, they aim at achieving the primary goals of BD: creating good habitats for people, nature, and living organisms within modern cities; providing settings, activities, and processes that encourage interspecies interaction to mutually enhance living conditions; addressing the deficiencies of contemporary design, which alienated us from nature; and highlighting the benefits of applying Biophilia to the built environment ^[16]^[19]^[43]. However, achieving high-performance BD requires consistent adherence to specific biophilic features, as emphasized by Kellert ^[17]. He first recognized the need to define BD through two dimensions, six elements, and 72 attributes ^[16]. This framework has been conceived as a valuable toolkit for designers, aiding in their understanding and implementation of Biophilia. As the second benchmark, Browning et al. ^[44] suggested a simplified approach grounded in three categories of space–nature interrelation (nature in the space, natural analogs, and nature of the space), with 14 categories and patterns aimed at prioritizing users’ well-being. They were clearly inspired by Kellert’s guidance ^[16], as outlined in Table 2, where colorful check marks match the common principles of the two frameworks. Later, Kellert together with Calabrese ^[19] simplified the original theory in the awareness that BD establishes dynamic living spaces able to adapt to different users and their changing needs over time. To this end, they delivered a novel scheme focused on human perception, thus underlining the role of individuals as the essential perceiving subjects in interacting with nature through three potential experiences: direct, indirect, and space and place. Merging the first two frameworks by Kellert ^[16] and Browning ^[44], Kellert and Calabrese ^[19] reduced the initial 72 BD indicators to 24 experiences and attributes; namely, they turn out to be a selection from the first panel, as indicated by the bold terms in Table 2. As for the fourth framework, Kellert ^[17] proposed a more complete paradigm for successful BD applications. Conceived as a theoretical-practical guide, it comprises 40 practices related to both the meaningful rationale of BD (values and principles) and the best practices (experiences, elements, application places, and building typologies) to build indoor and outdoor settings or landscapes ^[17]. Afterward, supplementary metrics were released to facilitate BD applications. Despite referring to the basic approach, they focus on specific aspects or serve as checking indicators of BD quality. Further progress in BD was suggested by McGee et al. ^[45] in the form of the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix, comprising six elements and 54 attributes inspired by Kellert’s scheme. Designed specifically for indoor applications, it serves as a resource for interior designers who approach Biophilia in a “do-it-yourself” mode. Lee and Park ^[46] proposed a 15-factor hybrid framework for residential environments that merges physical and digital design techniques so as to reach a larger audience, expanding the range of biophilic experiences on three building scales (residential unit, building, and complex scale). Indoor settings constitute the main location where they tested Biophilia in Virtual Reality. Mollazadeh and Zhu ^[47] systematized a series of key elements helping to design virtual biophilic settings for BD indoor implementation. While referring to Browning’s three categories of human–nature experience, their factors were tested to simulate only direct contact with nature (nature in the space) within digital environments. Xue et al. ^[20] developed a 42-item qualitative framework that blends BD features with standards from green building rating systems, such as LEED and BREEAM. This framework is intended to guide the design process toward creating healthier solutions. Lastly, Vileniske et al. ^[48] carried out an initial classification of biophilic buildings that reveals the strong correlation between architecture and biophilic properties in terms of human–nature interaction.

Table 2. Evolution of Biophilic Design framework in four steps.

DIMENSIONS, ELEMENTS, AND ATTRIBUTES (Kellert et al., 2008 ^[16])
Organic or Naturalistic				Place-based or Vernacular
Environmental features	Natural shapes and forms	Natural patterns and processes	Light and space	Place-based relationships	Evolved human–nature relationships
Color Water ✓ Air ✓ Sunlight Plants Animals Natural materials ✓ Views and vistas Façade greening Geology and landscape Habitats and ecosystems Fire	Botanical motifs Tree and columnar supports Animal motifs Shells and spirals Oval and tubular form Arches, vaults, domes Shapes resisting straight lines and right angles Simulation of natural features Biomorphology ✓ Geomorphology Biomimicry	Sensory variability ✓ Information richness Age, change, and the patina of time Growth and efflorescence Central focal point Patterned wholes Bounded spaces Transitional spaces Linked series/chains Integration of parts to wholes Complementary contrasts Dynamic balance and tension Fractals Hierarchical ratios/scales	Natural light ✓ Filtered and diffused light ✓ Light and shadow ✓ Reflected light ✓ Light pools ✓ Warm light ✓ Light as shape and form ✓ Spaciousness Spatial variability Space as shape and form Spatial harmony Inside–outside spaces	Geographic connection to place ✓ Historic connection to place Ecological connection to place ✓ Cultural connection to place Indigenous materials Landscape orientation Landscape features defining building form Landscape ecology Integration of culture and ecology Spirit of place Avoiding placelessness	Prospect and refuge ✓ Order and complexity ✓ Curiosity and enticement Change and metamorphosis Security and protection ✓ Mastery and control Affection and attachment Attraction and beauty Exploration and discovery Information and cognition Fear and awe Reverence and spirituality
CATEGORIES AND PATTERNS (Browning et al., 2014 ^[44])
Nature in the Space		Natural Analogues		Nature of the Space
Visual connection with nature ✓ Non-visual connection with nature ✓ Non-rhythmic sensory stimuli ✓ Thermal & airflow variability ✓ Presence of water ✓ Dynamic and diffuse light ✓ Connection with natural systems✓		Biomorphic forms and patterns ✓ Material connection with nature ✓ Complexity and order ✓		Prospect ✓ Refuge ✓ Mystery Risk/Peril ✓
EXPERIENCES AND ATTRIBUTES (Kellert and Calabrese, 2015 ^[19])
Direct Experience of Nature		Indirect Experience of Nature		Experience of Space and Place
Light Air Water Plants Animals Weather Natural landscapes and ecosystems Fire		Images of nature Natural materials Natural colors Simulating natural light and air Naturalistic shapes and forms Evoking nature Information richness Age, change, and the patina of time Natural geometries/Biomimicry		Prospect and refuge Organized complexity Integration of parts to wholes Transitional spaces Mobility and wayfinding Cultural and ecological attachment to place
PRACTICE OF BD (Kellert, 2018 ^[17])
Values	Principles	Experiences	Elements	Application places and types
Aesthetic/Attraction Dominionistic/Control Humanistic/Affection Moralistic/Spirituality Naturalistic/Contact Scientific/Knowledge Symbolic/Inspiration Negativistic/Aversion Utilitarian/Exploitation	Human adaptations Integrated settings Engagement and immersion in nature Ethical, cultural, ecological values Emotional attachments to structures, places, landscapes Community membership Multiplicity of settings Authentic experience of nature Enhancement of human–nature and interspecies relationship	Direct Indirect Space and Place	Views Images Materials Texture Color Shapes and Forms Natural geometries Biomimicry	Interior and exterior settings Landscapes Prevalent building typologies Housing Educational spaces Working spaces Healing spaces Hospitality Shopping Center Sacred spaces Transitional spaces

The chronological evolution of Biophilic Design follows four main frameworks. In bold type are analogies between the first conception by Kellert et al. ^[16] and its following upgrade developed in cooperation with Calabrese ^[19]. The checkmark highlights similar criteria between the first two theoretical models, matching them by color.

3.2. Biophilic Urbanism

As the most recent development in BET evolution, there has been a notable surge in literary interest in BU over the past decade. As Kellert ^[49] suggested, simply bringing nature into the city or extending the potential of BD beyond the building boundaries is not enough to turn the urban habitat into a biophilic city. An effective application of Biophilia at the urban scale requires consistent measurements backed by a fixed theoretical framework, which provides principles and tools for managing complex urban contexts.

Recognized as the pioneer of BU, Beatley formulated a scalable Biophilia framework, shifting from BD to BU in three stages. Just in the length of a paper, he first issued practical strategies and opportunities for implementing Biophilia in the built environment at three scales: biophilic buildings and homes; biophilic neighborhoods; and biophilic cities and metropolitan areas ^[35]. Subsequently, he structured these concepts into a guiding manual to assist city makers with a smoother transition toward biophilic cities. This manual encompassed both qualitative and quantitative indices, structured across four dimensions (conditions and infrastructure; activities; attitudes and knowledge; and institutions and governance), applied at six socio-spatial scales (building, block, street, neighborhood, community, and city/region/bioregion), defining 22 minimum standards of Biophilia and 31 specific Biophilic Urban Design elements for urban areas (Table 3). Lastly, Beatley complemented the BU framework with updated concepts of biophilic cities (Table 2), even showcasing best practices, case studies, and successful initiatives all around the world ^[21]. His argument underscored the necessity for a new mindset and conduct at the individual, social, and political levels. Thus, he provided a list of 12 Ways to Experience Nature in the City, inside or outside, encompassing psychological, cultural, and social experiences. He also advocated for the role of digital technology as an innovative vehicle to empower biophilic benefits via devices and domotics, offering multisensory experiences of nature: the core of Biophilia ^[36]. As shown in bold types (Table 3), such a systemic approach incorporates several key elements already featured in his previous BU theories ^[21]^[35]. Through this thematic handbook, he sought to overcome the existing constraints of Biophilia Upscaling, especially in addressing urban planning toward a biophilic agenda ^[36]. Following him, Newman played a significant role in advancing this complex process. He laid the foundation for the transformation of Green Urbanism into BU, using Singapore as a paradigmatic example of shifting from a traditional “garden or green city” to a biophilic “city in a garden” ^[22]^[50]. To supplement their findings, Beatley and Newman ^[12] jointly made the latest advancement in Biophilia Upscaling: they extended BU to a bioregional scale to emphasize its contribution to making cities more resilient, even enhancing both social and natural capital ^[51]. Continuing in the same vein, subsequent research has produced additional metrics for the effective application of BU, addressing practical challenges related to scalability, environmental concerns, and socioeconomic priorities. Cabanek et al. ^[52] proposed an integrated Biophilic Streets Design Framework aimed at integrating BU into the urban fabric, beginning at the street level as the gateway to a biophilic city. On a larger scale, the application of BU was examined through its ecosystem capabilities, identifying biophilic services for the mutual benefit of citizens and the natural environment ^[53]. Lee and Kim ^[54] developed an advanced framework that categorizes BU elements as climate adaptation and mitigation strategies across three dimensions (macro, meso, and micro) and spatial scales (region and city; neighborhood and street; and building). It also included different biophilic methods (natural, technical, and functional) to make a city climate-proof. By examining the relationship between biophilic city indicators and smart city indicators, Tarek and Ouf ^[23] proposed a comprehensive framework aimed at achieving urban resilience. Reeve et al. ^[55] indexed biophilic benefits as functional features, highlighting the valuable contribution of BU in renewing city planning by seamlessly integrating urban greenery and development across scales. In conclusion, it is worth noting the geographical analysis of BU implementation carried out by Carter and Henríquez ^[56]. Leveraging Beatley’s indicators within the category “institutions and biophilic governance”, they systematically mapped BU initiatives globally, thus identifying the most successful endeavors in economically advanced countries where governments actively promoted them.

Table 3. Evolution of Biophilic Urbanism framework.

BIOPHILIC CITY DIMENSION AND INDICATORS (Beatley, 2011 ^[21])
Conditions and Infrastructure		Activities		Attitudes and Knowledge	Institutions and Governance
Proximity to parks and green spaces (≥1 park by 100 m per capita) Percentage of land area covered by trees or other vegetation in wild/semi-wild condition (≥10%) and fair distribution of nature Forest canopy cover (>20%) Number of green design features (≥1/1000 inhab.) Walking trails (1 Mi/10000 inhab.) Community garden (≥1/2500 inhab.) Existence of connected, integrated, ecological network (≥1) Extent flora and fauna, natural images, shapes, and forms are employed in architecture		Percentage of population active in nature or outdoor clubs or organizations (%, ≥¼ pop involved in 1 club) Population engaged in nature restoration and volunteer efforts (1–5% pop) Average portion of the day spent outside (≥15% daily time) Residents active in gardening (≥40%) Extended outdoor playtime in schools (45′/teaching segment)		Percentage of residents who express care and concern for nature (≥1/3 pop) Percentage of residents aware of common native species of flora and fauna (≥1/3 pop) Learning activity in nature (≥30′/daily time)	Existence of a biodiversity plan including design and planning regulations to promote biophilic conditions (≥1) Biophilic institutions and cultural/training services (≥1 history museum + 1 botanical garden/municipality, at least) Number of educational programs in local schools aimed at teaching about nature (≥1/2 of city public schools) Percent of municipal budget devoted to biophilic programs (≥5% city budget) Biophilic building and planning codes (≥1/building or municipality) Biophilic pilot projects and actions (≥5/city)
BIOPHILIC URBAN DESIGN ELEMENTS ACROSS SCALES (Beatley, 2011; partially featured in Beatley, 2009 ^[21]^[35])
Building	Block	Street	Neighborhood	Community	City/Region/Bioregion
Green rooftops Sky gardens and green atria Rooftop gardens Green walls/façade and vertical garden Daylit interior spaces	Green courtyards Clustered housing around green areas Native species yards and spaces	Green streets Sidewalk gardens Urban trees Low-impact development Vegetated swales and skinny streets Edible landscaping High degree of permeability	Stream daylighting, stream restoration Urban forests Ecology parks Community gardens Neighborhood parks and pocket parks Greening grayfields and brownfields	Urban creeks and riparian areas Urban ecological networks Green schools City tree canopy Community forest and community orchards Greening utility corridors	River systems and floodplains Riparian areas Regional greenspace systems Greening major transport corridors
WAYS TO EXPERIENCE NATURE IN THE CITY (Beatley, 2016 ^[36])
Outside				Inside
Psychical		Psychological/Cultural/Social		Psychical	Psychological/Cultural/Social
Watching, seeing, listening to actual nature Hiking, camping, spending time out of doors Feeling the wind, rain, mist on one’s body Contemplating nature or a memory of a previous experience		Training about nature Participating in a nature club or organization outdoors Purposeful eco-enjoyment of outdoor nature activities (gardening, tree planting, cleaning up)		Watching nature through a window Watching images of nature on a computer screen Experiencing indoor nature	Training about nature Participating in nature clubs or organizations indoors

The temporal frameworks according to Beatley’s works ^[21]^[36], in bold type are the elements already featured in 2009 ^[35].

4. Discussion

Regarding the application of Biophilia applications, we observed a disparity between BD and BU in the literature as much as in real applications, partly due to the shorter lifespan of the latter. However, there is a lack of studies discussing how to adapt biophilic patterns to different building types or how to relate BD and BU to scales, architectural expressions, styles, representation, urban form, and tectonics. While BD and BU assume affiliation with all living forms, their application metrics primarily focus on greenery; the biophilic experience with animals or other living systems is addressed only marginally. Best practices and initiatives worldwide confirm the potential for enjoying benefits from BD and BU everywhere, but there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that guidelines and features are universally applicable, transferable, and valid in different biomes. An upgrade built on various geographical contexts may be advisable. Even factors like age and gender should be considered in BD and BU applications. Both BD and BU serve as tangible supports to Biophilia, facilitating multisensory exchanges with the natural world, allowing for multiple responses simultaneously. Digital technology also amplifies biophilic effects, making further implementation in virtual environments highly recommended.

Biophilic cities translate the concept of Biophilia into a new urban model founded on the following:

Quality-oriented approach: Biophilic cities pursue the strategic integration of nature and the built environment through BD and BU, enhancing urban livability, citizens’ health and well-being, along with the performance of both natural and anthropic systems.
Sustainable thinking: Biophilic cities combine multiple urban systems using nature as a core resource to achieve ecological, social, and economic sustainability, while also enhancing climate resilience. A biophilic city supports the 2030 Agenda in meeting SDGs.
Responsibility: Biophilic cities are living laboratories where citizens proactively participate in their successful fulfillment by preserving natural capital. City makers and investors are also responsible for creating and ensuring biophilic conditions across the city.
Reciprocity: As an organic system, a biophilic city operates through reciprocal interactions between species and their environments, leading to shared benefits within a general domino effect.

Renewing urban planning with a foundation in Biophilia requires a systematic change in individual mindset and lifestyle, entailing significant cultural, social, and economic costs at the community level. To accelerate such a transformation, we promote Biophilia Upscaling as a means to make biophilic effects real, livable, and affordable via BD and BU (application); increase their number through scales and validate them through measuring tools (quantitative upscaling); and diversify them by targets and experiences (qualitative upscaling). As illustrated in Figure 5, we matched biophilic effects and urban scales. This attempt shows how Biophilia Upscaling aids in maximizing direct or indirect benefits across the main dimensions analyzed (physical, psychological, social, environmental, and economic). Research indicates that Biophilia Upscaling is already being implemented to achieve a biophilic city model, but it remains an open challenge due to the constraints mentioned above.

This text presents a systematic review of Biophilia, Biophilic Design (BD), and Biophilic Urbanism (BU). It offers a comprehensive framework of 60 years of literature, tracing its evolution from its initial foundation to its contemporary applications in the built environment through BD and BU. A special emphasis has been placed on Biophilia Upscaling as a strategy to maximize its direct and indirect benefits across urban scales and promote BU, thus enhancing urban livability and expediting a paradigm shift in city planning. The discussion underlined the current knowledge gaps within this relatively new research field that warrant further insights. Based on this, we recommend future insights in this emerging research field aimed at delving into the less-investigated aspects so far: BU and large-scale applications, assessment methods, biophilic strategies for climate resilience, and digital and multisensorial experiences. BD and BU have positive implications for everyday life: they can assist designers, planners, and decision-makers in addressing the urban agenda toward higher environmental and social standards. This is crucial in metropolises conceived as bioregional systems, where nature plays a key role in ensuring ecosystem services and citizens’ well-being. In conclusion, we advocate for Biophilia as the most ecological and sustainable approach to promote urban development, in compliance with the needs of people and nature and their mutual interdependencies.

References

Panlasigui, S.; Spotswood, E.; Beller, E.; Grossinger, R. Biophilia beyond the Building: Applying the Tools of Urban Biodiversity Planning to Create Biophilic Cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2450.
Russo, A.; Cirella, G. Modern Compact Cities: How Much Greenery Do We Need? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2180.
Nilon, C.; Aronson, M.; Cilliers, S. Planning for the Future of Urban Biodiversity: A Global Review of City-Scale Initiatives. BioScience 2017, 67, 332–342.
Andersson, E.; Barthel, S.; Borgström, S. Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services. Ambio 2014, 43, 445–453.
Henriquez, L.; van Timmeren, A. Under Pressure: Water and the City; TU Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017.
Reed, C.; Lister, N.M.E. Projective Ecologies; Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
Bolten, B.; Barbiero, G. Biophilic Design: How to Enhance Physical and Psychological Health and Wellbeing in Our Built Environments. Vis. Sustain. 2020, 13, 11–16.
van Timmeren, A.; Amenta, L.; Russo, M. Afterword. In Regenerative Territories: Dimensions of Circularity for Healthy Metabolism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 128.
Novák, N.; Kőmíves, P.; Harangi-Rákos, M.; Pető, K. The Role of Rural Areas in the Preservation of Health. Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng. IRASE 2020, 11, 157–166.
Klepeis, N.E.; Nelson, W.C.; Ott, W.R.; Robinson, J.P.; Tsang, A.M.; Switzer, P.; Behar, J.V.; Hern, S.C.; Engelmann, W.H. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants. J. Expo. Sci. Env. Epidemiol. 2001, 11, 231–252.
White, M.; Alcock, I.; Grellier, J.; Wheeler, B.; Hartig, T. Spending at Least 120 Minutes a Week in Nature Is Associated with Good Health and Wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7730.
Beatley, T.; Newman, P. Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3328–3345.
Fromm, E. The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O. The Biophilia Hypothesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
Wilson, E. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.
Kellert, S.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
Kellert, S.R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2018.
Berkebile, B.; Fox, B.; Hartley, A. Reflections on Implementing Biophilic Design. In Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J., Mador, M., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 345–354.
Kellert, S.; Calabrese, E. The Practice of Biophilic Design; Terrapin Bright Green, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Xue, F.; Lau, S.; Gou, Z.; Song, Y.; Jiang, B. Incorporating Biophilia into Green Building Rating Tools for Promoting Health and Wellbeing. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 76, 98–112.
Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
Newman, P. Green Urbanism and Its Application to Singapore. Environ. Urban. Asia 2010, 1, 149–170.
Tarek, S.; Ouf, A. Biophilic Smart Cities: The Role of Nature and Technology in Enhancing Urban Resilience. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2021, 68, 1–22.
Söderlund, J. The Emergence of Biophilic Design; Cities and Nature; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
Andreucci, M.; Lorder, A.; Brown, M. Exploring Challenges and Opportunities of Biophilic Urban Design: Evidence from Research and Experimentation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4323.
Cardinali, M.; Beenackers, M.A.; van Timmeren, A.; Pottgiesser, U. Preferred Reporting Items in Green Space Health Research: Guiding Principles for an Interdisciplinary Field. Environ. Res. 2023, 228, 115893.
Taylor, R.P. The Potential of Biophilic Fractal Designs to Promote Health and Performance: A Review of Experiments and Applications. Sustainability 2021, 13, 823.
Fromm, E. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
Wilson, E. Biophilia; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979.
Wilson, E. Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic. In The Biophilia Hypothesis; Shearwater Books: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 31–40.
Wilson, E. Naturalist; Shearwater Books: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
Kellert, S. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
Ryan, C.; Browning, W. Biophilic Design. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology; Meyers, R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; p. 44.
Beatley, T. Biophilic Design. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology; Meyers, R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; p. 276.
Beatley, T. Biophilic Urbanism: Inviting Nature Back to Our Communities and Into Our Lives. William Mary Environ. Law Policy Rev. 2009, 34, 209.
Beatley, T. Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology; Meyers, R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 280.
Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities Network. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology; Meyers, R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 284.
Santas, A. Aristotelian Ethics and Biophilia. Ethics Environ. 2014, 19, 95–121.
Krčmářová, J.E.O. Wilson’s Concept of Biophilia and the Environmental Movement in the USA. Kladyán 2009, 6, 4–17.
Schnell, S.; Brinkerhoff, D. Replicability and Scaling Up. In International Encyclopedia of Civil Society; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1312–1318.
Carter, S.; Currie-Alder, B. Scaling-up Natural Resource Management: Insights from Research in Latin America. Dev. Pract. 2006, 16, 128–140.
Kahn, P. The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
Browning, W.; Ryan, C.; Clancy, J. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design; Terrapin Bright Green: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
McGee, B.; Park, N.; Portillo, M.; Bosch, S.; Swisher, M. Diy Biophilia: Development of the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix as a Design Tool. J. Inter. Des. 2019, 44, 201–221.
Lee, E.; Park, S. Biophilic Experience-Based Residential Hybrid Framework. Environ. Res Public Health 2022, 19, 8512.
Mollazadeh, M.; Zhu, Y. Application of Virtual Environments for Biophilic Design: A Critical Review. Buildings 2021, 11, 148.
Vileniske, I.; Daugelaite, A.; Viliunas, G. Classification of Biophilic Buildings as Sustainable Environments. Buildings 2022, 12, 1542.
Kellert, S. Biophilic Urbanism: The Potential to Transform. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 4–8.
Newman, P. Biophilic Urbanism: A Case Study on Singapore. Aust. Plan. 2013, 51, 47–65.
Newman, P.; Beatley, T.; Boyer, H. Build Biophilic Urbanism in the City and Its Bioregion. In Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 127–153.
Cabanek, A.; Zingoni de Baro, M.; Newman, P. Biophilic Streets: A Design Framework for Creating Multiple Urban Benefits. Sustain. Earth 2020, 3, 7.
el-Baghdadi, O.; Desha, C. Conceptualising a Biophilic Services Model for Urban Areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 399–408.
Lee, S.; Kim, Y. A Framework of Biophilic Urbanism for Mproving Climate Change Adaptability in Urban Environments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127104.
Reeve, A.; Desha, C.; Hargreaves, D.; Hargroves, K. Biophilic Urbanism: Contributions to Holistic Urban Greening for Urban Renewal. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2015, 4, 215–233.
Carter, V.; Henríquez, C. Biophilic Institutions and Governance: Biophilic Urbanism Initiatives (BUIs) Fostering Green Urban Features in Emerging and Developing Cities. In Studies in Efficient Environmental Design & City Planning; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 126–128.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Urban Studies

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Deborah Lefosse

Arjan van Timmeren

Carlo Ratti

View Times: 133

Update Date: 24 Nov 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm