1. Introduction

Courtyard architecture and biophilic design have received increasing attention within sustainable architecture because of their potential to enhance environmental performance while supporting human well-being ^[1][2][3][1–3]. Historically, courtyards have functioned as passive climatic regulators through natural ventilation, daylight penetration, shading, and thermal moderation ^[4][5][4,5]. In parallel, biophilic design emphasizes the integration of natural systems and human–nature relationships to promote restorative and psychological benefits ^[6][7][6,7]. Although both approaches share common objectives, they have generally been investigated independently, resulting in a fragmented understanding of their combined contribution to sustainability [8].

2. Courtyards and Biophilic Design

Courtyards represent one of the oldest architectural typologies used across diverse climatic regions [4]. Beyond their environmental functions, they facilitate social interaction, visual connection with vegetation, and cultural continuity [9]. Biophilic design, derived from the biophilia hypothesis, seeks to strengthen human connections with nature through direct and indirect experiences of natural elements ^[6][10][6,10]. Previous studies have demonstrated that biophilic environments may contribute to stress reduction, cognitive restoration, and increased occupant satisfaction ^[11][12][11,12].

3. Need for an Integrated Assessment Framework

Despite the growing body of literature on courtyard performance and biophilic design, existing assessment approaches often focus on isolated dimensions, including energy efficiency, thermal comfort, or psychological well-being ^[13][14][13,14]. Relatively few frameworks evaluate the interactions among environmental performance, human experience, and architectural quality simultaneously [15]. This fragmentation limits evidence-based design and hinders the systematic comparison of alternative courtyard solutions [16].

4. MIVES Methodology

The Integrated Value Model for Sustainability Assessment (MIVES) is a multi-criteria decision-making methodology based on Multi-Attribute Value Theory [17]. MIVES structures complex problems through a hierarchical system composed of requirements, criteria, and indicators [18]. The methodology incorporates weighting procedures and value functions that transform heterogeneous variables into normalized values, thereby enabling different sustainability dimensions to be aggregated into a single performance index [19].

5. Proposed Framework

The proposed framework comprises four requirements: Environmental Integration, Biophilic Quality, Human Well-Being, and Functional Resilience. These requirements are further organized into seven criteria and sixteen indicators identified through the literature ^[2][7][13][2,7,13]. Environmental indicators address thermal comfort, daylight availability, ventilation efficiency, vegetation coverage, biodiversity, and water management. Biophilic indicators evaluate nature presence and sensory experience, whereas human-centered indicators assess restorative quality, stress reduction, and place attachment. Functional indicators focus on spatial connectivity and multifunctionality.

Different value functions, including linear, concave, convex, and S-shaped functions, are employed to account for threshold effects and diminishing returns frequently observed in architectural systems ^[17][19][17,19]. Weighted aggregation produces an Integration Sustainability Index that enables systematic comparison among alternative design solutions.

6. Potential Applications

The framework can support architects, planners, and researchers in evaluating courtyard-based buildings across different climatic and cultural contexts. Potential applications include early-stage design assessment, post-occupancy evaluation, and comparative studies involving residential, educational, healthcare, and public buildings [20]. Future studies may combine simulation tools, user surveys, and expert-based weighting techniques to validate the framework empirically [21].

7. Conclusions

The integration of courtyard architecture and biophilic design represents a promising direction for human-centered sustainable architecture. The proposed MIVES-based framework provides a structured approach for assessing environmental, experiential, and functional dimensions within a unified model. By extending conventional sustainability assessment toward restorative and nature-based qualities, the framework offers a foundation for future empirical research and evidence-based architectural decision-making [22].

References

1. Vineis, P.; Mangone, L. The need for new metrics in the Anthropocene era. Frontiers in Public Health 2022, 10, 935743.
2. Beatley, T. The emergence of biophilic design and planning: Re-envisioning cities and city life. In Ecologies Design: Transforming Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism; Taylor and Francis Inc.: 2020; pp. 96-106.
3. Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life; John Wiley & Sons: 2011.
4. Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O. Biophilia. Human Ecology 2008, 2008, 462-466.
5. Browning, B.; Cooper, C. The Global Impact of Biophilic Design in the Workplace. Human Spaces 2015, 48.
6. Yin, J.; Arfaei, N.; MacNaughton, P.; Catalano, P.J.; Allen, J.G.; Spengler, J.D. Effects of biophilic interventions in office on stress reaction and cognitive function: A randomized crossover study in virtual reality. Indoor Air 2019, 29, 1028-1039, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12593.
7. Gillis, K.; Gatersleben, B. A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings 2015, 5, 948-963, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948.
8. Almhafdy, A.; Ibrahim, N.; Ahmad, S.S.; Yahya, J. Courtyard design variants and microclimate performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2013, 101, 170-180.
9. Almahmoud, E.; Elgheriani, L.; Almhafdy, A. Cooling load reduction in courtyard houses: examining the role of courtyard configuration in a hot, arid climate. JES. Journal of Engineering Sciences 2024, 52, 728-738.
10. Taleghani, M.; Tenpierik, M.; van den Dobbelsteen, A. Environmental impact of courtyards—A review and comparison of residential courtyard buildings in different climates. Journal of Green Building 2012, 7, 113-136.
11. Muhaisen, A.S. Shading simulation of the courtyard form in different climatic regions. Building and environment 2006, 41, 1731-1741.
12. Taleghani, M.; Tenpierik, M.; Van Den Dobbelsteen, A. Indoor thermal comfort in urban courtyard block dwellings in the Netherlands. Building and Environment 2014, 82, 566-579.
13. Ryan, C.O.; Browning, W.D. Biophilic design. In Sustainable built environments; Springer: 2020; pp. 43-85.
14. Xue, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, J.; Fan, J.; Zhou, X. The Impact Assessment of Campus Buildings Based on a Life Cycle Assessment–Life Cycle Cost Integrated Model. Sustainability 2019, 12, 1-24, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010294.
15. Yang, X.; Gou, Z.; Chau, H.-W. A decision framework for multi-dimensional analysis of roof retrofit scenarios to mitigate urban heat Island effects and enhance energy efficiency. Sustainable Cities and Society 2025, 130, 106591.
16. Pons, O.; Aguado, A. Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Building and Environment 2012, 53, 49-58.
17. Edwards, B.; Sibley, M.; Land, P.; Hakmi, M. Courtyard housing: past, present and future; Taylor & Francis: 2006.
18. Muhaisen, A.S.; Gadi, M.B. Effect of courtyard proportions on solar heat gain and energy requirement in the temperate climate of Rome. Building and environment 2006, 41, 245-253.
19. Soflaei, F.; Shokouhian, M.; Tabadkani, A.; Moslehi, H.; Berardi, U. A Simulation-Based Model for Courtyard Housing Design Based on Adaptive Thermal Comfort. Journal of Building Engineering 2020, 31, 101335, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101335.
20. Cole, R.J. Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Building Research & Information 2012, 40, 39-53.
21. Mangone, G. Exploring urban design strategies that maximize the benefits of urban nature for children's well-being. Ecopsychology 2018, 10, 216-227.
22. Elantary, A.R.; Alansari, A.; Alawirdhi, A. User’s Perspective of Landscape Existence in Healthcare Buildings. HBRC Journal 2021, 17, 519-532, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2021.2000248.
23. Boix-Cots, D.; Pardo-Bosch, F.; Blanco, A.; Aguado, A.; Pujadas, P. A systematic review on MIVES: A sustainability-oriented multi-criteria decision-making method. Building and Environment 2022, 223, 109515, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109515.
24. Pons, O.; De la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. The use of MIVES as a sustainability assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications. Sustainability 2016, 8, 460.
25. Iyengar, K. Sustainable architectural design: an overview; Routledge: 2015.
26. Sassi, P. Strategies for sustainable architecture; Taylor & Francis: 2006.
27. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia; Harvard university press: 1986.
28. Elantary, A. Unleashing the Potential: The Impact of Biophilic Office Design on Enhancing Employee Productivity. Mansoura Engineering Journal 2024, 49, doi:10.58491/2735-4202.3208.
29. Elantary, A.R. Biophilic Design in Office Buildings: A Salutogenic Approach to Enhancing Well-being in the Built Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism-ICCAUA 2024, 7, 1361-1369, doi:10.38027/iccaua2024en0189.
30. Eldeeb, A.E.A. Courtyard Existence between the Past and the Present, Case Study: Central Region, Saudi Arabia. Civil Engineering and Architecture 2023, 11, 675-695, doi:https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2023.110211.
31. Biswal, D.; Joglekar, S.N.; Mandavgane, S.A. MIVES: A Multi-Attribute Value Function-Based Methodology for Sustainability Assessment. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Techniques, Analysis and Applications, Kulkarni, A.J., Ed.; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2022; pp. 1-16.
32. Kaplan, D. Themes from Kaplan; Oxford University Press: 1989.
33. Kellert, S.R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design; Yale University Press: 2018; pp. 1-214.
34. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of environmental psychology 1991, 11, 201-230.
35. Niculescu, C.; Persson, L.-E. Convex functions and their applications; Springer: 2006; Volume 23.
36. Ryan, C.O.; Browning, W.D.; Clancy, J.O.; Andrews, S.L.; Kallianpurkar, N.B. Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2014, 8, 62.
37. Ameen, R.F.M.; Mourshed, M. Urban sustainability assessment framework development: The ranking and weighting of sustainability indicators using analytic hierarchy process. Sustainable Cities and Society 2019, 44, 356-366.
38. Pujadas, P.; Pardo-Bosch, F.; Aguado-Renter, A.; Aguado, A. MIVES multi-criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public investment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 29-37.
39. Berman, M.G.; Kross, E.; Krpan, K.M.; Askren, M.K.; Burson, A.; Deldin, P.J.; Kaplan, S.; Sherdell, L.; Gotlib, I.H.; Jonides, J. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. J Affect Disord 2012, 140, 300-305, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012.
40. Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2013, 38, 73-87, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.006.
41. Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y. Resilience-oriented urban planning. In Resilience-oriented urban planning: theoretical and empirical insights; Springer: 2018; pp. 3-27.
42. Hillier, B.; Hanson, J.; Peponis, J. What do we mean by building function. Designing for building utilisation 1984, 61-72.