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.
Year | Reference | Concept | Definition |
---|
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 ✓ |
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 [21,38][21][ | 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 [61][44]) | |||||||||||||||||
35]) | |||||||||||||||||
Building | Block | Street | Neighborhood | Community | City/Region/Bioregion | Nature in the Space | Natural Analogues | Nature of the Space | |||||||||
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 |
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 | |||||||||||
WAYS TO EXPERIENCE NATURE IN THE CITY (Beatley, 2016 [39 | ✓ | ][36]) | Biomorphic forms and patterns ✓ Material connection with nature ✓ Complexity and order ✓ |
Prospect ✓ Refuge ✓ Mystery Risk/Peril ✓ |
|||||||||||||
EXPERIENCES AND ATTRIBUTES (Kellert and Calabrese, 2015 [19]) | |||||||||||||||||
Outside | Inside | Direct Experience of Nature | Indirect Experience of Nature | Experience of Space and Place | |||||||||||||
Psychical | Psychological/Cultural/Social | Psychical | Psychological/Cultural/Social | 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 | ||||||||||||||
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 |
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 |
||||||||||||
1964 | [13] | Biophilous Orientation | “the tendency to preserve life and to fight against death is the most elementary form” (p. 45) | ||||||||||||||
1973 | [31][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 | [32][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 | [33][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 | [34][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 | [35][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 | [36][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 | [36][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 | [37][34] | BD | “the emerging practice of designing […] buildings that incorporate important elements of nature” (p. 276) | ||||||||||||||
2009 | [38][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 | [39][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 | [40][37] | Biophilic Cities | “Cities that contain abundant nature (trees, greenery, animals, gardens) and opportunities to connect with and experience this nature” (p. 280) | ||||||||||||||
2020 | [41][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) |
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:
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.