Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The Neuroaesthetics-informed approach to the urban environment examines how the sensory properties of buildings, streets, and public spaces are processed by the human brain, and how this processing affects health, well-being, and behavior. Drawing on neuroscience, psychology, and architectural research, it examines how attributes such as organized visual complexity, fractal structure, materiality, color, light, scale, and spatial configuration shape perceptual fluency, stress regulation, affective states, cognition, and even influence social interaction in cities. The literature discussed was identified through targeted searches of peer-reviewed journals in neuroscience, psychology, architecture, urban design and public health, with emphasis on studies examining perceptual processing, affective responses, psychophysiological indicators, and health-related proxies in relation to environmental form, as opposed to general environmental health work. Practical applications are discussed.
- neuroaesthetics
- neuroarchitecture
- neurourbanism
- architectural beauty
- organized complexity
- fractals
- eye-tracking
- urban health
- biophilic design
- public space
Health-oriented urban research has evolved through several overlapping phases. Early urban public health agendas were dominated by issues pertaining to sanitation, infectious disease control, and later other environmental hazards. In big cities, housing conditions, transport systems, air quality, safety, and the distribution of environmental resources and risks across socio-economic groups are main points of interest [1]. Over roughly the last decade, the field has also shifted methodologically and conceptually from static “neighborhood” descriptions to more integrative approaches that better capture the actual living conditions of inhabitants. There are several relevant lines of investigation: (i) built-environment epidemiology linking urban form indicators (e.g., density, land-use mix, connectivity) to health outcomes; (ii) Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based accessibility and equity analytics, including distributional assessments of green/blue space, services, and environmental burdens; (iii) dynamic exposure and mobility-aware methods (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS)-based tracking, time–activity patterns), which address where people actually spend time; (iv) increased focus on both quality and quantity of environmental assets such as greenspace, including design- and maintenance-related attributes relevant to health; and (v) intervention-oriented frameworks that translate evidence into cross-sector urban policy and governance [2][3][4].
Within this diverse research landscape, neuroaesthetics represents one complementary perspective rather than a comprehensive or exclusive framework. Its specific contribution to the field lies in examining how perceptual, affective, and cognitive processes mediate human responses to urban environments at relatively fine spatial and temporal scales. By focusing on mechanisms such as perceptual fluency, attentional engagement, emotional regulation, and stress reactivity, neuroaesthetic approaches can help explain how and why particular environmental configurations may influence well-being, while remaining conceptually aligned with broader urban health and environmental psychology traditions. While all the non-neuroaesthetic approaches mentioned above remain of paramount importance, they are not the focus of the present paper. Instead, we will discuss a complementary line of work that has gained momentum in recent years, and has provided evidence that the aesthetic and perceptual qualities of built environments are also fundamental determinants of health and well-being.
Neuroaesthetics is a term coined by Semir Zeki [5] and refers to the study of the neural bases of beauty, initially focusing on the perception in art. The field, as stated by its founder, was not conceived as an approach to studying art, but rather as a way to study the brain through the art that the brain creates. Obviously, this can come full circle: knowledge about the source of this art, and its appreciation, and aesthetic appreciation in general, gives us insights into the object itself, about its properties and the way they correspond with specific affective experiences.
This same approach can be extended to architectural and urban spaces, conceptualizing architectural experience as a specific class of perceptual, affective, and cognitive episodes that can be studied with neuroscientific methods. We can talk about a “neuroscience of architectural experience”, as built spaces are immersive, multi-sensory, and behaviorally consequential. Brain networks involved in spatial processing, emotion, reward, memory, and bodily states are recruited during architectural experience and their activity can be modulated by it [6]. Seen in this context, neuroaesthetics is best understood as a complementary perspective rather than as a comprehensive framework for urban health. It does not aim to replace established approaches, nor does it attempt to account for all environment–health relationships. Instead, its contribution lies in examining how perceptual, affective, and cognitive processes shape human responses to urban environments at relatively fine spatial and temporal scales. Concepts such as perceptual fluency, attentional engagement, emotional regulation, and stress induction/reduction, which will be discussed below, are particularly relevant here, because they describe mechanisms through which specific spatial and visual configurations are experienced. Focusing on these mechanisms helps clarify how certain environments may support well-being, while remaining broadly consistent with existing work in environmental psychology and urban health.
Within urbanism, the concept of neurourbanism has emerged to integrate neuroscience, psychology, planning, and architecture, viewing cities as complex environments that shape brain function and mental health across the life course. This is also an expanding field, but empirical work is still fragmented and heavily concentrated in high-income countries [7].
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/encyclopedia6020051
References
- Gondi, S.; Chokshi, D.A. Cities as Platforms for Population Health: Past, Present, and Future. Milbank Q. 2023, 101, S1242–S1282.
- Frank, L.D.; Iroz-Elardo, N.; MacLeod, K.E.; Hong, A. Pathways from Built Environment to Health: A Conceptual Framework Linking Behavior and Exposure-Based Impacts. J. Transp. Health 2019, 12, 319–335.
- Ma, P.; Rebecchi, A.; Manfredini, F.; Ahlert, M.; Buffoli, M. Promoting Public Health Through Urban Walkability. Urban Health J. 2025, 12, 45–59.
- Capolongo, S.; Buffoli, M.; Mosca, E.I.; Galeone, D.; D’eLia, R.; Rebecchi, A. Public Health Aspects’ Assessment Tool for Urban Projects, according to the Urban Health Approach. In Regeneration of the Built Environment from a Circular Economy Perspective; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 325–335.
- Zeki, S. Art and the Brain. J. Conscious. Stud. 1999, 6, 76–96.
- Coburn, A.; Vartanian, O.; Chatterjee, A. Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2017, 29, 1521–1531.
- Ndaguba, E.; Cilliers, J.; Mbanga, S.; Brown, K.; Ghosh, S. Re-Imaging the Future in Urban Studies and Built Environment Discourse: A Neurourbanism Perspective. Buildings 2022, 12, 2056.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!