Documents Received After Published Agenda — Hayward City Council, March 19, 2024

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 19, 2024

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AFTER

PUBLISHED AGENDA
Item # 7
WS 24-003
La Vista Park Project
From: junkintofunk
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 9:33 AM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]>; junkintofunk ; mimi dean Subject: WS24-003 LA VISTA PARK AGENDA ITEM CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

City council members,
I am all for more parks and open space in our communities, but I must say that adding yet another park to South Hayward when Skywest is slated for development seems very wrong indeed.

According to your own general plan,
"Hayward should preserve, enhance, increase, and connect its baylands, hillsides, greenway trails, and regional parks to protect environmental resources, mitigate the impacts of rising sea levels, and provide opportunities to live an active outdoor lifestyle.

The natural baylands and hillsides that define the western and eastern edges of the City are major community assets and valuable environmental resources. They provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, contribute to the ecological health of the San Francisco Bay, and provide residents with opportunities to exercise, enjoy nature, and view scenic resources. These open space resources and passive recreational opportunities should be preserved and enhanced to improve the ecology of the San Francisco Bay Area and Hayward’s overall quality of life. The City will work in partnership with the East Bay
Regional Parks District and the Hayward Area
Recreation and Park District to develop policies and strategies to preserve and protect environmental resources, respond to rising sea levels, promote environmental stewardship, connect the baylands and hillsides with greenway trails, and expand access to compatible recreational activities within the bay, baylands, and hillsides, such as kayaking, boating, hiking, and biking.
"
City of Hayward 2040 Vision
"Hayward will be a distinct and desirable community known for its central Bay Area location, vibrant Downtown, sustainable neighborhoods, excellent schools, robust economy, and its growing reputation as a great college town.

With a variety of clean, safe, and green
neighborhoods, and an accessible network of parks and natural open space, Hayward will be home to one of the most diverse, inclusive, educated, and healthy populations in the Bay Area.

It
will be a destination for life-long learning, entertainment, arts and culture, recreation, and commerce.

It will be a community that values diversity, social equity, transparent and responsive governance, civic engagement, and volunteerism.

Hayward will be a thriving and promising
community that individuals, families, students, and businesses proudly call home. "
According to the maps presented to City Council on
February 28, the NW portion of Hayward has a far
greater need for parks and open space than the La Vista area.

We all know that the NW part of Hayward as well as
the

surrounding unincorporated areas that are in the
Hayward Executive

Airport's

sphere of influence are
indeed in need of more parks and open space.

Developing Skywest and denying people access to much
needed open space while creating yet another park in
the much wealthier

hill area seem to be in total conflict
with Hayward's EJ goals and Looking Forward 2040
plan.

I find it strange that this item was deleted from the
project-

"Eliminate lower neighborhood park that contained a
basketball court and picnic area"
It seems like this is one item that should be kept as a recreational opportunity for the kids in the neighborhood.

Perhaps one of the other amenities that already exist in the area could be eliminated rather than the basketball courts.

From staff report--- "The La Vista Park Project was
envisioned to construct a regional facility that will include a number of park and recreational facilities, including a sport field/amphitheater, basketball courts, a yoga lawn, a dog park, hiking trails, a bike terrain park, and other amenities "

In addition, the staff report for La Vista states

" ECONOMIC IMPACT The addition of a destination park
to the South Hayward community will create a much-

Page 5 of 6 ends

the City. This will likely result in increased visitors to the area as well as more dollars spent at local businesses. In addition, there have been numerous studies that indicate that the addition of open space or parkland has a
positive impact on home values in the surrounding
areas."

Perhaps this sentiment should be applied to the
NW area of Hayward.

Another salient point from the staff report states
" SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES La Vista Park has been
designed to be the most environmentally sustainable
park within the City. As part of the design, park areas will require less irrigation with native grasses and plants
being used throughout the park. Park structures will be constructed from natural materials versus traditional
fabricated structures. Bio-retention filtration areas will collect and retain stormwater runoff prior to exiting the park into the storm drainage system."
Skywest has the potential to be one of the most
sustainable parks in Hayward. It is already home to
monarch butterflies and western pond turtles. There
have been sightings of golden eagles in the past year.

Please know that I support parks and open space. And I
also support doing the right thing. I support standing by the plans and policies that Hayward touts in their role as an environmental city and an environmental leader.

Please consider my comments as you listen to the
presentation tonight.

Thank you.

Mimi Dean
Item # 9
LB 24-009
General Plan
Annual Progress
Report
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

BC4AD
List-Mayor-Council
Miriam Lens
City Council meeting on March 19, 2024 for item # 9
Sunday, March 17, 2024 1:17:09 PM
BC4ADMemo.pdf
Patterns-of-Biophilic-Design-Terrapin-2014p.pdf
The-Economics-of-Biophilia_Terrapin-Bright-Green-2012e.pdf 2015_Kellert _The_Practice_of_Biophilic_Design.pdf
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

To City of Hayward City Clerk, please enter the attached documents into the public record for the City Council meeting on March 19, 2024 for item # 9 and please also print and add it to the paper file.

Thank you,
John on behalf of
BC4AD
Sent with Proton Mail
secure email.

THE PRA CTICE OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN
Stephen R. Kellert, Elizabeth F. Calabrese
“The relationship between humankind and
nature can be one of respect and love rather than
domination…The outcome...can be rich, satisfying,
and lastingly successful, but only if both partners are modified by their association so as to become better
adapted to each other...With our knowledge and sense
of responsibility…we can create new environments
that are ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying,
economically rewarding…This process of reciprocal
adaptation occurs…through minor changes in the
people and their environment, but a more conscious
process of design can also take place.”
René Dubos, The Wooing of the Earth
COVER PICTURE: The facades of these two adjacent buildings in Paris, France, illustrate the direct and indirect application of biophilic design, one through the use of vegetation, while the other through shapes and forms characteristic of the natural environment and the use of natural materials.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
Table of Contents
I. What is Biophilia and Biophilic Design ..................................................................... 3 II. The Principles and Benefits of Biophilic Design ....................................................... 6 III. The Application of Biophilic Design .......................................................................... 9 Direct Experience of Nature .................................................................................... 12 Indirect Experience of Nature ................................................................................. 15 Experience of Space and Place ................................................................................ 19 IV . The Ecological and Ethical Imperative .................................................................... 21 References ...................................................................................................................... 23 About the Authors .......................................................................................................... 25 Reference:

Kellert, S. and Calabrese, E. 2015. The Practice of Biophilic Design. www.biophilic-design.com Copyright and Commercial Use
This article is available to the general public without fee or control over its access. Anyone may read this article or use it for their own personal or academic purposes. No commercial use of any kind is permitted unless specific permission is granted in writing in advance. The copyright of this article is by www.biophilic-design.com.

The copyright of images is by cited photographers.

THE PRA CTICE OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN
Stephen R. Kellert, Elizabeth F. Calabrese
3 The Practice of Biophilic Design
I.

What is Biophilia and Biophilic Design?
B
iophilia is the inherent human inclination to affiliate with nature that even in the modern world continues to be critical to people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing (Wilson 1986, Kellert and Wilson 1993, Kellert 1997, 2012). The idea of biophilia originates in an understanding of human evolution, where for more than 99% of our species history we biologically developed in adaptive response to natural not artificial or human created forces. Most of what we regard as normal today is of relatively recent origin—raising food on a large-scale just in the last 12,000 years; the invention of the city , 6000 years old; the mass production of goods and services, beginning 400 years ago; and electronic technology , only since the 19th century . The human body , mind, and senses evolved in a bio-centric not human engineered or invented world.

Our species’ inherent inclination to respond to
natural forces and stimuli is illustrated by the
results of a classic Swedish study conducted by the
psychologist Arne Öhman (1986). In this research,
the subjects were subliminally exposed to pictures
of snakes, spiders, frayed electric wires, and hand-
guns. Almost all the study participants aversively
responded to the subconsciously revealed images
of snakes and spiders, yet remained largely indif-
ferent to the handguns and exposed electric wires.

The results of this research both illustrate and
suggest caution regarding the significance of our
inherent inclinations to respond to nature in the
People possess an inherent inclination to fear
snakes, even today the most common phobia
found among humans.

Homo sapiens
began to evolve
Homo sapiens migrated
out of Africa
Oldest known
cave paintings
Invention of the city
Mass production of
goods and services
Electronic
technology200,000 yrs ago
125,000 — 60,000 yrs ago
40,000 yrs ago
6,000 yrs ago
400 yrs ago
200 yrs ago
Humans began
raising food on a
large scale
12,000 yrs ago
4 modern world. The findings reveal the continuing
influence of our evolved responses to nature, but
also indicate that some of these reactions may have
become “vestigial” – once adaptive in the distant
human past, but largely irrelevant in today’s built
and increasingly urban world, and likely to atrophy
over time.

Despite this possibility , a growing body of scientific study increasingly reveals that most of our inher-
ent tendencies to affiliate with nature continue to
exercise significant effects on people’s physical and
mental health, performance, and wellbeing. While
the data is limited and the research often method-
ologically weak, the breadth of the findings across
a wide range of sectors – work, education, health,
recreation, housing, community – support the con-
tention that contact with nature still has a profound
impact on human fitness and quality of life (Kellert
2012, Browning et al 2014). For example, in the
healthcare field, a wide range of studies have re-
ported exposure to nature can reduce stress, lower
blood pressure, provide pain relief, improve illness
recovery , accelerate healing, enhance staff morale
and performance, and lead to fewer conflicts be-
tween patients and staff (Annerstedt and Währborg
2011, Beck and Katcher 1986, Bowler et al 2010,
Cama 2009, Friedmann 1983, Frumkin 2001,
2008, Katcher 1993, Kellert and Heerwagen 2007,
Kuo 2010, Louv 2012, Marcus and Sachs 2014,
Taylor 2001, Townsend and Weerasuriya 2010,
Ulrich 1993, 2008, Wells and Rollings 2012).

The benefits of contact with nature often depend
on repeated experience. People may possess an
inherent inclination to affiliate with nature, but
like much of what makes us human, this biological
tendency needs to be nurtured and developed to
become functional (Wilson 1986, Kellert 2012).

People’s reliance on learning and experience is
what has allowed our species to reach beyond our
biology to become inventive and distinctive as in-
dividuals and societies. This capacity to learn and
choose a particular course of action is, however,
a two-edged sword. It can spur beneficial and cre-
ative choices, but it can also lead to self-destructive behaviors. In the case of biophilia, we can either
choose to engage our inherent tendencies to affiliate
with nature, or to separate from and impoverish our
connections to the natural world. Unfortunately ,
modern society has erected many obstacles to the
beneficial experience of nature. Most problematic
Research has indicated a view of nature can enhance
recovery from illness and surgery, and reduce the need
for potent pain medication.

Many hospital rooms are dominated by technology and
devoid of any connection to nature.

5 is an increasing disconnect from the natural world,
often viewed as merely a resource to be exploited
or a nice but not necessary recreational amenity .

This increasing separation from nature is reflected
in modern agriculture, manufacturing, education,
healthcare, urban development, and architecture.

One of the most significant impediments to the
positive experience of nature today is the pre-
vailing paradigm of design and development of
the modern built environment. This is especially
problematic, because while humans may have
evolved in the natural world, the “natural habitat”
of contemporary people has largely become the
indoor built environment where we now spend
90% of our time. The need for beneficial contact
with nature continues to be critical to people’s
health and fitness, but its satisfactory occurrence
in today’s built environment has become highly
challenging. The dominant approach to modern
building and landscape design largely treats nature
as either an obstacle to overcome or a trivial and
irrelevant consideration. The result has been an
increasing disconnect between people and nature
in the built environment reflected in inadequate
contact with natural light, ventilation, materials,
vegetation, views, natural shapes and forms, and in
general beneficial contact with the natural world.

Much of the built environment today is so sensory
deprived, it is sometimes reminiscent of the barren
cages of the old-fashioned zoo, now ironically
banned as “inhumane” (Heerwagen in Kellert
and Finnegan, 2011).

Ofﬁces with natural light, materials, and vegetation
have been found to increase productivity, improve
morale, and reduce absenteeism.

The majority of ofﬁces in the United States are
windowless and often sensory-deprived settings.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
6 T
he challenge of biophilic design 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 (Kellert et al 2008, Kellert 2005, Kellert and Finnegan 2011, Browning et al 2014). Biophilic design seeks to create good habitat for people as a biological organism in the modern built environment that advances people’s health, fitness and wellbeing.

The successful application of biophilic design necessitates consistently adhering to certain basic prin - ciples. These principles represent fundamental conditions for the effective practice of biophilic design.

They include:

1. Biophilic design requires repeated and sustained engagement with nature.

2. Biophilic design focuses on human adaptations to the natural world that over evolution- ary time have advanced people’s health, fitness and wellbeing.

II.

The Principles and Beneﬁts of Biophilic Design

7 The Practice of Biophilic Design
II.

The Principles and Beneﬁts of Biophilic Design

3. Biophilic design encourages an emotional attachment to particular settings and places.

4. Biophilic design promotes positive interactions between people and nature that encourage an expanded sense of relationship and responsibility for the human and natural communities.

5. Biophilic design encourages mutual reinforcing, interconnected, and integrated architectural solutions.

8 Biophilic design further seeks to sustain the productivity , functioning and resilience of natural systems over time. Alteration of natural systems inevitably occur as a result of major building construction and develop- ment. Moreover, all biological organisms transform the natural environment in the process of inhabiting it.

The question is not whether ecological change occurs, but rather will the net result over time be a more productive and resilient natural environment as measured by such indicators as levels of biological diversity , biomass, nutrient cycling, hydrologic regulation, decomposition, pollination, and other essential ecosystem ser- vices. The application of biophilic design can alter the environmental conditions of a building or landscape in the short term, but over the long run, it should support an ecologically robust and sustainable natural community .

The successful application of biophilic design should also result in a wide spectrum of physical, mental and behavioral benefits. Physical outcomes include enhanced physical fitness, lower blood pressure, increased comfort and satisfaction, fewer illness symptoms, and improved health. Mental benefits range from increased satisfaction and motivation, less stress and anxiety , to improved problem solving and creativity . Positive behav- ioral change includes better coping and mastery skills, enhanced attention and concentration, improved social interaction, and less hostility and aggression.

The integration of the biophilic elements of water, vegetation, organic shapes and forms, information richness, prospect and refuge, the patina of time, and organized complexity all contribute to this scene’s powerful sense of place.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
9 T
he practice of biophilic design involves
the application of varying design strate-
gies, what we refer to as experiences and
attributes. The choice of which design applications
to employ inevitably varies depending on a
project’s circumstances and constraints including
particular building and landscape uses, project
size, varying economic, logistical and regulatory
factors, as well as cultural and ecological condi -
tions. As emphasized, the effective practice of
biophilic design requires adhering to the previ-
ously noted principles. Most important, biophilic
design should never occur in piecemeal or discon-
nected fashion, but rather in a manner whereby
the diverse applications mutually reinforce and
complement one another, resulting in an overall
integrated ecological whole.

Three kinds of experience of nature represent the
basic categories of our biophilic design framework.

These include the direct experience of nature,
the indirect experience of nature, and the experi-
ence of space and place. The direct experience
of nature refers to actual contact with environ-
mental features in the built environment including
natural light, air, plants, animals, water, landscapes, and others that will be described. The indirect
experience of nature refers to contact with the
representation or image of nature, the transfor-
mation of nature from its original condition, or
exposure to particular patterns and processes
characteristic of the natural world. These include
pictures and artwork, natural materials such as
wood furnishings and woolen fabrics, ornamenta-
tion inspired by shapes and forms occurring in
nature, or environmental processes that have been
important in human evolution such as aging and
the passage of time, information richness, natural
geometries, and others. Finally , the experience of
space and place refers to spatial features char-
acteristic of the natural environment that have
advanced human health and wellbeing. Examples
include prospect and refuge, organized complexity ,
mobility and way finding, and more. Within these
three categories of experience, 24 attributes of bio- philic design have been identified. A simple listing
of these biophilic design experiences and attributes
is noted on the following page, although each attri-
bute is described in the pages that follow:

III.

The Application of Biophilic Design

10 • 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
Experiences and Attributes of Biophilic Design
Direct Experience
of Nature
Indirect Experience
of Nature
Experience of
Space and Place

The Practice of Biophilic Design
11 All these biophilic design qualities are experienced through a variety of human senses including
sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, and movement.

The visual sense is by far the dominant way people
perceive and respond to the natural world. When
we see plants, animals, water, landscapes, and other
natural features, a variety of physical, emotional
and cognitive responses are triggered. People
also react to indirect visual contact with nature,
especially the sight of striking pictures, natural
materials, organic shapes and forms, and more.

Aesthetically attractive nature particularly arouses
our interest, curiosity , imagination, and creativity .

By contrast, when we lack visual contact with the
natural world, such as a windowless and featureless
space, we frequently experience boredom, fatigue,
and in extreme cases physical and psychological
abnormality . Despite our human tendency to favor
the visual sense, other sensory responses to nature
are of great significance to us, particularly touch,
sound, smell, taste, time, and motion. Hearing
water, touching plants, smelling flowers, sensing the
movement of the air often moves us both emotion-
ally and intellectually . Multisensory encounters
with nature in the built environment can greatly
contribute to comfort, satisfaction, enjoyment, and
cognitive performance, and when feasible, should
be encouraged.

What follows are brief descriptions of each of the
biophilic design attributes.

12 Attributes of Biophilic Design
LIGHT . The experience of natural light is fundamental to human health and wellbeing, enabling an orientation to the day , night and seasons in response to the sun’s location and cycles. An awareness of natural light can also facilitate movement and wayfinding, and contribute to comfort and
satisfaction. Beyond simple exposure, natural light can as- sume aesthetically appealing shapes and forms through the creative interplay of light and shadow , diffuse and variable light, and the integration of light with spatial properties.

Natural light can be brought deep into interior spaces by such means as glass walls and clerestories, the use of reflect- ing colors and materials, and other design strategies. The experience of light in motion can be achieved through the contrast of lighter and darker areas and changes of daylight over time.

AIR. Natural ventilation is important to human comfort and productivity . The experience of natural ventilation in the built environment can be enhanced by variations in air- flow , temperature, humidity , and barometric pressure. These conditions can be achieved through access to the outside by such simple means as operable windows, or by more com-
plex technological and engineering strategies.

WATER. Water is essential to life and its positive experi- ence in the built environment can relieve stress, promote satisfaction, and enhance health and performance. The
attraction to water can be especially pronounced when as- sociated with the multiple senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and movement. Varying design strategies can satisfy the desire for contact with water including views of prominent water bodies, fountains, aquaria, constructed wetlands, and others. Water in the built environment is often most pleas- ing when perceived as clean, in motion, and experienced through multiple senses (although at muted sound levels).

I. Direct Experience of Nature

The Practice of Biophilic Design
13 PLANTS. V egetation, especially flowering plants, is one of the most successful strategies for bringing the direct experience of nature into the built environment. The
presence of plants can reduce stress, contribute to physical health, improve comfort, and enhance performance and
productivity . The application of single or isolated plants, however, rarely exerts much beneficial effect. V egetation in buildings and constructed landscapes should be abundant, ecologically connected, and tending to focus on local rather than exotic and invasive species.

ANIMALS. The presence of nonhuman animal life has
been an integral part of people’s experience throughout human history . Still, its occurrence in the built environment can be challenging and occasionally contentious. Positive contact with animal life can be achieved through such
design strategies as feeders, green roofs, gardens, aquaria, aviaries, and the creative use of modern technologies such as web cameras, video, binoculars, and spotting scopes.

Isolated and infrequent contact with animal life tends to exert little impact. When feasible, contact with animal life should include a diversity of species, and emphasize local rather than non-native species.

WEATHER. An awareness and response to weather
has been an essential feature of people’s experience of nature throughout history , and critical to human fitness and survival. The perception of and contact with weather in the built environment can be both satisfying and stimulating.

This may occur through direct exposure to outside condi- tions, as well as by simulating weather-like qualities through manipulating airflow , temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity . Design strategies include views to the outside, operable windows, porches, decks, balconies, colonnades, pavilions, gardens, and more.
14 NATURAL LANDSCAPES AND ECOSYSTEMS.

Natural landscapes and ecosystems consist of intercon- nected plants, animals, water, soils, rocks, and geological forms. People tend to prefer landscapes with spreading
trees, an open understory , the presence of water, forested edges, and other features characteristic of a savannah-type setting important in human evolution. Still, even ordinary natural scenery is preferred by most people over artificial and human-dominated landscapes. The experience of self- sustaining ecosystems can be especially satisfying. Functional ecosystems are typically rich in biological diversity and support an array of ecological services such as hydrologic regulation, nutrient cycling, pollination, decomposition, and more. Self-sustaining ecosystems in the built environment can be achieved through such design strategies as constructed wetlands, forest glades and grasslands; green roofs; simu- lated aquatic environments; and other means. Contact with natural systems can be fostered by views, observational platforms, direct interaction, and even active participation.

FIRE. One of humanity’s greatest achievements has been the control of fire that allowed the harnessing of energy beyond animal life, and facilitated the transformation of objects from one state to another. The experience of fire can be both a source of comfort and anxiety . The satisfying presence of fire in the built environment may be achieved through the construction of fireplaces and hearths, but also simulated by the creative use of light, color, movement, and materials of varying heat conductance.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
15 IMAGES OF NATURE. The image and representa-
tion of nature in the built environment—plants, animals, landscapes, water, geological features—can be both emo- tionally and intellectually satisfying. These images can occur through the use of photographs, paintings, sculpture, murals, video, computer simulations, and other representa- tional means. Single or isolated images of nature typically exert little impact. Representational expressions of nature should be repeated, thematic, and abundant.

NATURAL MATERIALS. Natural materials can be
especially stimulating, reflecting the dynamic properties of organic matter in adaptive response to the stresses and challenges of survival over time. The transformation of materials from nature frequently elicits positive visual and tactile responses, which few artificial materials can dupli- cate. Prominent natural building and decorative materials include wood, stone, wool, cotton, and leather, used in a wide array of products, furnishings, fabrics, and other interior and exterior designs.

NATURAL COLORS. Humans evolved as a daytime
animal, and color has long served as an important means for locating food, water, and other resources, as well as facilitating movement and wayfinding. The effective use of color in the built environment can be challenging, given the modern ability to generate artificial, especially bright colors.

The effective biophilic application of color should generally favor muted “earth” tones characteristic of soil, rock, and plants. The use of bright colors should be cautiously ap - plied, and emphasize such appealing environmental forms as flowers, sunsets and sunups, rainbows, and certain plants and animals. The occurrence of highly artificial, contrast- ing, and “vibrating” colors should be avoided.

II. Indirect Experience of Nature

16 SIMULATING NATURAL LIGHT AND AIR.

Indoor lighting and processed air have been made possible by advances in building technology and construction. The trade-off has often been the occurrence of static conditions that can be physically and psychologically debilitating.

Artificial light can be designed to mimic the spectral and dynamic qualities of natural light. Processed air can also simulate qualities of natural ventilation through variations in airflow , temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.

NATURALISTIC SHAPES AND FORMS.

The experience of shapes and forms characteristic of the natural world can be especially appealing. These natural- istic forms can be extraordinarily diverse from the leaf-like patterns found on columns, the shapes of plants on building facades, to animal facsimiles woven into fabrics and cover- ings. The occurrence of naturalistic shapes and forms can transform a static space into one that possesses the dynamic and ambient qualities of a living system.

EVOKING NATURE. The satisfying experience of
nature can also be revealed through imaginative and
fantastic depictions. These representations may not literally occur in nature, but still draw from design principles promi- nently encountered in the natural world. For example, the “wings” of the Sydney Opera House suggest the qualities of a bird; Notre Dame’s stained glass windows, a rose-like flower; while, the skyline of some cities mimic the vertical heterogeneity of a forest. None of these designs actually occurs in nature, but they all draw from design principles and characteristics of the natural world.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
17 INFORMATION RICHNESS. The diversity and vari-
ability of the natural world is so pronounced, it has been described as the most information-rich environment people will ever encounter. Whether natural or built, people tend to respond positively to information-rich and diverse envi- ronments that present a wealth of options and opportunities, so long as the complexity is experienced in a coherent and legible way .

AGE, CHANGE, AND THE PATINA OF TIME.

Nature is always changing and in flux, life especially
reflecting the dynamic forces of growth and aging. People respond positively to these dynamic forces and the associ- ated patina of time, revealing nature’s capacity to respond adaptively to ever changing conditions. These dynamic
tendencies are often most satisfying when balanced by the complementary qualities of unity and stability . Change and a patina of time can be achieved through such design strategies as naturally aging materials, weathering, a sense of the passage of time, and in other ways.

18 NATURAL GEOMETRIES. Natural geometries
refer to mathematical properties commonly encountered
in nature. These include hierarchically organized scales, sinuous rather than rigid artificial geometries, self-repeating but varying patterns, and more. For example, fractals are a geometric form often encountered in the natural world, where a basic shape occurs in repeated but varied and
predictable ways that contribute both variety and similarity to a setting. Other prominent natural geometries include hierarchically ordered scales such as the “Golden Ratio” and “Fibonacci Sequence.”
BIOMIMICRY . Biomimicry refers to forms and
functions found in nature, especially among other species, whose properties have been adopted or suggest solutions to human needs and problems. Examples include the bio-
climatic controls of termite mounds, the structural strength of spider webs, the heat-trapping ability of certain animal hairs. Technologically capturing these characteristics of nonhuman nature can result in direct utilitarian benefits, as well as provoke human admiration for the ingenuity of other life and the creativity of the natural world.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
19 PROSPECT AND REFUGE. Humans evolved
in adaptive response to the complementary benefits
of prospect and refuge. Prospect refers to long views of surrounding settings that allow people to perceive both opportunities and dangers, while refuge provides sites of safety and security . These complementary conditions can be both functional and satisfying in the built environment.

This biophilic outcome can be achieved through such
design strategies as vistas to the outside, visual connections between interior spaces, and the occurrence of secure and sheltered settings.

ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY . People covet
complexity in both natural and human settings, which
signify places rich in options and opportunities. Y et, exces- sive complexity is often confusing and chaotic. The most satisfying settings tend to possess qualities of complexity , but experienced in an orderly and organized way . Complex spaces tend to be variable and diverse, while organized ones possess attributes of connection and coherence.

INTEGRATION OF PARTS TO WHOLES.

People covet settings where disparate parts comprise an integrated whole. This feeling of an emergent whole can often be achieved through the sequential and successional linking of spaces, as well as by clear and discernible bound- aries. This satisfying integration of space can be enhanced by a central focal point that occurs either functionally or thematically .

III. Experience of Space and Place

20 TRANSITIONAL SPACES. Successfully navigating
an environment often depends on clearly understood con- nections between spaces facilitated by clear and discernible transitions. Prominent transitional spaces include hallways, thresholds, doorways, gateways, and areas that link the indoors and outdoors especially porches, patios, courtyards, colonnades, and more.

MOBILITY AND WAYFINDING. People’s comfort
and wellbeing often relies on freely moving between diverse and often complicated spaces. Clearly understood pathways and points of entry and egress are especially critical to fos- tering mobility and feelings of security , while the absence of these features often breeds confusion and anxiety .

CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL ATTACH-
MENT TO PLACE. Humans evolved as a territorial
creature, because it promoted the control of resources, enhanced safety and security , and facilitated movement and mobility . An affinity for familiar places reflects this territorial inclination that can be enhanced by both cultural and ecological means. Culturally relevant designs promote a connection to place and the sense that a setting has a distinct human identity . Ecological connections to place can similarly foster an emotional attachment to an area, particularly an awareness of local landscapes, indigenous flora and fauna, and characteristic meteorological condi - tions. Cultural and ecological attachments to place often motivate people to conserve and sustain both natural and human built environments.

The Practice of Biophilic Design
21 B
iophilic design is about creating good
habitat for people as a biological organism
in the built environment. Like all species,
humans evolved in adaptive response to natural
rather than artificial forces, and these adaptations
became embedded in our species biology over evo-
lutionary time. Biophilic design seeks to satisfy these inherent adaptations to nature in the modern built
environment and, in doing so, enhance people’s
physical and mental health and fitness.

Good habitat means ecologically sound and
productive environments where people function to
their optimal potential. Ecosystems are comprised
of webs of mutually reinforcing and complementary
relationships where the resulting whole is greater
than the sum of its parts. As with all organisms,
effective human functioning depends on ecologically
connected rather than disaggregated environments.

Successful biophilic design should encourage
connections that contribute to an overall coherent
whole. The risk of specifying specific strategies
of biophilic design is the potential to encourage
their separate and piecemeal application. Biophilic
design should instead promote ecologically inter-
related design solutions at multiple scales from
distinct interior spaces, the building as a whole,
the surrounding landscape, to the urban and
bio-regional scale.

Biophilic design is more than just a technical
tool. The framework advanced here is certainly
intended to be a practical methodology for the
more effective design of the built environment.

Its successful application will ultimately depend,
however, on adopting a new consciousness toward
nature as much as implementing a new design
technique. Biophilia and biophilic design neces -
sitate recognizing how much human physical and
mental wellbeing continues to rely on the quality
of our relationships to the world beyond ourselves
of which we remain a part. As the landscape
architect, Ian McHarg, remarked:
“The problem of man and nature is not
one of providing a decorative background
for the human play, or even ameliorating
the grim city: it is the necessity of sustaining
nature as a source of life, milieu, teacher,
sanctum, challenge and, most of all,
of rediscovering nature’s corollary
of the unknown in the self,
the source of meaning.”
IV.

The Ecological and Ethical Imperative

22 Practical issues are clearly important in effectively adopting and applying biophilic design. But, nature
offers us far more than just physical and material
sustenance, contributing as well to our capacities
for emotional and intellectual growth and wellbe-
ing, and even attaining a just and satisfying exis-
tence. Biophilia and biophilic design are about our
values and ethical responsibility for the care and
sustainability of the natural world. A commitment
to maintain and even enrich our relationship to
nature necessitates a greatly expanded understand-
ing of human self-interest that includes material
benefits, but also a host of emotional, intellectual,
and even spiritual rewards as well.

The modern age has precipitated a sustainabil-
ity crisis reflected in enormous loss of biological
diversity , natural resource depletion, environmen-
tal pollution, and atmospheric degradation. The
conventional design of the built environment has
greatly contributed to this crisis. The remedial
response to this challenge has emphasized reducing
our environmental impacts through energy and
resource efficiency , the use of less polluting materi- als, recycling, and other important strategies. Y et,
this low environmental impact approach, while
essential, by itself, is insufficient for achieving true and lasting sustainability . Conserving and main-
taining our buildings and landscapes also requires
an attachment to and affection for these creations
that originates in the realization of their contribu-
tion to our physical and mental health and wellbe-
ing through an array of beneficial connections to
nature. This sense of positive relationship to nature
ultimately motivates us to become good stewards
and sustain these places over time.

This is the promise of biophilia and biophilic
design. The distortion of our values of nature in
the modern age has precipitated widespread envi-
ronmental degradation and a growing alienation
from the natural world. Sustainability will remain
an elusive goal until a fundamental shift occurs
in our values and ethical relations to the natural
world. The successful application of biophilic
design will depend on recognizing how much
nature remains the basis for a healthy , productive,
and meaningful human existence. As the writer,
Henry Beston, eloquently concluded:
“Nature is a part of our humanity, and
without some awareness and experience of
that divine mystery man ceases to be man.

When the Pleiades and the wind in the grass
are no longer a part of the human spirit, a
part of very flesh and bone, man becomes, as
it were, a cosmic outlaw, having neither the
completeness and integrity of the animal nor
the birthright of a true humanity.”

The Practice of Biophilic Design
23 References
Annerstedt, M and P . Währborg. 2011. Nature-assisted therapy: systematic review of controlled and observational studies. Scand. J. Public Health:1-18.

Beston, H. 1971. The Outermost House. New Y ork: Ballantine.

Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M, Knight, T .M., Pulin, A.S. 2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposures to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10.

Browning, W .D., Ryan, C., Kallianpurkar, N., Laburto, L., Watson, S., Knop, T . 2012. The Economics of Biophilia, Why Designing with Nature in Mind Makes Financial Sense. New Y ork: Terrapin Bright Green.

Browning, W .D., Ryan, C., Clancy , J. 2014. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. New Y ork: Terrapin Bright Green.

Cama, R. 2009. Evidence-based Healthcare Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley .

Friedmann, E. 1983. Animal-human bond: health and wellness. In A. Katcher and A. Beck, eds., New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Frumkin, H. 2001. Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20.

Frumkin, H. 2008. Nature contact and human health: building the evidence base. In, Kellert et al, Biophilic Design.

Heerwagen, J. 2011. As quoted in the video, Kellert, S. and B. Finnegan, Biophilic Design: the Architecture of Life. www .bullfrogfilms.com.

Kellert, S. 2012. Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kellert, S. 2005. Building for Life: Understanding and Designing the Human-Nature Connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S. 1997. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

Kellert, S, J. Heerwagen, M. Mador, eds. 2008. Biophilic Design: the Theory , Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley .

Kellert, S. and E.O. Wilson, eds. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S. and B. Finnegan. 2011. Biophilic Design: the Architecture of Life. A 60 minute video. www .bullfrogfilms.com Kellert, S. and J. Heerwagen. 2007. Nature and healing: the science, theory , and promise of biophilic design. In Guenther, R. and G. Vittori, eds. Sustainable Healthcare Architecture. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley .

Kuo, F . 2010. Parks and other green environments: essential components of a health human habitat. Washington, DC: National Recreation and Parks Association.

Louv , R. 2012. The Nature Principle: Reconnecting with Life in a Virtual Age. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Press.

Marcus, C.M. and N.A. Sachs. 2014. Therapeutic Landscapes: an Evidence-based Approach to Designing Healing Gardens and Restorative Outdoor Spaces. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley .

McHarg, I. 1969. Design with Nature. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley . 24 Öhman, A, 1986. Face the beast and fear the face: animal and social fears as prototypes for evolutionary analyses of emotion. Psychophysiology 23.

Taylor, A. 2001. Coping with ADD: the surprising connection to green places. Environment and Behavior 33.

Townsend, M and R. Weerasuriya. Beyond blue to green: the benefits of contact with nature for mental health and wellbeing. www . Beyondblue.org.au.

Ulrich, R. 2008. Biophilic theory and research for healthcare design. In Kellert et al, Biophilic Design.

Ulrich, R. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In Kellert and Wilson, Biophilia Hypothesis.

Wells, N. and K. Rollings. 2012. The natural environment: influences on human health and function. In Clayton, S., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology . London: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, E.O. 1986. Biophilia: the Human Bond with Other Species. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Credits
Photos
Cover: S.R.Kellert
Interior: 3b-Keith Pomakis, 4a-Shutterstock, 4b-UCSF Hospital, 5a-Michael Louis, 5b-Gittle Price, 6a-Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, 6b-Peter Otis, 7a-S.R.Kellert, 7b-http://www .freepik.es/fotos-vectores-gratis/buscando, 7c-Whit and Andrea Slemmons, 8a-copyright Lois Mauro, 9a-Richard Davies, 10a-Studio Dekorasyon, 10b-S.R.Kellert, 10c-Behnisch Architects; photo Anton Grassl/Esto, 11a- copyright Lois Mauro, 12a-Behnisch Architects; photo Anton Grassl/Esto, 12b-Shepley Bulfinch Richardson Abbott Architects; photo Anton Grassl/Esto, 12c-Unknown, 13a-Unknown, 13b-S.R.Kellert, 13c-Yan Lim propertyguru.com, 14a-copyright Lois Mauro, 14b-Unknown, 15a- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Poppy_Field_in_Argenteuil,_Claude_Monet.jpg, 15b-Richard Davies, 15c-BODY Philippe/age fotostock, 16a-Michelle Litvin, 16b-Kent Bloomer, 16c-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ User_talk:Adam.J.W .C./ Previous_discussions#/media/File:Sydneyoperahouse.jpg, 17a-http://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/ File:Beijing_national_stadium.jpg Peter23, 17b-Stephen Buchan, 18a-Stan Shebs, 18b-Glen Espinosa, 19a-Pintrest, 19b-Matt John, CTA Architects Engineers (www .CTAgroup.com), 20a-Serge Esteve, 20b-Julienne Schaer, 20c-http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tigernest_(Taktsang)- Kloster_in_Bhutan.jpg, 21a-Linh Nguyen Design and layout
Tanya Napier (hummingbeardesign.com)
Acknowledgements
This paper very much benefited from insights and understandings derived from recent work with Judith Heerwagen, colleagues at SERA Architects, Google, and Terrapin Bright Green, particularly Bill Browning, Mary Davidge, Anne Less, Matt Piccone, Anthony Ravitz, Catie Ryan, and Kate Turpin.

To download this document go to www.biophilic-design.com The Practice of Biophilic Design
25 About the Authors
Dr. Stephen R. Kellert is a Professor Emeritus at Yale University . He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Bio-Logical Capital, a firm that invests in sustainable land uses on large landscapes. His work focuses on understanding the connection between nature and humanity with a particular interest in the human need for nature, and sustainable design and development. His awards include the George B. Hartzog Award for Environmental Conservation, the American Publish- ers Best Book of Y ear Award in Architecture and Urban Planning for Biophilic Design, the National Conservation Achievement Award from the National Wildlife Federation, and others. He is also listed in “ American Environmental Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present.” Dr. Kellert has served on committees of the National Academy of Sciences, as a board of director of many organizations, and has authored more than 150 publications, including 11 books.

[email protected]

Elizabeth F . Calabrese is a licensed architect and LEED-AP . She has been the principal architect for Calabrese Architects, Inc. for over 20 years and has been teaching biophilic and ecological design at the University of Vermont since 2011.

Her projects range from New England residences and inns, to offices, conference center, schools and more recently , a resort in Kenya. In 2011, Elizabeth received a Masters of Science from the University of V ermont with a project titled, The Architecture of Healing: Designing Hope for the 21st Century , which outlines the creation of an Interdisciplinary Foundation Design Program with biophilic and ecological literacy at its core. [email protected]
Biophilic Design: the
Architecture of Life
with Bill Finnegan—
A 60-minute
documentary
video (www .bull-
frogfilms.com)
Biophilic Design: The
Theory, Science, and
Practice of Bringing
Buildings to Life
(John Wiley , 2008)
Building for Life:

Designing and
Understanding the
Human-Nature
Connection (Island
Press, 2005)
The Biophilia
Hypothesis (Island
Press, 1993)
Birthright: People
and Nature in the
Modern World
(Yale University
Press, 2012)
BC4ADMemorandum
[ToCityofHaywardCityClerk,pleaseenterthisletterintothepublicrecordfortheCityCouncilmeetingonMarch19,2024foritem#9andpleasealsoprintandaddittothepaperfile.Thankyou.] Re:GeneralPlanAnnualProgressReport
CourtesyofTheMetropolitanMuseumofArt, NewYork,DanielMarottheElder, ca.1700-1720

Dear HonorableMayor andCityCouncil:

Wearearapidlygrowingcoalitionof residentswhoseektopromoteandpreservetheuniquecharmandcharacter of Haywardthat manyhavecometoenjoyfor generations. What hastranspiredrecentlyinHayward, against thepeople, isatravestyof thehighest order &must becorrected. Thegoal withthismemoistoprovideguidanceandclaritytotheissuesat hand. Thecitymust findthecouragetocorrectthewrongsanddoright bythepeople. Thesesocalled“housing”projectsweremaladministeredandmustbecorrected. Wereject theatrociousarchitecturethat hasbeenlitteringtheCityof Hayward. Thisisamatter of publicsafety&healthasshall beexplainedfurther below. Thepublicservantshavetwomainfunctions, toensurepublichealth&safety. That isyour obligation. Rushingtheseprojectswithapiecemeal approachandlookingforwardonly10-20yearsiswrong. Proper cityplanningmust lookforwardandmake100-year plans.

Nationwideall theproposalshavethesamedesigns, architecture&goals. Oncecompleted, thewholenationwill lookthesame. It isstrippingregions, states, neighborhoodsof their character &truediversehistory&will bleachit withpost-modernism. Thehazards&negativeimpactsonhealth&safetyassociatedwiththedemolishment of historicarchitecture&replacingit withuncharacteristicdesignscannot beignored. Therearenumerousscientificstudiesthat showuglyarchitectural designsaffectmental healthandtheoverall humancondition. Beautyisnot subjectiveandthat hasnowbeenprovenwithmodernscience. Furthermore, don’t forget, densificationhasconsequences, morestrainonresourcesandmorenoisepollution, whichiscontraryto“sustainability”&thereforenot incompliancewithgeneralplans.

Wewill writeupamorecomprehensivereport inthenear futurehighlightingtheneedtopreserve,promote, &requireTraditional &SpanishRevival architecture. Wearesubmittingthispreliminaryinformationbynecessity.

Kellert: ThePracticeof BiophilicDesign
Nevertheless, thecitystill retainssubstantial authoritytoregulatetheanddesignof buildings, weexpectanddemandthat thecityexerciseitsfull authority, asother wisecitieshavedone(E.g. SantaBarbara). Topreserveour Spanish&Mexicanhistory&improvepublichealth&safety, wemust model after SantaBarabara&similar Californiacities.

Sincerely,Johnonbehalf ofBC4AD

References

1. Annerstedt, MandP. Währborg. 2011. Nature-assistedtherapy: systematicreviewof controlledandobservational studies. Scand. J. PublicHealth:1-18

2. Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M, Knight, T.M., Pulin, A.S. 2010. Asystematicreviewof evidencefor theaddedbenefitstohealthof exposurestonatural environments. BMCPublicHealth10

3. Assessingtherestorativevalueof theenvironment: Astudyontheelderlyincomparisonwithyoungadultsandadolescents

4. Sussman,A.&Ward,J.M.(2017).“Game-ChangingEye-TrackingStudiesRevealHowWeActuallySeeArchitecture”,CommonEdge,27November2017

5. Beston, H. 1971. TheOutermost House. NewYork: Ballantine

6. Cama, R. 2009. Evidence-basedHealthcareDesign. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley

7. Friedmann, E. 1983. Animal-humanbond: healthandwellness. InA. Katcher andA. Beck, eds., NewPerspectivesonOur LiveswithCompanionAnimals. Philadelphia: Universityof PennsylvaniaPress

8. Frumkin, H. 2001. Beyondtoxicity: humanhealthandthenatural environment. AmericanJournal ofPreventiveMedicine20

9. Frumkin, H. 2008. Naturecontact andhumanhealth: buildingtheevidencebase. In, Kellert et al, BiophilicDesign

10. Heerwagen, J. 2011. Asquotedinthevideo, Kellert, S. andB. Finnegan, BiophilicDesign: theArchitectureof Life

11. Kellert, S. 2012. Birthright: PeopleandNatureintheModernWorld. NewHaven: YaleUniversityPress

12. Kellert, S. 2005. Buildingfor Life: UnderstandingandDesigningtheHuman-NatureConnection.Washington, DC: IslandPress

13. Kellert, S. 1997. KinshiptoMastery: BiophiliainHumanEvolutionandDevelopment. Washington, DC:IslandPress

14. Kellert,S,J.Heerwagen,M.Mador,eds.2008.BiophilicDesign:theTheory,Science,andPracticeofBringingBuildingstoLife.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley

15. Kellert,S.andE.O.Wilson,eds.1993.TheBiophiliaHypothesis.Washington,DC:IslandPress

16. Kellert,S.andB.Finnegan.2011.BiophilicDesign:theArchitectureofLife.A60minutevideo

17. Kellert,S.andJ.Heerwagen.2007.Natureandhealing:thescience,theory,andpromiseofbiophilicdesign.InGuenther,R.andG.Vittori,eds.SustainableHealthcareArchitecture.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley

18. Kuo,F.2010.Parksandothergreenenvironments:essentialcomponentsofahealthhumanhabitat.Washington,DC:NationalRecreationandParksAssociation

19. Louv,R.2012.TheNaturePrinciple:ReconnectingwithLifeinaVirtualAge.ChapelHill:AlgonquinPress

20. Marcus,C.M.andN.A.Sachs.2014.TherapeuticLandscapes:anEvidence-basedApproachtoDesigningHealingGardensandRestorativeOutdoorSpaces.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley

21. McHarg,I.1969.DesignwithNature.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley

22. Öhman,A,1986.Facethebeastandfeartheface:animalandsocialfearsasprototypesforevolutionaryanalysesofemotion.Psychophysiology23

23. Taylor,A.2001.CopingwithADD:thesurprisingconnectiontogreenplaces.EnvironmentandBehavior33

24. Townsend,MandR.Weerasuriya.Beyondbluetogreen:thebeneftsofcontactwithnatureformentalhealthandwellbeing

25. Ulrich,R.2008.Biophilictheoryandresearchforhealthcaredesign.InKellertetal,BiophilicDesign

26. Ulrich,R.1993.Biophilia,biophobia,andnaturallandscapes.InKellertandWilson,BiophiliaHypothesis

27. Wells,N.andK.Rollings.2012.Thenaturalenvironment:infuencesonhumanhealthandfunction.InClayton,S.,ed.TheOxfordHandbookofEnvironmentalandConservationPsychology.London:OxfordUniversityPress

28. Wilson,E.O.1986.Biophilia:theHumanBondwithOtherSpecies.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress

29. Gifford,R.,Hine,D.W.,Muller-Clemm,W.,ReynoldsJR,D.A.J.&Shaw,K.T.(2000).Decodingmodernarchitecture:Alensmodelapproachforunderstandingtheaestheticdifferencesofarchitectsandlaypersons.EnvironmentandBehavior,32(2),163-187

30. Wilson,M.A.(1996).Thesocializationofarchitecturalpreference.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,16(1),33-44

14 PATTERNS OF

BIOPHILIC DESIGN

IMPROVING HEALTH & WELL-BEING IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

“…the enjoyment of
scenery employs the
mind without fatigue
and yet exercises it,
tranquilizes it and yet
enlivens it;
and thus, through the
inﬂuence of the mind
over the body, gives the
effect of refreshing rest
and reinvigoration to
the whole system.”
Frederick Law Olmsted, 1865
Introduction to Yosemite and the
Mariposa Grove: A Preliminary Report
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was supported by Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. We thank Alice Hartley for editorial assistance, Allison Bernett and Cas Smith for production assistance, the Review Committee and Contributors for their technical guidance and expertise, Georgy Olivieri for her relentless energy and dedication to spreading the word, Stefano Seraﬁni and the International Society of Bi ourbanism for providing guidance and encouragement.

CO-AUTHORS
William Browning, Hon. AIA Terrapin Bright Green
Catherine Ryan Terrapin Bright Green
Joseph Clancy Pegasus Planning Group Ltd.

REVIEW COMMITTEE
Sally Augustin, PhD Design With Science;
Research Design Connections
Judith Heerwagen, PhD J.H. Heerwagen & Associates; University of Washington, Department of Architecture
Lance Hosey, FAIA RTKL

CONTRIBUTORS
Scott Andrews Terrapin Bright Green
Gail Brager, PhD University of California at Berke ley, Center for the Built Environment
Zaﬁr Buraei, PhD Pace University,
Department of Biology and Health Sciences
Nancy Clanton, PE, FIES, IALD Clanton & Associates, Inc.

Chris Garvin, AIA Terrapin Bright Green
Namita Kallianpurkar Terrapin Bright Green
Alan Laird Lewis, OD The New England College of Opt ometry Tanya Mejia RTKL
Heather Nelson RTKL
Susan Painter, PhD, FCPA AC Martin
Nikos Salingaros, PhD University of Texas at San A ntonio, Department of Mathematics
Chris Starkey Terrapin Bright Green
Heidi Theunissen COOKFOX Architects
Edward Vessel, PhD New York University,
Center for Brain Imaging
Jonce Walker, CSBA Terrapin Bright Green
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design

ABOUT TERRAPIN
Terrapin Bright Green is an environmental consultin g and strategic planning ﬁrm committed to improving the human environment through high-performance development, policy, and related research, in order to elevate conversations and help clients break new ground in thinking creat ively about environmental opportunities. Since 2006, our ﬁrm and network of specialists have worked to shape the outcome of large-scale planning and design projects around the world.

Terrapin has ofﬁces in New York City and Washington, DC, and works with private companies, public institutions, and government agencies on a variety of project types. Visit us at www.terrapinbrightgreen.com.

Anyone may read this article or use it for their ow n personal or academic purposes. No commercial use of any kind is permitted unless speciﬁc permission is granted in writing in advance. The copyright of this article is by Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. The copyright of images is by cited photographers.

Reference: Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.

Revised June, 2015
© 2014 by Terrapin Bright Green, LLC
Front cover image: Mystery. The Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia, PA, designed by Williams & Tsein © Bill Browning.

Back cover image: Dynamic & Diffuse Light, Complexity & Order, Risk/Peril and Prospect.

Reichstag Dome designed by Foster + Partners in 1999, in Berlin, Germany © Catie Ryan.

New York, NY USA
www.terrapinbrightgreen.com
[email protected]
+1.646.460.8400
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
BIOPHILIA IN CONTEXT 6
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 13
THE PATTERNS 21
NATURE IN THE SPACE 24
NATURAL ANALOGUES 38
NATURE OF THE SPACE 44
FINAL THOUGHTS 52
APPENDIX 53
ENDNOTES 53
REFERENCES 55
14 PATTERNS

OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN

IMPROVING HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

ABSTRACT
Biophilic design can reduce stress, enhance creativ ity and clarity of thought, improve our well-being and expedite healing; as the world population continues to urbanize, these qualities are ever more important. Theorists, research scientists, and design practitioners have been working for deca des to deﬁne aspects of nature that most impact our satisfaction with the built environment. “14 Patterns of Biophilic Design” articulates the relationships between nature, human biology and the design of the built environment so that we may experience the human beneﬁts of biophilia in our design applications.

Biophilia in Context looks at the evolution of biophilic design in arch itecture and planning and presents a framework for relating the human biological science and nature. Design Considerations explores a sampling of factors (e.g., scale, climate, user demographics) that may inﬂuence bioph ilic design decisions to bring greater clarity to why some interventions are replicable and why others may not be. The Patterns lays out a series of tools for understanding desig n opportunities, including the roots of the science b ehind each pattern, then metrics, strategies and considerations for how to use each pattern. This paper moves from research on biophilic responses to design application as a way to effectively enhance health and well-being for individuals and society. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design4

INTRODUCTION
Biophilic design can reduce stress, improve cogniti ve function and creativity, improve our well-being and expedite healing; as the world population continues to urbanize, these qualities are ever more importan t. Given how quickly an experience of nature can elicit a restorative respo nse, and the fact that U.S. businesses squander billions of dollars each year o n lost productivity due to stress-related illnesses, design that reconnects us with nature – biophilic design – is essential for providing people opportunities to live and work in healthy places and spaces with less stress and greater overall health and well-being.

Biophilia is humankind’s innate biological connection with nature. It helps explain why crackling ﬁres and crashing waves captivate us; why a garden view can enhance our creativity; why shadows and heights instill fascination and fear; and why animal companionship and strolling through a park have restorative, healing effects. Biophilia may also help explain why some urban parks and buildings are preferred over others. For decades, research scientists and design practitioners have been working to deﬁne aspects of nature that most impact our satisfaction with the built environment. But how do we move from research to application in a manner that effectively enhances health and well-being, and how should efﬁcacy be judged?
Building upon “The Economics of Biophilia” (Terrapin Bright Green, 2012), the intent of this paper is to articulate the relationships between nature, science, and the built environment so that we may experience the human beneﬁts of biophilia in our design applications. The paper presents a framework for biophilic design that is reﬂective of the nature-health relationship s most important in the built environment – those that are known to enhance our lives through a connection with nature.

New research supports measurable, positive impacts of biophilic design on health, strengthening the empirical evidence for the human-nature connection and raising its priority level within both design research and design practice; however, little guidance for implementation exists. This paper is intended to help close the gap between current research and implementation. The intended audiences of this publication are interior designers, architects , landscape architects, urban designers, planners, health professionals, employers and developers, as well as anyone wanting to better understand the patterns of biophilia.

This paper puts biophilic design in context with architectural history, health sciences and current architectural practices, and brieﬂy touches on key implementation considerations, then presents biophilic design patterns. The patterns have been developed through extensive interdisciplinary resea rch and are supported by empirical evidence and the work of Christopher Alex ander, Judith Heerwagen, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, Stephen Kellert, Roger Ulrich, and many others. Over 500 publications on biophilic responses have been m ined to uncover patterns useful to designers of the built environment. These 14 patterns have a wide range of applications for both interior and exterior environments, and are meant to be ﬂexible and adaptive, allowing for project-appropriate implementation. “In every walk
with nature
one receives
far more than
one seeks.”
John Muir, 19 July 1877
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 5
Finally, this paper discusses these patterns in a general sense for the purpose of addressing universal issues of human health and well-being (e.g., stress, visual acuity, hormone balance, creativity) within the bui lt environment, rather than program-based or sector-speciﬁc space types (e.g., health care facility waiting rooms, elementary school classrooms, or storefront pedestrian promenades).

As such, the focus is on patterns in nature known, suggested or theorized to mitigate common stressors or enhance desirable qualities that can be applied across various sectors and scales.

We hope this paper presents the foundation necessary for thinking more critically about the human connection with nature and how biophilic design patterns can be used as a tool for improving health and well-being in the built environment. 14 PATTERNS OF

BIOPHILIC DESIGN
Nature in the Space Patterns

1. Visual Connection with Nature

2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature

3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli

4. Thermal & Airﬂow Variability

5. Presence of Water

6. Dynamic & Diffuse Light

7. Connection with Natural Systems
Natural Analogues Patterns

8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns

9. Material Connection with Nature

10. Complexity & Order
Nature of the Space Patterns

11. Prospect

12. Refuge

13. Mystery

14. Risk/Peril
Image courtesy of COOKFOX Architects.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design6

BIOPHILIA IN CONTEXT

REDISCOVERING THE INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS
Nature themes can be found in the earliest human st ructures: Stylized animals characteristic of the Neolithic Göbekli Tepe; the Egyptian sphinx, or the acanthus leaves adorning Greek temples and their Vitruvian origin story; from the primitive hut to the delicate, leafy ﬁligrees of Rococo design. Representations of animals and plants have long been used for decorative and s ymbolic ornamentation.

Beyond representation, cultures around the world have long brought nature into homes and public spaces. Classic examples include the garden courtyards of the Alhambra in Spain, porcelain ﬁsh bowls in ancient China, the aviary in Teotihuacan (ancient Mexico City), bonsai in Japanese homes, papyrus ponds in the homes of Egyptian nobles, the cottage garden in medieval Germany, or the elusive hanging gardens of Babylon.

The consistency of natural themes in historic structures and places suggests that biophilic design is not a new phenomenon; rather, as a ﬁeld of applied science, it is the codiﬁcation of history, human intuition and neural sciences showing that connections with nature are vital to maintaining a healthful and vibrant existence as an urban species.

Prior to and even after the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of humans lived an agrarian existence, living much of their lives among nature. American landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted argued in 1865, tha t “…the enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it, tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the inﬂuence of the mind over the body, gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system” (Olmsted, 1865).

As urban populations grew in the 19th Century, reformers became increasingly concerned with health and sanitation issues such as ﬁre hazards and dysentery.

The creation of large public parks became a campaign to improve the health and reduce the stress of urban living.

Artists and designers of the Victorian era, such as inﬂuential English painter and art critic, John Ruskin, pushed back against what they saw as the dehumanizing experience of industrial cities. They argued for objects and buildings that reﬂected the hand of the craftsman and drew from nature for inspiration. In the design of the Science Museum at Oxford, Ruskin is said to have told the masons to use the surrounding countryside for inspiration, and the results can be seen in the inclusion of hand-carved ﬂowers and plants adorning the museum (Kellert & Finnegan, 2011).

Western attitudes toward nature were shifting in th e mid-19th Century; natural landscapes became valid art subjects, as seen in the Hudson River School and the Barbizon School in France. Going to the mountains or seashore for recreation was becoming a growing trend; Winter gardens and co nservatories become requisites of wealthy homes in Europe and the Unite d States. Henry David Thoreau built a cabin by Walden Pond in Concord, Massachusetts from which he wrote treatises on a simpler life, connected to nature, which still resonate in the American consciousness. In hospital design, sunlight and a view to nature was believed to be important, as can be seen at St. Elizabeth’s in Washington, D.C.

Designed in the 1850s to the concepts of Dr. Thomas Kirkbride, who “…believed that the beautiful setting…restored patients to a m ore natural balance of the senses” (Sternberg, 2009).
“This is what
I prayed for,’’
wrote the Roman
poet Horace.
“A piece of
land – not so
very big, with
a garden and,
near the house,
a spring that
never fails, and
a bit of wood to
round it off.’’
Those words were set down
more than 2000 years
ago, around 30 B.C. It is
easy to understand the
emotion prompting them;
we still recognize what
Horace meant by a rural
garden, a place to take
refuge, as he did, from
the irritations of city life.

Then And Now: Reﬂections On
The Millennium; The Allure of
Place in a Mobile World
December 15, 1999
New York Times Editorial
(anonymous)
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 7
Inspiration from nature was in full view in the Art Nouveau designs of the late 19th Century. Architect Victor Horta’s exuberant pl ant tendrils lacing through buildings in Belgium, the lush ﬂowers that are Louis Comfort Tiffany lamps, and the explicitly biomorphic forms of Antonio Gaudí’s buildings all remain strong examples. In Chicago, Louis Sullivan created elaborate ornamentation with leaves and cornices that represent tree branches. His protégé, Frank Lloyd Wright, is part of the group that launched The Prairie School.

Wright abstracted prairie ﬂowers and plants for his art glass windows and ornamentation. Like many in the Craftsman movement, Wright used the grain of wood and texture of brick and stone as a decorat ive element. Wright also opened up interiors to ﬂow through houses in ways t hat had not been done before, creating prospect views balanced with intimate refuges. His later designs sometimes include exhilarating spaces, like the balcony cantilevering out over the waterfall at Fallingwater.

European Modernists stripped much ornamentation fro m their buildings, but, like Wright, used wood grain and the veining of sto ne as decorative elements and were equally concerned with exploring the relationship of interior to exterior.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion (built 1929) pushed that concept in the play of volumes and glass. Later, his Farnsworth House (built 1951) deﬁned interior and exterior much more literally, by segregating the elements from the visual connection to nature.

Le Corbusier’s Cité Radiant (unbuilt 1924) may have resulted in disastrous urban designs, but by putting towers in a park surrounded by grass and trees, he was trying to provide city dwellers with a connection t o nature. As the International Style took root, it spread glass buildings everywhere; unfortunately, the buildings, and particularly the interiors of commercial buildings, increasingly disconnected people from nature.

The term ‘biophilia’ was ﬁrst coined by social psychologist Eric Fromm (The Heart of Man, 1964) and later popularized by biologist Edward Wilson (Biophilia, 1984).

The sundry denotations – which have evolved from wi thin the ﬁelds of biology and psychology, and been adapted to the ﬁelds of neuroscience, endocrinology, architecture and beyond – all relate back to the desire for a (re)connection with nature and natural systems. That we should be genetically predisposed to prefer certain types of nature and natural scenery, speciﬁcally the savanna, was posited by Gordon Orians and Judith Heerwagen (Savanna Hypothesis, 1986), and could theoretically be a contributing motivation for movi ng to the suburbs, with the suburban lawn being a savanna for everyone.

With the emergence of the green building movement in the early 1990s, linkages were made between improved environmental quality an d worker productivity (Browning & Romm, 1994). While the ﬁnancial gains d ue to productivity improvements were considered signiﬁcant, productivi ty was identiﬁed as a placeholder for health and well-being, which have e ven broader impact. The healing power of a connection with nature was estab lished by Roger Ulrich’s landmark study comparing recovery rates of patients with and without a view to nature (Ulrich, 1984). An experiment at a new He rman Miller manufacturing facility, designed by William McDonough + Partners in the 1990s, was one of the ﬁrst to speciﬁcally frame the mechanism for gains in productivity to connecting building occupants to nature – phylogenetic or, more familiarly, biophilic design (Heerwagen & Hase, 2001).

Victor Horta’s art nouveau plant tendril
designs in Hotel Tassel, Belgium. Image ©
Eloise Moorhead.

Animal stone carvings at the ancient
Göbekli Tepe. Image © Teomancimit.

The play of volumes and glass in Mies Van
Der Rohe’s Farnsworth House. Image ©
Devyn Caldwell/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design8
The translation of biophilia as a hypothesis into design of the built environment was the topic of a 2004 conference and subsequent b ook on biophilic design (Eds., Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador, 2008) in which S tephen Kellert identiﬁed more than 70 different mechanisms for engendering a biophilic experience, and contributing authors William Browning and Jenifer S eal-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 biophi lia, predominantly for its contribution to indoor environmental quality and co nnection 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 un affected by anthropogenic impacts on the environment – a narrow perspective o f 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 understandin g the context of Biophilic Design, we are deﬁning nature as living organisms a nd 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), h aphazardly (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 m aintained 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, A Louis Comfort Tiffany Lamp with ﬂower
pattern design. Image © Eric Hunt/Flickr.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 9
are chemical dependent monocultures; while beautiful, they are not biodiverse, ecologically healthy or resilient.

The key issue is that some designed environments are well-adapted (supporting long term life) and some are not. So while golf courses and suburban lawns may be a savanna analogue, in many cases they require intense inputs of water and fertilizer and thus are unfortunately unsustainable design practices.

NATURE-DESIGN RELATIONSHIPS
Biophilic design can be organized into three catego ries – Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space – providing a framework for understanding and enabling thoughtful incorpora tion of a rich diversity of strategies into the built environment.

Nature in the Space
Nature in the Space addresses the direct, physical and ephemeral presence of nature in a space or place. This includes plant lif e, water and animals, as well as breezes, sounds, scents and other natural elemen ts. Common examples include potted plants, ﬂowerbeds, bird feeders, butterﬂy gardens, water features, fountains, aquariums, courtyard gardens and green walls or vegetated roofs. The strongest Nature in the Space experiences are achieved through the creation of meaningful, direct connections with these natural elements, particularly through diversity, movement and multi-sensory interactions.

Nature in the Space encompasses seven biophilic design patterns:

1. Visual Connection with Nature. A view to elements of nature, living systems and natural processes.

2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature. Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural processes.

3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli. Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

4. Thermal & Airflow Variability. Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airﬂow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments.

5. Presence of Water. A condition that enhances the experience of a place through seeing, hearing or touching water.

6. Dynamic & Diffuse Light. Leverages varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature.

7. Connection with Natural Systems. Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes
characteristic of a healthy ecosystem.

Canopy trees and water features of the
Vatican City gardens. Image © Valentina A/
Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design10
Natural Analogues
Natural Analogues addresses organic, non-living and indirect evocations of nature. Objects, materials, colors, shapes, sequenc es and patterns found in nature, manifest as artwork, ornamentation, furniture, décor, and textiles in the built environment. Mimicry of shells and leaves, fu rniture with organic shapes, and natural materials that have been processed or extensively altered (e.g., wood planks, granite tabletops), each provide an indirect connection with nature: while they are real, they are only analogous of the items in their ‘natural’ state. The strongest Natural Analogue experiences are achieved by providing information richness in an organized and sometimes evolving manner.

Natural Analogues encompasses three patterns of biophilic design:

8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns. Symbolic references to contoured, patterned, textured or numerical arrangements that persist in nature.

9. Material Connection with Nature. Materials and elements from nature that, through minimal processing, reﬂect the local ecology or geology and create a distinct sense of place.

10. Complexity & Order. Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature.

Nature of the Space
Nature of the Space addresses spatial conﬁgurations in nature. This includes our innate and learned desire to be able to see beyond our immediate surroundings, our fascination with the slightly dangerous or unkn own; obscured views and revelatory moments; and sometimes even phobia-induc ing properties when they include a trusted element of safety. The stron gest Nature of the Space experiences are achieved through the creation of deliberate and engaging spatial conﬁgurations commingled with patterns of Nature in the Space and Natural Analogues.

Nature of the Space encompasses four biophilic design patterns:

11. Prospect. An unimpeded view over a distance, for surveillance and planning.

12. Refuge. A place for withdrawal from environmental conditions or the main ﬂow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead.

13. Mystery. The promise of more information, achieved through partially obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environment.

14. Risk/Peril. An identiﬁable threat coupled with a reliable safeguard.

Periodically throughout this paper, these patterns will be referred to in shorthand by their number 1 to 14 for quick reference. For instance, Presence of Water will appear as [P5] and Prospect will appear as [P11].

Façade renovation of Suites Avenue
Aparthotel by Toyo Ito, Barcelona, Spain,
is biomorphic in form, while enhancing
the Dynamic & Diffuse light and shadows
ﬁltering to the interior space. Image ©
Aslai/Flickr.

Stepping stones at the Fort Worth Water
Garden, Fort Worth, Texas. Image ©
JayRaz/Flickr.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 11

NATURE-HEALTH RELATIONSHIPS
Much of the evidence for biophilia can be linked to research in one or more of three overarching mind-body systems – cognitive, psychological and physiological – that have been explored and veriﬁed to varying degrees, in laboratory or ﬁeld studies, to help explain how people’s health and well-being are impacted by their environment. To familiarize the reader with these nature-health relationships, these mind-body systems are discussed here in the briefest sense, and are supported with a table of familiar hormones and neurotransmitters, environmental stressors, and biophilic design strategies. See Table 1 for relationships between biophilic design patterns and mind-body impacts.

Cognitive Functionality and Performance
Cognitive functioning encompasses our mental agility and memory, and our ability to think, learn and output either logically or crea tively. For instance, directed attention is required for many repetitive tasks, su ch as routine paperwork, reading and performing calculations or analysis, as well as for operating in highly stimulating environments, as when crossing busy streets. Directed attention is energy intensive, and over time can result in mental fatigue and depleted cognitive resources (e.g., Kellert et al., 2008; van den Berg et al., 2007).

Strong or routine connections with nature can provide opportunities for mental restoration, during which time our higher cognitive functions can sometimes take a break. As a result, our capacity for performing focused tasks is greater than someone with fatigued cognitive resources.

Psychological Health and Well-being
Psychological responses encompass our adaptability, alertness, attention, concentration, and emotion and mood. This includes responses to nature that impact restoration and stress management. For instance, empirical studies have reported that experiences of natural environments provide greater emotional restoration, with lower instances of tension, anxiety, anger, fatigue, confusion and total mood disturbance than urban environments with limited characteristics of nature (e.g., Alcock et al., 2013; Barton & Pretty, 2010; Hartig et al., 2003; Hartig et al., 1991).

Psychological responses can be learned or hereditar y, with past experiences, cultural constructs and social norms playing a signiﬁcant role in the psychological response mechanism.

Physiological Health and Well-being
Physiological responses encompass our aural, muscul oskeletal, respiratory, circadian systems and overall physical comfort. Physiological responses triggered by connections with nature include relaxation of muscles, as well as lowering of diastolic blood pressure and stress hormone (i.e., cortisol) levels in the blood stream (e.g., Park et al., 2009). Short term stress that increases heart rate and stress hormone levels, such as from encountering an unknown but complex and information-rich space, or looking over a banis ter to 8 stories below, are suggested to be beneﬁcial to regulating physiological health (Kandel et al., 2013).

The physiological system needs to be tested regularly, but only enough for the body to remain resilient and adaptive. Physiological responses to environmental stressors can be buffered through design, allowing for the restoration of bodily resources before system damage occurs (Steg, 2007).

STRESS & WELL-BEING
For an overview on “well-being” –
deﬁnitions, metrics, research – see The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
For a background on meanings of stress,
see “Mazes and Labyrinths” in Healing
Spaces (Sternberg, 2009, pp95-124).

For a more extensive non-technical
discussion on the science of nature’s
inﬂuence on health, happiness and
vitality, see Your Brain on Nature (Selhub
& Logan, 2012).

For a more technical introduction to the
hormones and neurotransmitters that
govern our mind-body systems, see
Principles of Neural Science (Kandel et
al., 2013).
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design12
TABLE 1. BIOPHILIC DESIGN PATTERNS & BIOLOGICAL RES PONSES Table 1 illustrates the functions of each of the 14 Patterns in supporting stress reduction, cognitive performance, emotion and mood enhancement and the human body. Patterns that are supported by more rigorous empirical data are marked with up to three asterisks (***), indicating that the quantity and quality of available peer-reviewed evidence is robust and the potential for impact is great, and no asterisk indicates that there is minimal research t o support the biological relationship between health and design, but the anecdotal information is compelling and adequate for hypothesizing its potential impact and importance as a unique pattern. 14 PATTERNS * STRESS REDUCTION COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE EMOTION, MOOD & PREFERENCE

NATURE IN THE SPACE
Visual
Connection
with Nature
*
*
*
Lowered blood pressure and heart rate
(Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013; van den Berg,
Hartig, & Staats, 2007; Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005)
Improved mental engagement/
attentiveness
(Biederman & Vessel, 2006)
Positively impacted attitude
and overall happiness
(Barton & Pretty, 2010)
Non-Visual
Connection
with Nature
*
*
Reduced systolic blood pressure
and stress hormones
(Park et al., 2009; Hartig, Evans, Jamner et al.,
2003; Orsega-Smith et al., 2004; Ulrich et al., 1991)
Positively impacted
cognitive performance
(Mehta, Zhu & Cheema, 2012; Ljungberg,
Neely, & Lundström, 2004)
Perceived improvements in
mental health and tranquility
(Li et al., 2012; Jahncke, et al., 2011;
Tsunetsugu, Park, & Miyazaki, 2010; Kim, Ren,
& Fielding, 2007; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003)
Non-Rhythmic
Sensory Stimuli
*
*
Positively impacted heart rate,
systolic blood pressure and
sympathetic nervous system activity
(Li, 2010; Park et al., 2008; Kahn et al., 2008;
Beauchamp, et al., 2003; Ulrich et al., 1991)
Observed and quanti/f_ied behavioral
measures of attention and
exploration (Windhager et al., 2011)
Thermal
& Air/f_low
Variability
*
*
Positively impacted comfort,
well-being and productivity
(Heerwagen, 2006; Tham & Willem, 2005; Wigö, 2005)
Positively impacted concentration
(Hartig et al., 2003; Hartig et al.,
1991; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989)
Improved perception of temporal
and spatial pleasure (alliesthesia)
(Parkinson, de Dear & Candido, 2012; Zhang,
Arens, Huizenga & Han, 2010; Arens, Zhang
& Huizenga, 2006; Zhang, 2003; de Dear
& Brager, 2002; Heschong, 1979)
Presence
of Water
*
*
Reduced stress, increased
feelings of tranquility, lower heart
rate and blood pressure
(Alvarsson, Wiens, & Nilsson, 2010; Pheasant
et al., 2010; Biederman & Vessel, 2006)
Improved concentration and
memory restoration
(Alvarsson et al., 2010; Biederman & Vessel, 2006)
Enhanced perception and
psychological responsiveness
(Alvarsson et al., 2010; Hunter et al., 2010)
Observed preferences and
positive emotional responses
(Windhager, 2011; Barton & Pretty, 2010;
White et al., 2010; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008;
Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Heerwagen & Orians,
1993; Ruso & Atzwanger, 2003; Ulrich, 1983)
Dynamic &
Diffuse Light
*
*
Positively impacted circadian
system functioning
(Figueiro et al., 2011; Beckett & Roden, 2009)
Increased visual comfort
(Elyezadi, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2007)
Connection with
Natural Systems
Enhanced positive health responses;
Shifted perception of environment
(Kellert et al., 2008)

NATURAL ANALOGUES
Biomorphic
Forms &
Patterns
* Observed view preference
(Vessel, 2012; Joye, 2007)
Material
Connection
with Nature
Decreased diastolic blood pressure
(Tsunetsugu, Miyazaki & Sato, 2007)
Improved creative performance
(Lichtenfeld et al., 2012)
Improved comfort
(Tsunetsugu, Miyazaki & Sato 2007)
Complexity
& Order
*
*
Positively impacted perceptual and
physiological stress responses
(Salingaros, 2012; Joye, 2007;
Taylor, 2006; S. Kaplan, 1988)
Observed view preference
(Salingaros, 2012; Hägerhäll et al., 2008;
Hägerhäll, Purcella, & Taylor, 2004; Taylor, 2006)

NATURE OF THE SPACE
Prospect
*
*
*
Reduced stress
(Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010)
Reduced boredom, irritation,
fatigue (Clearwater & Coss, 1991)
Improved comfort and perceived
safety (Herzog & Bryce, 2007; Wang
& Taylor, 2006; Petherick, 2000)
Refuge
*
*
*
Improved concentration, attention
and perception of safety
(Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; Ulrich et al., 1991;
Wang & Taylor, 2006; Petherick, 2000)
Mystery *
*
Induced strong pleasure response
(Biederman, 2011; Salimpoor et al., 2011;
Ikemi, 2005; Blood & Zatorre, 2001)
Risk/Peril *
Resulted in strong dopamine
or pleasure responses
(Kohno et al., 2013; Wang & Tsien,
2011; Zald et al., 2008)
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green / 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design12
TABLE 1. BIOPHILIC DESIGN PATTERNS & BIOLOGICAL RES PONSES Table 1 illustrates the functions of each of the 14 Patterns in supporting stress reduction, cognitive performance, emotion and mood enhancement and the human body. Patterns that are supported by more rigorous empirical data are marked with up to three asterisks (***), indicating that the quantity and quality of available peer-reviewed evidence is robust and the potential for impact is great, and no asterisk indicates that there is minimal research t o support the biological relationship between health and design, but the anecdotal information is compelling and adequate for hypothesizing its potential impact and importance as a unique pattern. 14 PATTERNS * STRESS REDUCTION COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE EMOTION, MOOD & PREFERENCE

NATURE IN THE SPACE
Visual
Connection
with Nature
*
*
*
Lowered blood pressure and heart rate
(Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013; van den Berg,
Hartig, & Staats, 2007; Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005)
Improved mental engagement/
attentiveness
(Biederman & Vessel, 2006)
Positively impacted attitude
and overall happiness
(Barton & Pretty, 2010)
Non-Visual
Connection
with Nature
*
*
Reduced systolic blood pressure
and stress hormones
(Park et al., 2009; Hartig, Evans, Jamner et al.,
2003; Orsega-Smith et al., 2004; Ulrich et al., 1991)
Positively impacted
cognitive performance
(Mehta, Zhu & Cheema, 2012; Ljungberg,
Neely, & Lundström, 2004)
Perceived improvements in
mental health and tranquility
(Li et al., 2012; Jahncke, et al., 2011;
Tsunetsugu, Park, & Miyazaki, 2010; Kim, Ren,
& Fielding, 2007; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003)
Non-Rhythmic
Sensory Stimuli
*
*
Positively impacted heart rate,
systolic blood pressure and
sympathetic nervous system activity
(Li, 2010; Park et al., 2008;
Kahn et al., 2008; Beauchamp, et al., 2003;
Ulrich et al., 1991)
Observed and quanti/f_ied behavioral
measures of attention and
exploration (Windhager et al., 2011)
Thermal
& Air/f_low
Variability
*
*
Positively impacted comfort,
well-being and productivity
(Heerwagen, 2006; Tham & Willem, 2005; Wigö, 2005)
Positively impacted concentration
(Hartig et al., 2003; Hartig et al.,
1991; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989)
Improved perception of temporal
and spatial pleasure (alliesthesia)
(Parkinson, de Dear & Candido, 2012; Zhang,
Arens, Huizenga & Han, 2010; Arens, Zhang
& Huizenga, 2006; Zhang, 2003; de Dear
& Brager, 2002; Heschong, 1979)
Presence
of Water
*
*
Reduced stress, increased
feelings of tranquility, lower heart
rate and blood pressure
(Alvarsson, Wiens, & Nilsson, 2010; Pheasant
et al., 2010; Biederman & Vessel, 2006)
Improved concentration and
memory restoration
(Alvarsson et al., 2010; Biederman & Vessel, 2006)
Enhanced perception and
psychological responsiveness
(Alvarsson et al., 2010; Hunter et al., 2010)
Observed preferences and
positive emotional responses
(Windhager, 2011; Barton & Pretty, 2010;
White et al., 2010; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008;
Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Heerwagen & Orians,
1993; Ruso & Atzwanger, 2003; Ulrich, 1983)
Dynamic &
Diffuse Light
*
*
Positively impacted circadian
system functioning
(Figueiro et al., 2011; Beckett & Roden, 2009)
Increased visual comfort
(Elyezadi, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2007)
Connection with
Natural Systems
Enhanced positive health responses;
Shifted perception of environment
(Kellert et al., 2008)

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
WHAT IS GOOD BIOPHILIC DESIGN?
Biophilic design is the designing for people as a biological organism, respecting the mind-body systems as indicators of health and well-being in the context of what is locally appropriate and responsive. Good biophilic design draws from inﬂuential perspectives – health conditions, socio-cultural no rms and expectations, past experiences, frequency and duration of the user experience, the many speeds at which it may be encountered, and user perception and processing of the experience – to create spaces that are inspirational, restorative, and healthy, as well as integrative with the functionality of the place and the (urban) ecosystem to which it is applied. Above all, biophilic design must nurture a love of place.

PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Increasingly dense urban environments, coupled with rising land values, elevate the importance of biophilic design across a spatial continuum from new and existing buildings, to parks and streetscapes and to campus, urban and regional planning. Each context supports a platform for myriad opportunities for integrative biophilic design, and mainstreaming healthy buildin g practices for people and society. Discussed here in brief are some key perspectives that may help focus the planning and design processes.

Identifying desired responses and outcomes
It is vital for a designer to understand a project’s design intent – what are the health or performance priorities of the intended users? To identify design strategies and interventions that restore or enhance well-being, project teams should understand the health baseline or performance needs of the target population. One approach is to ask: what is the most biophilic space we can conceivably design? Another is to ask: how can biophilic design improve performance metrics already used by the client (e.g., company executives, school board, city ofﬁcials), such as absenteeism, perceived comfort, health care claims, asthma, ticket sales, or test scores.

As many biological responses to design occur togeth er (e.g., reducing physiological indicators of stress and improving ov erall mood), and there are countless combinations of design patterns and inter ventions, understanding health related priorities will help focus the desig n process. Health outcomes associated with biophilic spaces are of interest to building and portfolio managers and human resources administrators, because they inform long term design and measurement best practices, and to planners, policy makers and others because they inform public health policy and urban planning.

Design strategies and interventions
Biophilic design patterns are ﬂexible and replicable strategies for enhancing the user experience that can be implemented under a range of circumstances.

Just as lighting design for a classroom will be different than for a spa or home library, biophilic design interventions are based on the needs of a speciﬁc population in a particular space, and are likely to be developed from a series of evidence-based biophilic design patterns, ideally with a degree of monitoring and evaluation for efﬁcacy.
“ There is rarely
a solution that
is universal.

Rather, the
‘correct’
solution, in our
view, is one
that is locally
appropriate and
responsive to
the situation
at hand.’’

Rachel Kaplan, Stephen Kaplan
& Robert L. Ryan, 1998
With People in Mind
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design14
For example, a project team may embrace the Visual Connection with Nature pattern to enhance the workplace experience for a series of interior ﬁt-outs for a portfolio of ofﬁces. The strategy would be to improve views and bring plants into the space; the interventions may include insta lling a green wall, orienting desks to maximize views to outdoors, and initiating an employee stipend for desk plants. The detail, location, and the extent to which each of these interventions is implemented will differ for each of the ofﬁces in the portfolio.

A project team charged with reducing stress among e mergency room nurses at the local hospital may intervene by replacing the abstract art with landscape paintings on the walls of the staffroom and installing a small garden and seating area in the adjacent interior courtyard. While this project also uses the Visual Connection with Nature pattern, the selected interv entions speciﬁcally target stress reduction for emergency room nurses based on a shared space they utilize routinely.

Diversity of design strategies
Patterns in combination tend to increase the likeli hood of health beneﬁts of a space. Incorporating a diverse range of design stra tegies can accommodate the needs of various user groups from differing cultures and demographics and create an environment that is psycho-physiologically and cognitively restorative.

For instance, vegetated spaces can improve an individual’s self-esteem and mood, while the presence of water can have a relaxing effect. Adding multiple biophilic strategies for the sake of diversity may backﬁre unless they are integrative and supporting a uniﬁed design intent.

Quality vs. quantity of intervention
When planning for implementation, common questions recur, such as how much is enough and what makes a good design great. A high quality intervention may be deﬁned by the richness of content, user accessibility and, as mentioned above, diversity of strategies. A single high quality intervention can be more effective and have greater restorative potential than several low quality interventions. Climate, cost and other variables may inﬂuence or limit feasibility of certain interventions, but should not be considered an obstacle to achieving a high quality application.

For example, multiple instances of Prospect with a shallow to moderate depth of ﬁeld and limited information in the viewshed may not be as effective (at prompting the desired response) as a single powerful instance of Prospect with a moderate to high depth of ﬁeld and an information-rich viewshed.

Duration of exposure and frequency of access
Identifying the most appropriate duration of exposure to a pattern, or combination of patterns, can be difﬁcult. The ideal exposure time is likely dependent upon the user and desired effect, but as a general guideline, empirical evidence shows that positive emotions, mental restoration and other beneﬁts can occur in as little as 5 to 20 minutes of immersion in nature (Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013; Barton & Pretty, 2010; Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005).

When a long duration of exposure is not possible or desired, positioning biophilic design interventions along paths that channel high levels of foot trafﬁc will help improve frequency of access. Consider too that micro-restorative experiences – brief sensory interactions with nature that promote a sense of well-being – while often designed in response to space-restriction, are more readily implementable, © 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 15
replicable and often more accessible than larger interventions; frequent exposure to these small interventions may contribute to a compounded restoration response.

Questions abound on matters of duration of exposure and frequency of access:

How persistent is mental restoration over different terms of exposure to nature? Do the improvements continue incrementally with mor e exposure, or do they plateau? What combinations of design patterns can h elp optimize a biophilic experience? We hope these questions and others will be explored as research continues on the intersections of neuroscience and design (Ryan et al., 2014).

LOCALLY APPROPRIATE DESIGN
No two places are the same; this presents both challenges and opportunities for creativity in the application of biophilic design patterns. Discussed here are some key considerations that may help frame, prioritize, or inﬂuence decision making in the design process.

Climate, ecology and the vernacular
Historically, humans have built shelters from local ly available materials that reﬂected the regional ecology; form and function we re in response to the topography and climate. Known as vernacular architecture, these buildings and constructed landscapes connect to where they inhabi t. Use of local timber, climate responsive design and xeriscaping – using n ative, drought tolerant plants to create landscape designs that resemble the climate of the surrounding landscape – can each be effective strategies in designing for a resilient, biophilic experience.

Whether rural or urban, not all natural or tempered environments are ‘green’ in color, nor should they be. Desert species and terrain can be equally important in reinforcing a biophilic connection to place. Som e habitats may engender a stronger positive response than others, but a small biodiverse savanna-like scene will most likely be preferred over an area abundant yet trackless sand desert, the open ocean, or a dark forest.

Character and density: Rural, suburban and urban environments In rural environments, human-nature interactions are abundant, and this regular exposure to nature has restorative qualities that w e perhaps take for granted.

Suburban settings are typically rife with intuitive ly applied biophilic design; the suburban yard with shade trees, grass, low shrubs, and beds of ﬂowers is essentially an analogue of the African savanna. Porches and balconies offer more than just quaintness and real estate value; many su burban homes and urban rowhouses are raised 18 inches or more, creating a Prospect-Refuge condition with views from windows, stoops and porches. The po tential human health beneﬁts are undervalued in high-density settings wh ere residential towers with balconies are both limited and only available to high-paying tenants.

Land in urban environments is limited and at a premium, so it may be unrealistic to replicate features more suitable to a rural envi ronment in terms of scale or abundance. As such, biophilic design strategies will differ depending on the local political climate, zoning, geography, land availability and ownership. For instance, San Francisco, with its high-density urban form, implemented a ‘parklet’ system, whereby temporary pop-up parks occupy parking spaces for limited periods of time (see City of San Francisco, 2013). In the narrow streets of Vienna, Austria, Material Connection with Nature and other
biophilic design patterns can be applied
across all climates and environments,
but may have different resulting forms,
aesthetics and materials speciﬁc to their
respective regions.

Top to bottom: Tucson Mountain
Home by Rick Joy, courtesy of Pröhl;
Thorncrown Chapel by E. Fay Jones, ©
informedmindstravel/Flickr; New Gourna by
Hassan Fathy, © Marc Ryckaert; Thatched
roof construction, © Colin Cubitt/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design16
restaurants rent parking spaces for the entire summ er and set up tables and temporary landscaping to provide outdoor dining. Th is brings nature into the urban core and within walking distance to a greater number of people, opening up the possibility for micro-restorative experiences and a reclamation of underutilized space for people.

A different approach to integrating natural systems with urban systems is exhibited in Singapore’s ‘Skyrise Greenery’ program. Given the high levels of development in tropical Singapore over the last 25 years – a period which saw the country’s populations grow by 2 million people – the government offered an incentive program to offset the loss of habitat, increase interaction with natural stimuli, and create the ‘City within a Garden’. This incentive program offers up to 75% of the costs for installing living roofs and walls (exterior and interior) for new constructions (Beatley, 2012). What’s important is that the strategy be integrative and appropriate to the character and de nsity of the place, and not just another word for ecosystem restoration that do es not reﬂect the human biological relationship with nature.

Scale and feasibility
Biophilic design patterns should be scaled to the surrounding environment and to the predicted user population for the space. Patterns can be applied at the scale of a micro-space, a room, a building, a neighborhood or campus, and even an entire district or city. Each of these spaces will present different design challenges depending on the programming, user types and dynamics, climate, culture, and various physical parameters, as well as existing or needed infrastructure.

Size and availability of space are two of the most common factors inﬂuencing feasibility of biophilic design patterns. For instance, the Prospect pattern [P11] typically requires signiﬁcant space. Other patterns , such as Connection with Natural Systems [P7], may be more feasible where there is access to an outdoor space, which is a common challenge in dense urban environments. Yet small scale, micro-restorative Visual [P1] and Non-Visual Connec tions with Nature [P2] and Presence of Water [P5] can also be very effective. For instance, the psychological beneﬁts of nature actually have been shown to increase with exposure to higher levels of biodiversity (Fuller el al., 2007), yet t hese beneﬁts do not necessarily increase with greater natural vegetative area. From this we can derive that small, micro-restorative experiences that are also biodiverse are likely to be particularly effective at engendering a restorative biophilic experience.

Aerial view of the expansive General Motors
Tech Center designed by Eero Saarinen.

The campus is meant to be experienced
at 30 mph along the highway. Image ©
Donald Harrison/Flickr.

Parklet and Park(ing) Day make-shift outdoor
seating with temporary landscaping in the
streets. Images (top) © Paul Krueger/
Flickr; (above) © sv Johnson/Flickr.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 17
Micro-restorative might include moments of sensory contact with nature through a window, television, image, painting or an aquariu m. In urban environments where sensory overload is common (Joye, 2007), such experiences will be most valued and impactful when situated in locations wit h high foot trafﬁc, allowing for a greater frequency of access to trigger the de sired biophilic response.

Traditional Japanese doorway gardens are a perfect example of replicable small- scale interventions.

The speed at which one moves through an environment, whether rural or urban, impacts the level of observable detail and the perceived scale of buildings and spaces. The General Motors “Tech Center” in Warren, Michigan, designed by architect Eero Saarinen in 1949, is designed to be experienced at 30 mph, so for the pedestrian, the scale seems oversized and the spacing of buildings is oddly far apart. This is why stores on along strip malls have large, simple façades and signage, whereas stores within pedestrian zones tends to have smaller and perhaps more intricate signage. Similarly, the landscaping along freeway and highway greenbelts is typically done in large swaths for instant interpretability. In contrast, a pedestrian focused environment will have more ﬁne-grained details in the landscape design to allow for pause, exploration, and a more intimate experience.

Some patterns, such as [P13] Mystery and [P14] Risk /Peril, might not be as feasible or cost-effective in an interior ﬁt-out project because of the amount of space required to effectively implement the pattern. On the other hand, interior ﬁt-outs are an excellent opportunity to introduce Natural Analogue patterns which can be applied to surfaces like walls, ﬂoors, and ceilings as well as furniture and window treatments. In addition, not all aspects of biophilia are space dependent.

Some patterns (e.g., P2, P4, P6, P7) are more visce ral or temporal, requiring little to no ﬂoor area, and other patterns (e.g., P8-P10) may simply guide design choices that were already a part of the design process.

Major renovations, new construction and master plan ning provide more opportunities for incorporating biophilic design pa tterns that are coupled with systems integration at the building, campus or community scale.

Culture and demographics
Current evolutionary hypotheses and theories state that contemporary landscape preferences are inﬂuenced by human evolution, reﬂecting the innate landscape qualities that enhanced survival for humanity throu gh time. These schools of thought include the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1993 and 1984), the savanna hypothesis (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992), the habitat theory and prospect-refuge theory (Appleton, 1977), and the preference matrix (R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

While empirical research has shown that there is a degree of universality to landscape preferences among humans, preferences hav e been modiﬁed by cultural inﬂuences, experiences and socio-economic factors (Tveit et al, 2007).

Variations in landscape preferences have thus emerg ed among immigrants, ethnic groups, subcultures, genders, and age groups.

Cultural constructs, social inertia and ecological literacy suffuse differing perspectives on what constitutes natural, nature, wild, or beautiful (Tveit et al., 2007; Zube & Pitt, 1981). Environmental Generational Amnesia and the Ecological Aesthetic Theory help explain how some perspectives may have evolved, and these differences come to bear across countries and regions, as well as among neighborhoods within the same city.

BIOPHOBIA & ECOPHOBIA
Biophobia is a fear of or aversion to
nature or living things ((Ulrich, 1993).

Similarly, ecophobia refers to an
unreasonable but deeply conditioned
disgust for or reaction against natural
forms or places.

While biophobia is arguably genetic,
to a degree, both phobias are learnt
response mechanisms through direct
experience, culture and education which,
according to Salingaros and Masden
(2008), includes architectural education.

The most common biophobic responses
are to spiders, snakes, predators,
blood, and heights – elements that
either directly threaten or signal danger
through humanity’s evolutionary path.

When tempered with an element of safety
(e.g., railing or glass window), however,
the experience can be transformed into
one of curiosity, exhilaration and even a
type of mind-body systems recalibration.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design18
And while ethnicity can play a role in inﬂuencing a n individual’s landscape preferences, cultures and groups across the world utilize landscapes and space in different ways (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005). Frequency of use, nature of use, participation rates and purpose of visit all vary drastically between nationalities, cultures and sub-groups. These factors do not mean that certain ethnic groups have a lower appreciation for landscape or a less signiﬁcant connection with nature.

These groups simply utilize and interact with nature in ways that are compatible with their culture and needs. Identifying early on what those needs may be will help deﬁne parameters for appropriate design strategies and interventions.

Age and gender are also known to inﬂuence biophilic response trends. Women report higher perceived levels of stress than men, yet are less likely than their male counterparts to use available natural outdoor vegetative space during the work day (Lottrup, Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2013). Of particular interest is that the degree of enhanced immune function due to immersion in nat ure has been observed to differ between the genders. For instance, follow ing a forest walk, immune function was increased for a period of 30 days in m en, but only seven days in women (Li, 2010), suggesting that interventions targeting female populations in the workplace may need to either prioritize indoor nature experiences or improve accessibility for prolonged outdoor nature experiences.

Youth beneﬁt the most from nature contact in terms of increasing self-esteem.

The gains for self-esteem from nature contact are s uggested to decline with age; elderly and youth beneﬁt the least in terms of mood enhancement from nature contact (Barton & Pretty, 2010), yet both groups are equal in perceived restorativeness of natural over urban environments (Berto, 2007). With age also comes a differing preference in landscape in regards to perceived safety. While an urban woodland may be an enticing place for adventure for a child or teenager, the same condition could be perceived by adults and elderly populations as risky (Kopec, 2006), which could possibly be overcome by incorporating a Prospect- Refuge condition.

DESIGN INTEGRATION
Interdisciplinary planning and design
Developing an interdisciplinary strategy early on in a project will help ensure cost- effective opportunities are not lost before they are fully considered. Biophilia is but one piece of the puzzle to creating a vibrant, sustainable, and restorative environment. The integration of a multi-disciplinary strategy in the early stages of development – through a stakeholder charrette process or similar – will put team members on equal footing and allow for the identiﬁcation of potential strengths, challenges and opportunities. In the long run, this approach will improve project satisfaction and save money.

Biophilia as an environmental quality
Environmental quality is an umbrella term that refers to the sum of the properties and characteristics of a speciﬁc environment and how it affects human beings and other organisms within its zone of inﬂuence.

Biophilia, like air quality, thermal comfort and acoustics, is an essential component of environmental quality that expands the conversation from daylight, materials toxicity, and air, water and soil quality, to include human biological health and well-being.

ENVIRONMENTAL

GENERATIONAL AMNESIA
One of the cultural challenges to
upholding that human-nature bond, as
well as environmental stewardship, is a
phenomenon known as Environmental
Generational Amnesia, the shifting
baseline for what is considered a normal
environmental condition as it continues to
degrade. As environmental degradation
continues, the baseline continues to
shift with each ensuing generation, each
perceiving this degraded condition as
the norm or non-degraded condition.

This shifting baseline varies across
cultures, geographic regions and
sub-groups (Kahn, 2009), inﬂuencing
environmental stewardship, proximity
and access to nature and the biophilic
experience. Helping a community to
understand what their home looked like
when it was a healthy, intact ecosystem
is one way of making a Connection with
Natural Systems and will hopefully help
foster and frame the importance of other
areas of environmental quality.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 19
When integral to the environmental quality discussi on, biophilia may also help dissolve the perceived division between human needs and building performance.

And we would be remiss not to acknowledge that back-of-house and night shift workers are often the most deprived of biophilic experiences, while they are also the very people responsible for monitoring and maintaining building performance standards. From an architectural perspective, biophilic design patterns have the potential to refocus the designer’s attention on the links between people, health, high-performance design and aesthetics.

Multi-platform solutions
Thoughtful applications of biophilic design can create a multi-platform strategy for familiar challenges traditionally associated wi th building performance such as thermal comfort, acoustics, energy and water man agement, as well as larger scale issues such as asthma, biodiversity and ﬂood mitigation. We know increased natural air ﬂow can help prevent sick building syndrome; daylighting can cut energy costs in terms of heating and cooling (Loftness & Snyder, 2008); and increased vegetation can reduce particulate matter in the air, reduce urban heat island effect, improve air inﬁltration rates and reduce perceived levels of noise pollution (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005). These strategies can all be implemented in a manner that achieves a biophilic response for improved performance, health and well-being.

Biophilic design interventions that integrate with other building performance strategies have the potential to improve user exper ience and overall systems efﬁciency. Herbert Dreiseitl’s design for Prisma in Nürnberg, Germany, is a good example; sculptural water walls serve as both a the rmal control device and exposed rainwater conduit, while contributing to the visual and acoustic ambiance of the enclosed garden-like atrium. For the design of the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore, architect RMJM met with ecologists an d engineers early in the project development process to employ biophilia, ec ological conservation and water sensitive urban design to manage rainwater, mitigate loss of biodiversity and create a restorative environment for patients, reaping more beneﬁts for the project than any one of the three teams could have on their own (Alexandra Health, 2013). The biophilic experiences are more l ikely to persist long term when they are embedded in the programming and infrastructure of a place.

Controlling for effectiveness
Given that landscapes and people’s needs are in a constant state of ﬂux, it is challenging to ensure the desired health response i s always experienced. It is impossible to predict all future human-nature in teractions or to ensure that the desired response recurs over a period of time f or every user based on a particular strategy or intervention. Indeed, we can assume that efﬁcacy of many biophilic patterns are likely to rise and decl ine with diurnal and seasonal cycles. For instance, the health beneﬁts of a view to nature may be diminished during winter months or completely negated for nigh t shift workers when the view is shrouded in darkness. However, secondary or seasonal strategies can help maintain balance, such as with indoor interventions, delivering the desired response throughout the year.

User controls for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and even noise can either complement design efforts, or negate them when controls are mismanaged or underutilized – keeping the window blinds closed eliminates a Visual Connection

THE ECOLOGICAL

AESTHETIC THEORY
The ecological aesthetic theory
proclaims that knowledge about the
ecological functions of a landscape will
increase preference ratings for that
landscape. This theory depends on
knowledge as a key driver of landscape
preference (Nassauer, 1995).

As a cultural theory, it can somewhat
explain the variations in landscape
preferences between social classes. For
instance, college students are reported
to have more favorable attitudes
towards wilderness than secondary
school students (Balling & Falk, 1982).

Preferences for more tamed landscapes,
typical of heavily urbanized environments,
by lower income groups, is contrasted by
the preference for wilder landscapes by
higher income groups; it can be deduced
that education, more accessible to those
with higher socioeconomic status, plays
a key role in developing the ecological
aesthetic (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005).
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design20
with Nature, and high partitions in an open plan ofﬁce eliminates opportunities for Prospect and a number of other patterns (Urban Green Council, 2013).

Behavior change is not often in the purview of the architect, so designing for controllability versus automation or permanency may inform the intervention design process. Maintenance of implemented strategies is also a consideration – will there be someone responsible for cleaning the ﬁsh tank and watering the plants? Having trainings and discussions with facility operators and a reference guide indicating appropriate maintenance requirements and parameters will help uphold the intended biophilic experience set forth in the design strategy.

Tracking and measuring efﬁcacy
Monitoring efﬁcacy of implemented biophilic design patterns for the express purpose of improving health and well-being is a new branch of inquiry. Variability in the built environment, as discussed here, creates a challenging framework for veriﬁcation; quantitative metrics are often desired but not always appropriate, and the highly invasive nature of some measurement techniques and tools (i.e., fMRI, EEG) adds a layer of complexity and cost. Many of the current techniques used require strict control of variables and cost which tends to limit the size of the test group. There are, however, several new technologies, like wristband monitors, and very light weight headband EEG that may open up new rapid methods of testing; but until those technologies go mainstream, rapid testing can also be done in more rudimentary fashion and with a smaller budget.

As no two interventions will be exactly the same, all results will differ to one degree or another. Culture, climate, age, gender, landscape character, immigrant status, mental health, and genetic predispositions, for exa mple, create a challenging labyrinth of data for comparison. Nevertheless, tracking and monitoring of human biological responses and outcomes triggered by a biophilic pattern is vital in the progress and further development of biophilic design as a best practice.

The science of biophilia is a rapidly evolving ﬁeld. There is an increasing interest in biophilia research in psychology, neuroscience a nd endocrinology and our understanding of these patterns will be reﬁned and strengthened as new evidence is gathered. It is entirely possible that additional patterns will emerge over time.

Reﬂecting pool at the Pulitzer Foundation
for the Arts by Tadao Ando, St. Louis.

Image © chaotic ﬂoat/Flickr.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 21

THE PATTERNS

PATTERN AS PRECEDENT
In the two decades since Wilson published The Biophilia Hypothesis, the body of evidence supporting biophilia has expanded considerably. The biophilic design patterns in this paper have, in the words of Wilson , been “teased apart and analyzed individually” to reveal emotional afﬁliations Wilson spoke of, as well as other psychophysiological and cognitive relationships with the built environment.

The descriptive term ‘pattern’ is being used for three reasons:
• to propose a clear and standardized terminology for biophilic design; • to avoid confusion with multiple terms (metric, attribute, condition, characteristic, typology, etc.) that have been used to explain biophilia and biophilic design; and
• to maximize accessibility across disciplines by upholding a familiar language.

The use of spatial patterns is inspired by the precedents of A Pattern Language (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein et al., 1977), Designing with People in Mind (R.

Kaplan, S. Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998) and Patterns of Home (Jacobson, Silverstein & Winslow, 2002), as well as lectures and compilations on patterns, form, language and complexity (Nikos Salingaros, 2000; 2013). Chri stopher Alexander brings clarity to this intent with his explanation that patterns “........describe a problem which occurs over and o ver again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.”
Alexander’s work built on the tradition of pattern books used by designers and builders from the eighteenth century onward, bu t his work focused on the psychological beneﬁts of patterns and included descriptions of the three dimensional spatial experience, rather than the aes thetic focus of previous pattern books. These 14 patterns of biophilic design focus on psyc hological, physiological and cognitive beneﬁts.

WORKING WITH BIOPHILIC PATTERNS
While informed by science, biophilic design patterns are not formulas; they are meant to inform, guide and assist in the design process and should be thought of as another tool in the designer’s toolkit. The purpose of deﬁning these patterns is to articulate connections between aspects of the built and natural environments and how people react to and beneﬁt from them.

After each pattern is deﬁned, it is then discussed in terms of the following:
• The Experience brieﬂy considers how the pattern might impact the way a space feels;
• Roots of the Pattern highlights key scientiﬁc evidence that relates human biology to nature and the built environment;
• Working with the Pattern highlights design attribut es, examples, and considerations; and
• Relation to Other Patterns brieﬂy notes opportunities for integrative biophilic design strategies.
“ …Biophilia is not
a single instinct
but a complex
of learning
rules that can
be teased apart
and analyzed
individually. The
feelings molded
by the learning
rules fall
along several
emotional
spectra: from
attraction
to aversion,
from awe to
indifference,
from
peacefulness
to fear-driven
anxiety.”

Edward O. Wilson, 1993
Biophilia and the Conservation
Ethic, The Biophilia Hypothesis
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design22
Just as combinations of culture, demographics, heal th baselines, and characteristics of the built environment can impact the experience of space differently, so too can each design pattern. A suit able solution results from understanding local conditions and one space’s rela tionship to another, and responding appropriately with a combination of design interventions to suit the unique needs of a space and its intended user group and programs.

Finally, each pattern has been assessed for overall potential impact and the strength of the research on which a pattern is built. Unless otherwise noted, all examples reported are based on data published in a peer-reviewed journal. We acknowledge that some studies are more rigorous tha n others and that some patterns have a greater body of research to support ﬁndings of signiﬁcance. To help communicate this variability, up to three asterisks are following each pattern name, whereby three asterisks (***) indicates that the quantity and quality of available peer-reviewed evidence is robust and the potential for impact is great, and no asterisk indicates that there is minimal research to support the biological relationship between health and design, but the anecdotal information is adequate for hypothesizing its potential impact and importance as a unique pattern.

The ﬁeld of biophilic design is constantly evolving , and as Salingaros (2000) explains, new disciplines such as biophilic design must “abstract its patterns as they appear… building its own foundation and logical skeleton, upon which future growth can be supported.” As new evidence comes to bear, it is entirely possible that some patterns will be championed over others a nd that new patterns will emerge. By establishing these 14 basic patterns, we hope to encourage the widespread scientiﬁc study, language development, and design implementation of biophilia.

Tanner Springs by Atelier Dreisetl
demonstrates at least one pattern from
each of the three categories of biophilic
design. Image © Fred Jala/Flickr.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 23
14 PATTERNS OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN

IMPROVING HEALTH AND WELL-BEING IN THE BUILT ENVIRO NMENT

1. Visual Connection with Nature
A view to elements of nature, living
systems and natural processes.

2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature
Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory
stimuli that engender a deliberate
and positive reference to nature,
living systems or natural processes.

3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
Stochastic and ephemeral
connections with nature that may
be analyzed statistically but may
not be predicted precisely.

4. Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
Subtle changes in air temperature,
relative humidity, airﬂow across
the skin, and surface temperatures
that mimic natural environments.

5. Presence of Water
A condition that enhances the
experience of a place through the
seeing, hearing or touching of water.

6. Dynamic & Diffuse Light
Leveraging varying intensities of light
and shadow that change over time to
create conditions that occur in nature.

7. Connection with Natural Systems
Awareness of natural processes,
especially seasonal and
temporal changes characteristic
of a healthy ecosystem.

8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
Symbolic references to contoured,
patterned, textured or numerical
arrangements that persist in nature.

9. Material Connection with Nature
Material and elements from nature
that, through minimal processing,
reﬂect the local ecology or geology
to create a distinct sense of place.
10 . Complexity & Order
Rich sensory information that
adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar
to those encountered in nature.

11. Prospect
An unimpeded view over a distance
for surveillance and planning.

12. Refuge
A place for withdrawal, from
environmental conditions or
the main ﬂow of activity, in
which the individual is protected
from behind and overhead.

13. Mystery
The promise of more information
achieved through partially obscured
views or other sensory devices
that entice the individual to travel
deeper into the environment.

14. Risk/Peril
An identiﬁable threat coupled
with a reliable safeguard.

NATURE IN THE SPACE

NATURAL ANALOGUES

NATURE OF THE SPACE
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design24

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Visual Connection with Nature f eels whole, it grabs one’s attention and can be stimulating or calming. It can convey a sense of time, weather and other living things.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Visual Connection with Nature pattern has evolved from research on visual preference and responses to views to nature showing reduced stress, more positive emotional functioning, and improved concentration and recovery rates.

Stress recovery from visual connections with nature have reportedly been realized through lowered blood pressure and heart rate; redu ced attentional fatigue, sadness, anger, and aggression; improved mental eng agement/attentiveness, attitude and overall happiness. There is also evidence for stress reduction related to both experiencing real nature and seeing images of nature. Visual access to biodiversity is reportedly more beneﬁcial to our psychological health than access to land area (i.e., quantity of land).[P1]
Visual preference research indicates that the preferred view is looking down a slope to a scene that includes copses of shade tree s, ﬂowering plants, calm non-threatening animals, indications of human habit ation, and bodies of clean water (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992). This is often difﬁcult to achieve in the built environment, particularly in already dense urban settings, though the psychological beneﬁts of nature are suggested to increase with hi gher levels of biodiversity and not with an increase in natural vegetative area (Fuller et al., 2007). Positive impact on mood and self-esteem has also been shown to occur most signiﬁcantly in the ﬁrst ﬁve minutes of experiencing nature, such as through exercise within a green space (Barton & Pretty, 2010). Viewing natu re for ten minutes prior to experiencing a mental stressor has shown to stim ulate heart rate variability and parasympathetic activity (i.e., regulation of internal organs and glands that support digestion and other activities that occur when the body is at rest) (Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013), while viewing a forest sc ene for 20 minutes after a mental stressor has shown to return cerebral blood ﬂow and brain activity to a relaxed state (Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005).

Viewing scenes of nature stimulates a larger portion of the visual cortex than non- nature scenes, which triggers more pleasure receptors in our brain, leading to prolonged interest and faster stress recovery. For example, heart rate recovery from low-level stress, such as from working in an ofﬁce environment, has shown to occur 1.6 times faster when the space has a glass window with a nature view, rather than a high-quality simulation (i.e., plasma video) of the same nature view, or no view at all (Kahn et al., 2008). Additionally, repeated viewing of real nature, unlike non-nature, does not signiﬁcantly diminish the viewer’s level of interest over time (Biederman & Vessel, 2006).

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Visual Connection with Nature is often
paired with a number of other patterns.

Common overlaps with the most
signiﬁcant potential impact:
[P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P3] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
[P5] Presence of Water
[P8] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
[P11] Prospect
[P1]
VISUAL

CONNECTION

WITH NATURE
***
A Visual Connection with
Nature is a view to elements
of nature, living systems and
natural processes.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Visual Connection with Nature pattern is to provide an environment that helps the individual shift focus t o relax the eye muscles and temper cognitive fatigue. The effect of an intervention will improve as the quality of a view and the amount of visible biodiversity each increases.

A view to nature through a glass window provides a beneﬁt over a digital screen (e.g., video/plasma tv) of the same view, particularly because there is no parallax shift for people as they move toward or around a video screen (Kahn et al., 2008).

This may change as three-dimensional videography ad vances. Nevertheless, simulated or constructed nature is measurably bette r at engendering stress reduction than having no visual connection at all.

Design considerations for establishing a strong visual connection with nature:
• Prioritize real nature over simulated nature; and simulated nature over no nature.
• Prioritize biodiversity over acreage, area or quantity. • Prioritize or enable exercise opportunities that are in proximity to green space.
• Design to support a visual connection that can be experienced for at least 5-20 minutes per day.
• Design spatial layouts and furnishings to uphold desired view lines and avoid impeding the visual access when in a seated position. • Visual connections to even small instances of natur e can be restorative, and particularly relevant for temporary interventions, or spaces where real estate (ﬂoor/ground area, wall space) is limited. • The beneﬁts of viewing real nature may be attenuated by a digital medium, which may be of greatest value to spaces that, due to the nature of its function (e.g., hospital radiation un its) cannot easily incorporate real nature or views to the outdoors.

An example of a designed environment with an excellent Visual Connection with Nature is the birch tree and moss garden in the New York Times Building in New York City – a carved out space in the middle of the building by which everyone passes as they enter or leave the building. Adjacent to a restaurant and the main conference rooms, the birch garden is an oasis of calm in the hustle and bustle of Times Square.

EXAMPLES
Naturally Occurring
• Natural ﬂow of a body of water
• Vegetation, including food bearing
plants
• Animals, insects
• Fossils
• Terrain, soil, earth
Simulated or Constructed
• Mechanical ﬂow of a body of water
• Koi pond, aquarium
• Green wall
• Artwork depicting nature scenes
• Video depicting nature scenes
• Highly designed landscapes
Far left: Kikugetu-tei, Takamatsu, Japan.

Image © wakiiii/Flickr.

Above: Autumn wine vineyard near
Blenheim, New Zealand. Image © Daniel
Pietzsch/Flickr.

Left: The NY Times Building moss and birch
garden, New York by Renzo Piano acts as
an oasis of calm. Image © Hubert J. Steed.

PARALLAX
Parallax arises with a change in
viewpoint occurring due to motion of
the observer, of the observed, or of
both. The human brain exploits the
parallax to gain depth perception and
estimate distances to objects.

14 Patterns of Biophilic Design26

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Non-Visual Connection with Natu re feels fresh and well balanced; the ambient conditions are perceived as complex and variable but at the same time familiar and comfortable, whereby sounds, aromas, and textures are reminiscent of being outdoors in nature.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Non-Visual Connection with Nature pattern has e volved from research on reductions in systolic blood pressure and stress hormones; impact of sound and vibration on cognitive performance; and perceived improvements in mental health and tranquility as a result of non-visual sensory interactions with non-threatening nature.[P2] Each sensory system has a vast body of research to support it; here we provide just a taste.

Auditory. Research shows that exposure to nature sounds, when compared to urban or ofﬁce noise, accelerates physiological and psychological restoration up to 37% faster after a psychological stressor (Alvarsson et al., 2010) and reduces cognitive fatigue and helps motivation (Jahncke et al., 2011). Participants of one study who either listened to river sounds or saw a nature movie with river sounds during a post-task restoration period reported having more energy and greater motivation after the restoration period compared to participants who only listened to ofﬁce noise or silence (Jahncke et al., 2011). In addition, viewing the nature movie with river sounds during the restoration period had a more positive effect than only listening to river sounds alone.

Ocean waves and vehicle trafﬁc can have a very simi lar sound pattern. In an experiment using a synthesized sound that replicated the waves and trafﬁc sound pattern, researchers observed that participants processed the synthesized sound in different portions of the brain depending on whether they were also watching a video of either waves or vehicle trafﬁc (Hunter e t al., 2010). Participants considered the sound to be pleasurable when viewing the video of waves, but not when viewing the video of trafﬁc. This study su ggests a strong connection between our visual and auditory sensory systems and psychological well-being.

Olfactory. Our olfactory system processes scent directly in the brain, which can trigger very powerful memories. Traditional practices have long used plant oils to calm or energize people. Studies have also shown that olfactory exposure to herbs and phytoncides (essential oils from trees) have a positive effect on the healing process and human immune function, respectively (Li et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2007).

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
As experiences can be enhanced when
paired with more than one sense, the
application of a second pattern could
help identify the stimuli or other qualities
of the stimuli.

Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P3] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
[P4] Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
[P9] Material Connection with Nature
[P5] Presence of Water
and sometimes also:
[P13] Mystery
[P2]

NON-VISUAL

CONNECTION

WITH NATURE
**
Non-Visual Connection with
Nature is the auditory, haptic,
olfactory, or gustatory stimuli
that engender a deliberate
and positive reference
to nature, living systems
or natural processes.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 27
Haptic. Pet therapy, where companionship and the act of petting and feeling the fur of domesticated animals, is known to have profound calming effects on patients; gardening and horticulture activities have shown to engender environmental stewardship among children, reduce self-reported fatigue while maintaining joint ﬂexibility among adults (e.g., Yamane et al., 2004), and reduce perception of pain among senior populations with arthritis. The act of touching real plant life, versus synthetic plants, has also shown to induce relaxation through a change in cerebral blood ﬂow rates (e.g., Koga & Iwasaki, 2013). These examples give reason to believe that the experience of touching other elements in nature, such as water or raw materials, may result in similar health outcomes.

Gustatory. Tasting is yet another way of experiencing nature and learning about our environment. While adults are often curious or fearful of edible plants and herbs, consider the familiar habit of infants and toddlers putting found objects in their mouths – they are seeking information.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Non-Visual Connection with Nature pattern is to provide an environment that uses sound, scent, touch and possibly even taste to engage the individual in a manner that helps reduce stress and improve perceived physical and mental health. These senses can be experienced separately, although the experience is intensiﬁed and the health effect is compounded if multiple senses are consistently engaged together.

Design considerations for establishing a strong non-visual connection with nature:
• Prioritize nature sounds over urban sounds.
• Design for non-visual connections that can be easil y accessed from one or multiple locations, and in such a way that allows daily engagement for 5 to 20 minutes at a time.
• Integrate non-visual connections with other aspects of the design program.
• A single intervention that can be experienced in multiple ways can enhance the impacts.
• Design for visual and non-visual connections to be experienced simultaneously to maximize potential positive health responses.

Calat Alhambra in Granada, Spain, is an exquisite e xample of the 14 Patterns.

While some patterns are more evident in some spaces than others, Non-Visual Connections with Nature are experienced throughout. The integration of water and natural ventilation with the architecture is central to the non-visual experience, supporting a seamless connection between indoor and outdoor spaces, and between the building and the surrounding natural landscape. Solar heat penetrates at distinct locations, the whispering gallery reson ates sounds of nature and people, and gardens of rosemary, myrtles, and other fragrant plants surround the premises. The extensive use of water fountains creates a microclimate – the space both sounds and feels cooler – while stone ﬂoors and handrails with water channels cool the feet and hands through conductance.

EXAMPLES
Naturally Occurring
• Fragrant herbs and ﬂowers
• Songbirds
• Flowing water
• Weather (rain, wind, hail)
• Natural ventilation (operable
windows, breezeways)
• Textured materials (stone, wood, fur)
• Crackling ﬁre/ﬁreplace
• Sun patches
• Warm/cool surfaces
Simulated or Constructed
• Digital simulations of nature sounds
• Mechanically released
natural plant oils
• Highly textured fabrics/textiles that
mimic natural material textures
• Audible and/or physically
accessible water feature
• Music with fractal qualities
• Horticulture/gardening, including
edible plants
• Domesticated animals/pets
• Honeybee apiary
Above: A fountain and gardens in the Calat
Alhambra in Granada, Spain provide a non-
visual experience of nature. Image © Dax
Fernstrom/Flickr.

Left: Morske Orgulje (sea organ), Zadar,
Croatia. Image © Bohringer Friedrich.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design28

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with good Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli feels as if one is momentarily privy to something special, something fresh, intere sting, stimulating and energizing. It is a brief but welcome distraction.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli pattern has evolved from research on looking behavior (particularly periphery vision movement re ﬂexes); eye lens focal relaxation patterns; heart rate, systolic blood pressure and sympathetic nervous system activity; and observed and quantiﬁed behavioral measures of attention and exploration.[P3]
Studies of the human response to stochastic movemen t of objects in nature and momentary exposure to natural sounds and scents have shown to support physiological restoration. For instance, when sitting and staring at a computer screen or doing any task with a short visual focus, the eye’s lens becomes rounded with the contracting of the eye muscles. When these muscles stay contracted for an extended period, i.e., more than 20 minutes at a time, fatigue can occur, manifesting as eye strain, headaches and physical d iscomfort. A periodic, yet brief visual or auditory distraction that causes one to look up (for >20 seconds) and to a distance (of >20 feet) allows for short mental breaks during which the muscles relax and the lenses ﬂatten (Lewis, 2012; Vessel, 2012).

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli p attern is to encourage the use of natural sensory stimuli that unobtrusive ly attract attention, allowing individuals’ capacity for focused tasks to be reple nished from mental fatigue and physiological stressors. This can be achieved by designing for momentary exposure to the stochastic or unpredictable movement, particularly for periphery vision or the periodic experience of scents or sounds.

When immersed in nature, we continually experience instances of non-rhythmic stimuli: birds chirping, leaves rustling, the faint scent of eucalyptus in the air.

The built environment has evolved into a deliberate ly predictable realm. Even some highly manicured gardens and certainly interior vegetation lack the qualities needed to support non-rhythmic sensory stimuli.

Design considerations for establishing accessible a nd effective non-rhythmic stimuli:
• As a general guideline, non-rhythmic sensory experiences should occur approximately every 20 minutes for about 20 seconds and, for visual stimuli, from a distance of more than 20 feet away.

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli differs
from [P2] Non-Visual Connection with
Nature in that it is inclusive of all
sensory systems and is most commonly
experienced at a subconscious level
through momentary exposure that is
not typically sought out or anticipated;
whereas Non-Visual Connection may be
deliberate, planned, and over longer,
more predictable durations of time.

Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P4] Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
[P5] Presence of Water
[P10] Complexity & Order
[P13] Mystery
[P3]

NON-RHYTHMIC

SENSORY

STIMULI
**
Non-Rhythmic Sensory
Stimuli are stochastic and
ephemeral connections with
nature that may be analyzed
statistically but may not
be predicted precisely.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 29
• Many stimuli in nature are seasonal, so a strategy that is effective year-round, such as with multiple interventions tha t overlap with seasons, will help ensure that non-rhythmic sensory experiences can occur at any given time of the year.
• In some cases, the intervention may be similar to that of [P1] Visual or [P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature; what’s important here is the ephemeral and stochastic quality of the intervention. • An intervention that leverages simulation of (rather than naturally occurring) natural stimuli will likely necessitate early collaboration with the mechanical engineer or facilities team.
• A non-rhythmic stimuli strategy can be interwoven w ith almost any landscape or horticulture plan. For instance, s electing plant species for window boxes that will attract bees, bu tterﬂies and other pollinators may be a more practical applicati on for some projects than maintaining a honeybee apiary or butterﬂy sanctuary. • Humans perceive movement in the peripheral view much quicker than straight ahead. The brain also processes the m ovement of living things in a different place than it does of mechanical objects (Beauchamp et al., 2003), whereby natural movement is generally perceived as positive, and mechanical movement as neutral or even negative. As a result, the repeating rhythmic motion of a pendulum will only hold one’s attention brieﬂy, the constant repetitive ticking of a clock may come to be ignored over time, and an ever-present scent may lose its mystique with long-term exposure ; whereas, the stochastic movement of a butterﬂy will capture one’s attention each time for recurring physiological beneﬁts.

The Dockside Green community on Vancouver Island, Victoria, BC Canada, is a great example of non-rhythmic stimuli. The implementation of habitat restoration and rainwater management has led to ephemeral exper iences of swaying grasses, falling water and the buzz of passing insects and animals that are visible from walkways, porches, and windows around the community.

EXAMPLES
Naturally Occurring
• Cloud movement
• Breezes
• Plant life rustling
• Water babbling
• Insect and animal movement
• Birds chirping
• Fragrant ﬂowers, trees and herbs
Simulated or Constructed
• Billowy fabric or screen
materials that move or glisten
with light or breezes
• Reﬂections of water on a surface
• Shadows or dappled light that
change with movement or time
• Nature sounds broadcasted
at unpredictable intervals
• Mechanically released plant oils
Far left: Kinetic membrane of the Brisbane
Domestic Terminal Airport Carpark by Ned
Kahn. Image © Daniel Clifford.

Left: The Dockside Green Community on
Vancouver Island by Busby Perkins+Will
immerses people in natural non-rhythmic
stimuli. Image © Ellen Moorhouse,
Toronto Star.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design30

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with good Thermal & Airﬂow Variability feel s refreshing, active, alive, invigorating and comfortable. The space provides a feeling of both ﬂexibility and a sense of control.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Thermal & Airﬂow Variability pattern has evolved from research measuring the effects of natural ventilation, its resulting t hermal variability, and worker comfort, well-being and productivity; physiology and perception of temporal and spatial pleasure (alliesthesia); the impact of nature in motion on concentration; and, generally speaking, a growing discontent with the conventional approach to thermal design, which focuses on achieving a narrow target area of temperature, humidity and air ﬂow while minimizing variability.[P4a] Research shows that people like moderate levels of sensory variability in the environment, including variation in light, sound an d temperature, and that an environment devoid of sensory stimulation and variability can lead to boredom and passivity (e.g., Heerwagen, 2006).[P4b] Early studies in alliesthesia indicate that pleasant thermal sensations are better perceiv ed when one’s initial body state is warm or cold, not neutral (e.g., Mower, 1976), which corroborates more recent studies reporting that a temporary over-cooling of a small portion of the body when hot, or over-heating when cold, even with out impacting the body’s core temperature, is perceived as highly comfortable (Arens et al., 2006).

According to Attention Restoration Theory, elements of “soft fascination” such as light breezes or other natural movements can improve concentration (Heerwagen & Gregory, 2008; S. Kaplan, 1995). Other research indicates that a variety of thermal conditions within a classroom can lead to b etter student performance (Elzeyadi, 2012); and that changes in ventilation velocity can have a positive impact on comfort, with no negative impact on cognitive function, while also offering the possibility of some increase in the ability to access short term memory (Wigö, 2005).

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Thermal & Airﬂow Variability p attern is to provide an environment that allows users to experience the sen sory elements of airﬂow variability and thermal variability. The intent is also for the user to be able to control thermal conditions, either by using individ ual controls, or allowing occupants access to variable ambient conditions within a space.

In contrast, conventional thermal design tries to achieve a narrow target area of temperature, humidity and airﬂow, while minimizing variability – the goal being to maintain conditions within the “ASHRAE comfort envelope”. When the entire

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P6] Dynamic & Diffuse Light
[P7] Connection with Natural Systems
and sometimes also:
[P3] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P5] Presence of Water
[P13] Mystery
[P4]

THERMAL
& AIRFLOW

VARIABILITY
**
Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
can be characterized as subtle
changes in air temperature,
relative humidity, airﬂow
across the skin, and surface
temperatures that mimic
natural environments.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 31
space meets this goal, laboratory-based predictive models assert that 80% of the occupants would be satisﬁed at any given time – traditionally an acceptable outcome industry-wide. An alternative approach is t o provide combinations of ambient and surface temperatures, humidity and a irﬂow, similar to those experienced outdoors, while also providing some form of personal control (e.g., manual, digital, or physical relocation) over those conditions.

Providing variable conductance materials, seating o ptions with differing levels of solar heat gain (indoors and outdoors) or proximity to operable windows – as welcome as catching a cooling breeze on a sunny day or leaning one’s back on a warm rock on a cool day – could improve the overall satisfaction of a space.

Since thermal comfort is inherently subjective, and strongly varies between people, it is important to give a degree of control to indiv iduals, which can manifest architecturally (e.g., access to operable windows or shades) or mechanically (e.g., access to localized and energy-efﬁcient fans or heaters, and thermostat controls).

When an individual experiences thermal discomfort, he or she will likely take action to adapt (e.g., put on a sweater; move to a different seat; submit a complaint).

Sometimes these adaptive actions are simply in response to dynamic changes in personal preference. In order to create an enhanced thermal experience, conditions do not have to reach the point of discomfort for these opportunities for changing the thermal conditions to create a positive experience (Brager, 2014).

Design considerations:
• Incorporation of airﬂow and thermal conditions into materials, daylighting, mechanical ventilation and/or fenestra tion will help distribute variability over space and time.
• Thermal comfort is a vital bridging component betwe en biophilic design and sustainable design, especially in the fa ce of climate change and rising energy costs. When Thermal & Airﬂow Variability is implemented in a way that broadens people’s perc eption of thermal comfort, it may also help reduce energy demands for air conditioning and heating.
• Designing in features that allow users to easily adapt and modify their perceived thermal conditions of their environment will increase the range of acceptable temperatures by two degrees Celsius above and below the conventional parameters for thermal comfort (Nicol & Humphreys, 2002).
• Coordination of design strategies among a project t eam (e.g., architect, lighting designer and MEP engineers) as early as the schematic design process will be particularly impor tant for achieving design intent.

Singapore’s Khoo Teck Puat Hospital by RMJM Architects is an excellent example of Thermal & Airﬂow Variability. The passive design of the hospital draws fresh air in from the exterior courtyards; the cool air helps maintain thermal comfort, while patients also have operable windows in their rooms, allowing for greater personal control. The façade and internal layouts a re designed to enhance daylight and light/shade variability while reducing glare. Connecting, elevated exterior walkways also provide access to breezes, shade and solar heat.

EXAMPLE FACTORS
Naturally Occurring
• Solar heat gain
• Shadow and shade
• Radiant surface materials
• Space/place orientation
• Vegetation with seasonal
densiﬁcation
Simulated or Constructed
• HVAC delivery strategy
• Systems controls
• Window glazing and
window treatment
• Window operability and
cross ventilation
Above: The Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in
Singapore by RMJM Architects uses fresh
air and sunlight to increase thermal comfort.

Image © Jui-Yong Sim/Flickr.

Left: Cloisters at San Juan de Los Reyes,
Toledo, Spain. Image © Ben Leto/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design32

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Presence of Water condition feels compelling and captivating.

Fluidity, sound, lighting, proximity and accessibility each contribute to whether a space is stimulating, calming, or both.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Presence of Water pattern has evolved from research on visual preference for and positive emotional responses to environments containing water elements; reduced stress, increased feelings of tranquility, and lower heart rate and blood pressure from exposure to water features; improved concentration and memory restoration induced by complex, naturally ﬂuctuating visual stimuli; and enhanced perception and psychological and physiological resp onsiveness when multiple senses are stimulated simultaneously.[P5]
Visual preference research indicates that a preferred view contains bodies of clean (i.e., unpolluted) water (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993). Research has also shown that landscapes with water elicit a higher restorative response and generally have a greater preference among populations in compariso n to landscapes without water. Supporting evidence has suggested that natural scenes without water and urban scenes with water elements follow with primarily equal beneﬁts (Jahncke et al., 2011; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008; White, et al., 2010).

Research on response to activities conducted in green spaces has shown that the presence of water prompts greater improvements in both self-esteem and mood than activities conducted in green environments without the presence of water (Barton & Pretty, 2010). Auditory access and perceived or potential tactile access to water also reportedly reduces stress (Alvarsson et al., 2010; Pheasant et al., 2010).

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Presence of Water pattern is t o capitalize on the multi- sensory attributes of water to enhance the experience of a place in a manner that is soothing, prompts contemplation, enhances mood, and provides restoration from cognitive fatigue.

Repeated experiences of water do not signiﬁcantly diminish our level of interest over time (Biederman & Vessel, 2006), so one small water feature may be adequate. Taking advantage of the sounds created by small-scale running water, and our capacity to touch it, will amplify the desired health response with a multi- sensory experience. Vistas to large bodies of water or physical access to natural or designed water bodies can also have the health response so long as they are perceived as ‘clean’ or unpolluted. Images of nature that include aquatic elements are more likely to help reduce blood pressure and heart rate than similar imagery without aquatic elements.

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Commonly enhanced patterns:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P7] Connection with Natural Systems
[P11] Prospect
[P14] Risk/Peril
[P5]

PRESENCE

OF WATER
**
Presence of Water is a
condition that enhances
the experience of a place
through the seeing, hearing
or touching of water.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 33
Design considerations for optimizing the impacts of a presence of water:
• Prioritize a multi-sensory water experience to achi eve the most beneﬁcial outcome.
• Prioritize naturally ﬂuctuating water movement over predictable movement or stagnancy.
• High volume, high turbulence water features could c reate discomfort, impact humidity levels or decrease acou stic quality, so proximity may inﬂuence appropriateness.
• Water features can be water and energy intensive and as such should be used sparingly, particularly in climates with little access to water.

Shading the water, using high albedo surfaces, and minimizing the exposed water surface area will minimize water loss through evaporation, and possibly contribute to the biophilic experience.

The Robert and Arlene Kogod Courtyard at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. is a great example of Presence of Water with its physically expansive water feature, designed by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd., doubling as an event space. The former outdoor space has been enclosed with an undulating canopy design by Foster + Partners, bearing resemblance to water or clouds. On several portions of the gently sloping ﬂoors are slits from which a sheet of water emerges, it ﬂows across the textured stone and then disappears into a series of slots toward the center of the courtyard. The thin sheet of water reﬂects light and weather conditions from above and invites passersby to touch. During events the system is drained and seamlessly becomes part of the ﬂoor plane.

EXAMPLES
Naturally Occurring
• River, stream, ocean, pond,
wetland
• Visual access to rainfall and ﬂows
• Seasonal arroyos
Simulated or Constructed
• Water wall
• Constructed water fall
• Aquarium
• Fountain
• Constructed stream
• Reﬂections of water (real or
simulated) on another surface
• Imagery with water in the
composition
Far left: Rice Univeristy, TX. Image
courtesy of archdaily.com.

Left: The Robert and Arlene Kogod
Courtyard in the Smithsonian American
Art Museum, Washington, DC, by Foster +
Partners and landscape designer Kathryn
Gustafson of Seattle–based Gustafson
Guthrie Nichol Ltd. has seamless water
sheets running across the ﬂoor, reﬂecting
weather and lighting conditions. Image ©
Tim Evanson/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design34

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Dynamic & Diffuse Light conditi on conveys expressions of time and movement to evoke feelings of drama and intrigue, buffered with a sense of calm.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
Lighting design has long been used to set the mood for a space, and different lighting conditions elicit differing psychological responses. The impact of daylight on performance, mood and well-being has been studie d for many years, in a variety of environments, and as a complex ﬁeld of science and design, light has been extensively studied and written about.

Early research showed that productivity is higher in well daylighted work places, sales are higher in daylit stores, and that children performed better in daylighted classrooms with views – the research focus was on l ighting strategy and task performance and less on human biology. For instance , quality daylighting has been reported to induce more positive moods and signiﬁcantly less dental decay among students attending schools with quality daylight than students attending schools with average light conditions (Nicklas & Bailey, 1996).

Recent research has focused more heavily on illuminance ﬂuctuation and visual comfort, human factors and perception of light, and impacts of lighting on the circadian system functioning.[P6] Sunlight changes color from yellow in the morning, to blue at midday, and red in the afternoon/evening; the human body responds to this daylight color transition. The res ponse is apparent in body temperature, heart rate, and circadian functioning. Higher content of blue light (similar to skylight) produces serotonin; whereas, an absence of blue light (which occurs at night) produces melatonin. The balance of serotonin and melatonin can be linked to sleep quality, mood, alertness, depression, breast cancer and other health conditions (Kandel et al., 2013).

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Dynamic & Diffuse Light patter n is twofold: to provide users with lighting options that stimulate the eye and hold attention in a manner that engenders a positive psychological or physiological response, and to help maintain circadian system functioning. The goal should not be to create uniform distribution of light through a (boring) space, nor should there be extreme differences (i.e., glare discomfort).

The human eye and the processing of light and image s within the brain are adaptable over a broad range of conditions, although there are limitations. For example, when the lighting difference between adjoining sources or surfaces has a brightness or luminance ratio of greater than for ty-to-one, glare may occur,

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P3] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
[P4] Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
[P13] Mystery
and sometimes also:
[P5] Presence of Water
[P7] Connection with Natural Systems
[P8] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
[P6]

DYNAMIC &

DIFFUSE LIGHT
**
Dynamic & Diffuse Light
leverages varying intensities of
light and shadow that change
over time to create conditions
that occur in nature.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 35
which diminishes visual comfort (Clanton, 2014). For work areas, luminance ratios between task and immediate surroundings should not exceed 10 to one. So while dramatic lighting differences may be great for some religious, socialization and circulation spaces, they are not a good idea on work surfaces.

Diffuse lighting on vertical and ceiling surfaces provides a calm backdrop to the visual scene. Accent lighting and other layering of light sources creates interest and depth, while task or personalized lighting provides localized ﬂexibility in intensity and direction. These layers help create a pleasing visual environment (Clanton, 2014).

Movement of light and shadows along a surface can a ttract our attention. For example, the dappled light under the canopy of an aspen tree, or the reﬂections of rippling water on a wall. These patterns tend to be fractals, and the brain is attuned to moving fractals (see [P10] Complexity & Order).

Just as variations in lighted surfaces are importan t for interpreting surfaces, conducting a variety of tasks, and safe navigation, circadian lighting is important for supporting biological health. Leveraging opport unities for illuminance ﬂuctuation, light distribution and light color variability that stimulate the human eye without causing discomfort will improve the quality of the user experience.

Design considerations for establishing a balance between dynamic and diffused lighting conditions:
• Dynamic lighting conditions can help transition between indoor and outdoor spaces.
• Drastically dynamic lighting conditions, such as wi th sustained movement, changing colors, direct sunlight penetration and high contrasts, may not be appropriate for spaces where directed attention activities are performed.
• Circadian lighting will be especially important in spaces the people occupy for extended periods of time.

A prime example of a Dynamic & Diffuse Light condit ion is at the Yale Center for British Art, designed by Louis Kahn. Despite the building’s stark exterior, the diversity of interior spaces and differing orientati ons of windows, clerestories, skylights and a large central atrium allows for light to penetrate at variable levels of diffusion to create an enhanced visitor experien ce, while upholding indoor environmental conditions necessary for displaying ﬁne art.

EXAMPLES
Naturally Occurring
• Daylight from multiple angles
• Direct sunlight
• Diurnal and seasonal light
• Firelight
• Moonlight and star light
• Bioluminescence
Simulated or Constructed
• Multiple low glare electric
light sources
• Illuminance
• Light distribution
• Ambient diffuse lighting
on walls and ceiling
• Day light preserving
window treatments
• Task and personal lighting
• Accent lighting
• Personal user dimming controls
• Circadian color reference
(color tuning electric light to
mimic diurnal patterns, and
minimize blue light at night)
Far left:

Visionaire, New York, NY. Pelli
Clarke Pelli Architects. Image courtesy
of Bill Browning.

Left:

The Yale Center for British Art in
New Haven, CT, by Louis Kahn utilizes
natural lighting to soﬂy illuminate art and
create dramatic experiences. Image © K.

Kendall/Flickr.

14 Patterns of Biophilic Design36

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Connection with Natural Systems evokes a relationship to a greater whole, making one aware of seasonality and the cycles of life. The experience is often relaxing, nostalgic, profound or enlightening, and frequently anticipated.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
There is limited scientiﬁc documentation of the health impacts associated with access to natural systems; however, much like [P5] Presence of Water, this pattern is suspected to enhance positive health responses. In Biophilic Design (Kellert et al., 2008), Kellert frames this as “Natural Patt erns and Processes” , whereby seeing and understanding the processes of nature can create a perceptual shift in what’s being seen and experienced. This pattern has a strong temporal element, which can be expressed culturally, as in the Japanese love of the ephemerality of cherry blossoms.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Connection with Natural Systems pattern is to heighten both awareness of natural properties and hopefully environmental stewardship of the ecosystems within which those properties prevail. The strategy for working with the pattern may be as simple as identifying key content in a view to nature (e.g., deciduous trees in the back yard or blossoming orchids on the window sill), or it may be a more complex integration of systems, su ch as by making evident the relationship between building occupant behavior and rainwater infrastructure (e.g., raingardens, bioswales, storm sewers) capacity, by regulating domestic activities (e.g., showering, laundry) during rain events. In either case, the temporal component is usually the key factor in pattern recognition and the triggering of a deeper awareness of a functioning ecosystem.

Design considerations and opportunities that may help create quality connections with natural systems:
• Integration of rainwater capture and treatment into the landscape design that responds to rain events.
• In some cases, providing visual access to existing natural systems will be the easiest and most cost effective approac h. In other cases, the incorporation of responsive design tacti cs (e.g., use of materials that change form or expand function with exposure to solar heat gain, wind, rain/moisture, or shading), structures (e.g., steps wells), and land formations (e.g., bioswales, arroyos, dunes) will be necessary to achieve the desired level of awareness.

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P3] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
[P5] Presence of Water
and sometimes also:
[P4] Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
[P6] Dynamic & Diffuse Light
[P13] Mystery
[P7]

CONNECTION

WITH NATURAL

SYSTEMS
Connection with Natural
Systems is the awareness of
natural processes, especially
seasonal and temporal
changes characteristic of a
healthy ecosystem.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 37
• Design interactive opportunities, especially for children, patients, and the elderly (e.g., integrative educational curriculum; horticulture programs, community gardens; seasonal cooking/diet).

Outside the New York penthouse ofﬁce of COOKFOX Arc hitects, sits a 3,000 square foot extensive green roof that changes color and vibrancy from season to season. Witnessing a hawk killing a small bird shifted employee perception of their green roof as an ecosystem and not just a decorativ e garden. This perception was reinforced when employees noticed changes in bee colony behavior during times of extreme heat and humidity, when the honeyb ee apiary was invaded by robber bees, and again when the summer honey harvest looked and tasted different than the autumn harvest.

EXAMPLES
Naturally Occurring
• Climate and weather patterns
(rain, hail, snow; wind, clouds,
fog; thunder, lightning)
• Hydrology (precipitation,
surface water ﬂows and
resources; ﬂooding, drought;
seasonal arroyos)
• Geology (visible fault lines and
fossils; erosion, shifting dunes)
• Animal behaviors (predation,
feeding, foraging,
mating, habitation)
• Pollination, growth, aging
and decomposition (insects,
ﬂowering, plants)
• Diurnal patterns (light color
and intensity; shadow casting;
plant receptivity; animal
behavior; tidal changes)
• Night sky (stars, constellations,
the Milky Way) and cycles (moon
stages, eclipses, planetary
alignments, astronomical events)
• Seasonal patterns (freeze-
thaw; light intensity and
color; plant cycles; animal
migration; ambient scents)
Simulated or Constructed
• Simulated daylighting systems
that transition with diurnal cycles
• Wildlife habitats (e.g., birdhouse,
honeybee apiary; hedges,
ﬂowering vegetation)
• Exposure of water infrastructure
• Step wells for seasonal rainwater
storage and social convergence
• Natural patina of materials (leather,
stone, copper, bronze, wood)
Above: The greenroof of COOKFOX Architects’ New York ofﬁce dramatically changes in appearence through the year, visually connecting occupants with the seasons and local ecosystem activity. Images courtesy of Bill Browning.

Left: Tanner Springs, Portland, Oregon. Atelier Drei seitl, architect. Image courtesy of GreenWorkSpc.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design38

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with good Biomorphic Forms & Patterns feels interesting and comfortable, possibly captivating, contemplative or even absorptive.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
Biomorphic Forms & Patterns has evolved from resear ch on view preferences (Joye, 2007), reduced stress due to induced shift i n focus, and enhanced concentration. We have a visual preference for orga nic and biomorphic forms but the science behind why this is the case is not yet formulated. While our brain knows that biomorphic forms and patterns are not living things, we may describe them as symbolic representations of life (Vessel, 2012).

Nature abhors right angles and straight lines; the Golden Angle, which measures approximately 137.5 degrees, is the angle between successive ﬂorets in some ﬂowers, while curves and angles of 120 degrees are frequently exhibited in other elements of nature (e.g., Thompson, 1917).

The Fibonacci series (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34...) is a numeric sequence that occurs in many living things, plants especially. Phyllotaxy, or the spacing of plant leaves, branches and ﬂower petals (so that new growth doesn’t block the sun or rain from older growth) often follows in the Fibonacci series. Related to the Fibonacci series is the Golden Mean (or Golden Section), a ratio of 1:1.618 that surfaces time and again among living forms that grow and unfold in steps or rotations, such as with the arrangement of seeds in sunﬂowers or the spiral of seashells.

Biomorphic forms and patterns have been artisticall y expressed for millennia, from adorning ancient temples to more modern exampl es like Hotel Tassel in Brussels (Victor Horta, 1893) and the structures of Gare do Oriente in Lisbon (Santiago Calatrava, 1998). More intriguing still i s the architectural expression of mathematical proportions or arrangements that occur in nature, the meaning of which has been fodder for philosophical prose si nce Aristotle and Euclid.

Many cultures have used these mathematical relationships in the construction of buildings and sacred spaces. The Egyptian Pyramids, the Parthenon (447-438 BC), Notre Dame in Paris (beginning in1163), the Taj Mahal in India (1632–1653), the CN Tower in Toronto (1976), and the Eden Project Education Centre in Corwall, UK (2000) are all alleged to exhibit the Golden Mean.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of Biomorphic Forms & Patterns is to provide representational design elements within the built environment that allow users to make connections to nature. The intent is to use biomorphic forms and patterns in a way that creates a more visually preferred environment that enhances cognitive performance while helping reduce stress.

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P10] Complexity & Order
[P8]

BIOMORPHIC

FORMS &

PATTERNS
*
Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
are symbolic references to
contoured, patterned, textured
or numerical arrangements
that persist in nature.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 39
Humans have been decorating living spaces with representations of nature since time immemorial, and architects have long created spaces using elements inspired by trees, bones, wings and seashells. Many classic building ornaments are derived from natural forms, and countless fabric patterns are based on leaves, ﬂowers, and animal skins. Contemporary architecture and design have introduced more organic building forms with softer edges or even biomimetic qualities.

There are essentially two approaches to applying Biomorphic Forms & Patterns, as either a cosmetic decorative component of a larger design, or as integral to the structural or functional design. Both approaches can be utilized in tandem to enhance the biophilic experience.

Design considerations that may help create a quality biomorphic condition:
• Apply on 2 or 3 planes or dimensions (e.g., ﬂoor pl ane and wall; furniture windows and sofﬁts) for greater diversity and frequency of exposure.
• Avoid the overuse of forms and patterns that may le ad to visual toxicity.
• More comprehensive interventions will be more cost effective when they are introduced early in the design process.

The Art Nouveau Hotel Tassel in Brussels (Victor Ho rta, architect, 1893) is a favorite example of Biomorphic Forms & Patterns. The interior space in particular is rife with natural analogues, with graphic vine-like tendrils painted on the wall and designed into the banisters and railings, ﬂoor mosaics, window details, furniture, and columns. The curvaceous tiered steps seem to ma ke distant reference to shells or ﬂower petals.

EXAMPLES
Decor
• Fabrics, carpet, wallpaper designs
based on Fibonacci series or
Golden Mean
• Window details: trim and moldings,
glass color, texture, mullion
design, window reveal detail
• Installations and free-standing
sculptures
• Furniture details
• Woodwork, masonry
• Wall decal, paint style or texture
Form/Function
• Arrangement of the structural system
(e.g., columns shaped like trees)
• Building form
• Acoustic paneling (wall or ceiling)
• Railings, banisters, fencing, gates
• Furniture form
• Window details: frit, light shelves, ﬁns
• Pathway and hallway form
Far left: Façade of Manuel Gea González
Hospital in Mexico City. Image © misia-
nov-dom.

Left: The organic and curvaceous stairs,
mosaics, railings, light ﬁxtures, window
details and other decorative elements of the
Hotel Tassel in Brussels, by Victor Horta are
a classic example of Biomorphic Forms &
Patterns. Image © Eloise Moorhead.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design40

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Material Connection with Nature feels rich, warm and authentic, and sometimes stimulating to the touch.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
While scientiﬁc documentation on the health impact of natural materials is limited, available research is beginning to shed light on opportunities for informed design.

As such, the Material Connection with Nature pattern has evolved from a limited body of scientiﬁc research on physiological responses to variable quantities of natural materials, and the impact of natural color palette, particularly the color green, has on cognitive performance.

One such study demonstrated that a difference in wood ratio on the walls of an interior space led to different physiological responses (Tsunetsugu, Miyazaki & Sato, 2007). The researchers observed that a room w ith a moderate ratio of wood (i.e., 45% coverage), with a more subjective “comfortable” feeling, exhibited signiﬁcant decreases in diastolic blood pressure and signiﬁcant increases in pulse rate, whereas a decrease in brain activity was observed in large ratios (i.e., 90% coverage), which could be either highly restorative in a spa or doctor’s ofﬁce, or counterproductive if in a space where high cognitive functionality is expected.

In a series of four experiments examining the effect of the presence of the color green on the psychological functioning of participa nts, the results concluded that exposure to the color green before conducting a task “facilitates creativity performance, but has no inﬂuence on analytical performance” (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012). Humans are also able to distinguish more variations in the color green than of any other color (Painter, 2014). However, which variation(s) of the color green most inﬂuence creativity or other mind-body responses is not well understood.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Material Connection with Natur e pattern is to explore the characteristics and quantities of natural materials optimal for engendering positive cognitive or physiological responses. In s ome cases, there may be several layers of information in materials that enhance the connection, such as learned knowledge about the material, familiar textures, or nested fractals that occur within a stone or wood grain pattern.

Natural materials can be decorative or functional, and are typically processed or extensively altered (e.g., wood plank, granite countertop) from their original ‘natural’ state, and while they may be extracted fr om nature, they are only analogous of the items in their ‘natural’ state.

Design considerations that may help create a quality material connection:

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P8] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
[P10] Complexity & Order
[P9]

MATERIAL

CONNECTION

WITH NATURE
A Material Connection with
Nature is material and
elements from nature that,
through minimal processing,
reﬂect the local ecology or
geology to create a distinct
sense of place.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 41
• Quantities of a (natural) material and color should be speciﬁed based on intended function of the space (e.g., to restore versus stimulate).

In the same vein, a degree of variability of materials and applications is recommended over high ratios of any one material or color. • Real materials are preferred over synthetic variati ons because human receptors can tell the difference between real and synthetic, so minimally processed materials from real nature a re preferred whenever possible.
• Incorporating instances of the color green may help enhance creative environments; however, scientiﬁc studies on the impact of the color green have mostly been conducted in co ntrolled lab environments, so dependence on color to engender cr eativity should be considered experimental.

The lobby of the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park in New York (COOKFOX Architects, 2009) is a good example of a diverse application of Material Connections with Nature. One enters the glass skyscraper by gra sping a thin wooden door handle. The interior lobby walls are clad with Jerusalem Stone – the tiles with the highest fossil content were intentionally placed at the corner where they would be most encountered and even touched by passersby. Leather paneling in the elevator lobby is warm in color, providing a sense of calm for people as they wait for their ride, and soft to the touch, from which the patina has begun to show.

EXAMPLES
Decor
• Accent details (natural wood
grains; leather; stone, fossil
textures; bamboo, rattan, dried
grasses, cork)
• Interior surfaces (veneer,
countertops)
• Woodwork, stonework
• Natural color palette, particularly
greens
Form/Function
• Wall construction (wood, stone)
• Structural systems (heavy timber
beams)
• Façade material
• Furniture form
• Footpaths, bridges
Far left: Bamboo pavilion by WOHA architects.

Image courtesy of WOHA architects.

Left: Leather clad elevator lobby of the
Bank of America Tower in New York by
COOKFOX Architects visually warms
the space. Image © Bilyana Dimitrova /
Photography by Bilyana Dimitrova.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design42

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with good Complexity & Order feels engaging and information-rich, as an intriguing balance between boring and overwhelming.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Complexity & Order pattern has evolved from research on fractal geometries and preferred views; the perceptual and physiological responses to the complexity of fractals in nature, art and architecture; and the predictability of the occurrence of design ﬂows and patterns in nature.[P10]
Research has repeatedly conﬁrmed correlations between fractal geometries in nature and those in art and architecture (e.g., Joye, 2007; Taylor, 2006), but there are opposing opinions about which fractal dimension is optimal for engendering a positive health response, whether an optimal ratio exists, or if such a ratio is even important to identify as a design metric or guideline. Nikos Salingaros (2012) has examined a series of these perspectives with great clarity, noting that the range of preferred fractal dimensions is potentially quite broad (D=1.3-1.8) depending on the application.

Nested fractal designs expressed as a third iterati on of the base design (i.e., with scaling factor of 3, see illustration) are mor e likely to achieve a level of complexity that conveys a sense
of order and intrigue, and reduces
stress (Salingaros, 2012), a quality
lost in much of modern architecture,
which tends to limit complexity to the
second iteration, and consequently
results in an arguably dull and
inadequately nurturing form that fails
to stimulate the mind or engender
physiological stress reduction.

At either end of the spectrum, both non-fractal artwork and high-dimensional fractal artwork have been shown to induce stress (Hägerhäll et al., 2008; Taylor, 2006).

Overly complex designs and environments may result in psychological stress and even nausea. According to Judith Heerwagen and Roger Ulrich, occupants in a US Navy ofﬁce in Mississippi reported nausea, headaches and dizziness, symptoms frequently associated with poor indoor air quality or poor ventilation. It was determined that the interaction of multiple wall paper patterns, complex patterns in carpets and moiré patterns in seating fabrics ca used surfaces to appear to move as occupants walked through the space and ther efore caused extreme visual perception problems (Heerwagen, personal communication, March 2014).

Fractal patterns can be identiﬁed in classical art and vernacular architecture from the column capitals of ancient Greece and Egypt, th e art of Ancient Mayans,

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P8] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
[P9] Material Connection with Nature
[P10]

COMPLEXITY
& ORDER
**
Complexity & Order is
rich sensory information
that adheres to a spatial
hierarchy similar to those
encountered in nature.
(2) (1) (3)
A square ( ) with
a scaling factor
of 3 is more
impactful than
to a factor of 2.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 43
Islamic and Egyptian art, Hindu temples, Angkor Wat in Cambodia (12th century), and the Eiffel Tower in Paris (1889). Fractals are also evident in such well-known works as those of Botticelli, Vincent van Gogh, and Jackson Pollock.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Complexity & Order pattern is to provide symmetries and fractal geometries, conﬁgured with a coherent spati al hierarchy, to create a visually nourishing environment that engenders a po sitive psychological or cognitive response (Salingaros, 2012).

Fractals can exist at any scale, from desktop trink ets or textile patterns, to façade design, to a city grid or regional transport infrastructure. Scenes in nature typically support multiple fractal dimensions – savanna landscapes often support mid-range fractal dimensions – so there are potenti ally many opportunities to incorporate fractals.

A familiar challenge in the built environment is in identifying the balance between an information rich environment that is interesting and restorative, and one with an information surplus that is overwhelming an d stressful. Targeting an optimal dimensional ratio for design applications can be problematic (i.e., time consuming, inconsistent and even inaccurate), of questionable long-term value, and essentially less important than the incorporati on of third-iteration fractal designs. As Salingaros (2012) points out, identifying precise fractal geometries in existing naturescapes, structures and artworks is a challenge, whereas generating new works with complex fractals is quite easy, so specifying fractal artwork, for instance, may not always be the most efﬁcient use of project resources.

Design considerations that may help create a quality Complexity & Order condition:
• Prioritize artwork and material selection, architectural expressions, and landscape and master planning schemes that reve al fractal geometries and hierarchies.
• Fractal structures with iterations of three will be more impactful than a design limited to two iterations.
• Computer technology using the algorithms of mathema tical and geometric functions can produce fractal designs for architectural, design and planning applications with ease. If a fr actal design is being created, consider using geometries with a mid-range dimensional ratio (broadly speaking, D=1.3-1.75).
• Over-use of and/or extended exposure to high-fractal dimensions could instill discomfort or even fear, countering the intended response:
to nourish and reduce stress. Avoidance or under-utilization of fractals in design could result in complete predictability and disinterest. • A new building or landscape design should take into account its impact on the fractal quality of the existing urban skyline.

Tucked in between buildings of downtown Toronto, Ontario, is the Allen Lambert Galleria and Atrium at Brookﬁeld Place. The cathedr al-like structure designed by Santiago Calatrava (1992) is information rich, yet protecting, with its orderly columns that rise up into a canopy of complex tree-like forms, showers diffuse light and shadow onto the courtyard, and keeps visitors awestruck and engaged.

EXAMPLES
Decor
• Wallpaper and carpet design
• Material texture and contour
• Window details: trim and moldings,
glass color, texture, mullion
design, window reveal detail
• Plant selection variety and
placement
• Complex plant oil fragrances
• Auditory stimuli
Form/Function
• Exposed structure/exoskeleton
• Exposed mechanical systems
• Façade materials
• Façade, spandrel and window
hierarchy
• Building skyline
• Floor plan, landscape plan,
urban grid
• Pedestrian and trafﬁc ﬂows
• Resource ﬂows
Above: The engaging ceiling structure of
the Allen Lambert Galleria and Atrium at
Brookﬁeld Place by Santiago Calatrava in
Toronto. Image © Reto Fetz/Flickr.

Left: Summer Palace, Beijing, China. Image
courtesy of Bill Browning.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design44

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Prospect condition feels open a nd freeing, yet imparts a sense of safety and control, particularly when alone or in unfamiliar environments.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Prospect pattern has evolved from research on visual preference and spatial habitat responses, as well as cultural anthropology , evolutionary psychology and architectural analysis. Health beneﬁts are suggested to include reductions in stress, boredom, irritation, fatigue and perceiv ed vulnerability, as well as improved comfort.[P11]
In evolutionary psychology terms, we should prefer habitats that are similar to the African savannas on which we evolved as a species. This becomes clear in visual preference research starting with Jay Appleton’s Experience of Landscape in 1977, where he asked why certain views from the same vantage point are preferred over others. Wilson and Kellert (1993) argue that our view preferences, and possibly our aesthetic preferences, have roots in referential points that beneﬁt our survival. For example, ﬂowers are indicators of healthy plant growth, and to signal the availability of resources in the future (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992).

The savanna, with its open terrain and copses of sh ade trees, becomes more favorable when combined with water, an understory of ﬂowers and forbs, calm grazing animals and evidence of human habitation. That we should be genetically predisposed to prefer this scene is posited by the Savanna Hypothesis (Orians & Heerwagen, 1986 and 1992).

Distant prospect (>100 feet, >30 meters) is preferred over shorter focal lengths (<20 feet, 6 meter) because it provides a greater s ense of awareness and comfort (Herzog & Bryce, 2007), reducing one’s stress responses, particularly when alone or in unfamiliar environments (Petherick , 2000). Good Prospect is extensive and information rich, with a savanna-like view.

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Prospect pattern is to provide users with a condition suitable for visually surveying and contemplating the surrou nding environment for both opportunity and hazard. In landscapes, Prospect is characterized as the view from an elevated position or across an expanse. While an elevated position can enhance (indoor and outdoor) prospect, it is not es sential to creating a quality Prospect experience.

There are potentially endless combinations for applying characteristics of prospect (Dosen & Ostwald, 2013). There is interior prospect, exterior prospect, as well as short depth and high depth prospect that can occur simultaneously. The complexity and variety of ways to achieve prospect is what makes it such a powerful design

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Complementary patterns:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P5] Presence of Water
[P12] Refuge
[P13] Mystery
[P14] Risk/Peril
[P11]

PROSPECT
***
Prospect is an unimpeded
view over a distance for
surveillance and planning.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 45
element. For interior spaces or dense urban spaces, prospect is the ability to see from one space to another, and is strengthened when there are clear distinctions and the opportunity to see through multiple spaces (Hildebrand, 1991).

Design considerations that may help create a quality Prospect condition:
• Orienting building, fenestration, corridors and wor kstations will help optimize visual access to indoor or outdoor vi stas, activity hubs or destinations.
• Designing with or around an existing or planned sav anna-like ecosystem, body of water, and evidence of human act ivity or habitation will help the information-richness of the prospect view. • Providing focal lengths of ≥20 feet (6 meters), preferably 100 feet (30 meters); when a space has sufﬁcient depth, spatial properties can be leveraged to enhance the experience by remov ing visual barriers. Limiting partition heights to 42” will pr ovide spatial barriers while allowing seated occupants to view across a space.

Understory vegetation or hedges should use a simila r guide; preferred height limitations will depend on terrain and how the space is most experienced (e.g., while sitting, standing, on a bicycle). • Locating stairwells at building perimeter with glas s façade and interior glass stairwell walls can form a dual Prospect condition. • When high ceilings are present, perimeter or interi or spaces elevated 12-18” will enhance the Prospect condition.
• Often the view quality and the balance between Prospect and [P12] Refuge will be more important than the size or freq uency of the experience.
• Refer to [P1] Visual Connection with Nature to optimize the Prospect experience with a quality view.

The central courtyard of the Salk Institute for Bio logical Studies in California, designed by Louis Kahn, is a popular example of a n early pure Prospect condition. This elevated space is bounded by the an gled ﬁns of the adjacent researcher ofﬁces, and has a rill ﬂowing through the center out towards the view of the Paciﬁc Ocean. There are some small trees in planters at the entry of the courtyard, but once in the space one’s gaze is drawn outward through the space.

EXAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Spatial Attributes
• Focal lengths ≥ 20 feet (6 meters)
• Partition heights ≤ 42 inches
(hedges; opaque workplace
partitions)
Common Features
• Transparent materials
• Balconies, catwalks, staircase
landings
• Open ﬂoor plans
• Elevated planes
• Views including shade trees,
bodies of water or evidence
of human habitation
Far left: Gardens at the baroque Château de
Vaux-le-Vicomte in Maincy, France. Image
© Mark B. Schlemmer/Flickr.

Left: The central plaza of the Salk Institute by
Louis Kahn in La Jolla, California frames the
view of the Paciﬁc. Image © Bill Browning.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design46

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Refuge condition feels safe, pr oviding a sense of retreat and withdrawal – for work, protection, rest or healing – whether alone or in small groups. A good Refuge space feels separate or uniqu e from its surrounding environment; its spatial characteristics can feel c ontemplative, embracing and protective, without unnecessarily disengaging.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Refuge pattern has evolved from research on visual preference research and spatial habitat responses, and its relationship to [P11] Prospect conditions. Refuge conditions are important for restoration experiences and stress reduction, which can be realized through lowered blood pressure and heart rate. Other beneﬁts of Refuge are suggested to include reduced irritati on, fatigue and perceived vulnerability, as well as improved concentration, a ttention and perception of safety (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; Wang & Taylor, 2006; Petherick, 2000; Ulrich et al., 1993).

Jay Appleton’s writing (1977, 1996) is focused on theory and is a good overall reference for both Prospect and Refuge, whereas Grant Hildebrand (1991) has written the most intelligently about Prospect and Refuge in the built environment and is a good reference for applications. In Hildeb rand’s words, “The edge of a wood is one of the most prevalent of natural pros pect-refuge conjunctions” for it provides protection from weather and predato rs, but allows for outward surveillance. Nonetheless, the health response to Refuge is reportedly stronger than the response to Prospect, and the compounded response is enhanced when the two spatial conditions converge (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010).

In small urban parks, park size is less important than the ability to be immersed in the space with the conditions of enclosure leading to restoration (e.g., Nordh, Hartig, Hägerhäll & Fry, 2009). In larger parks, the refuge spaces under trees, and in vegetation bordering an open space or meadow , are the preferred locations (e.g., Ruddell & Hammitt, 1987). Though science has yet to establish metrics for frequency or duration of access to refu ge conditions, the balance between Refuge and Prospect is suggested to be more important than the size or frequency of the experience (Appleton, 1996).

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The primary objective of the Refuge pattern is to p rovide users with an easily accessible and protective environment – a smaller portion of a larger space – that supports restoration. The secondary objective is to limit visual access into the refuge space. The principal spatial condition is protection overhead and to one’s back, preferably on three sides; strategic placement or orientation of the space can also inﬂuence quality of experience.
[P12]
REFUGE
***
Refuge is a place for
withdrawal, from environmental
conditions or the main ﬂow
of activity, in which the
individual is protected from
behind and overhead.

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Complementary patterns:
[P4] Thermal & Airﬂow Variability
[P6] Dynamic & Diffuse Light
[P11] Prospect
[P13] Mystery
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 47
Common functions of Refuge conditions:
• Weather/climate protection
• Speech or visual privacy
• Reﬂection or meditation
• Rest or relaxation
• Reading
• Complex cognitive tasks
• Protection from physical
danger
In most cases, the refuge is not entirely enclosed, but rather provides some contact (visual or aural) with the surrounding envi ronment for surveillance.

The greater the number of protective sides, the gre ater the refuge condition; however, complete refuge – protection on all sides – is not necessarily the most appropriate or effective solution, as it does not ma intain a relationship to the larger space. The traditional lean-to is a great example of basic refuge, as are a cozy bench seat in a bay window of the kitchen or a ﬁreside inglenook.

Refuge spaces take many forms, so understanding the context and deﬁning the intended user experience will certainly inﬂuence design decisions. There are endless combinations of design elements that can create a quality refuge space that offers shade or protection from natural or man-made environmental conditions.

Design considerations:
• Indoor refuge spaces are usually characterized by lowered ceiling conditions. For spaces with standard ceiling height s, this may equate to approximately 18-24 inches below the main ceiling, and is often achieved through treatments like a sofﬁt, a drop-ceiling or acoustical paneling, or suspended fabric.
• For outdoor or indoor spaces with particularly high ceilings (>14 feet), a more drastic differential may be necessary to achieve the desired outcome; freestanding or vegetative alc oves and mezzanine-like structures are often effective.
• When designing for larger populations or multiple a ctivity types, providing more than one kind of refuge space can address varying needs, which can often be met through differing spatial dimensions, lighting conditions, and degree of concealment.
• Light levels in refuge spaces should differ from adjacent spaces and user lighting controls will broaden functionality as a refuge space.

Sitting with one’s back against the trunk of a big shade tree is a classic refuge space, as is high backed booth seating in a restaurant, a reading nook in a library or school, a covered bus stop, or a wraparound porch. Treehouses are a timeless example of Refuge; and Cliff Palace in Mesa Verde, Colorado (constructed pre- A.D.1200s) is one of the best historic examples. While the settlement provides a feeling of containment and protection from the ar id climate and potential predators or enemies, the refuge experience is enhanced with characteristics of Prospect through its elevated position and views over the canyon.

EXAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Spatial Attributes
• Modular refuge: Small protection
(high-back chair, overhead trellis)
• Partial refuge: Several sides
covered (reading nooks, booth
seating, bay window seats, canopy
beds, gazebos, canopy trees,
arcades, covered walkways or
porches)
• Extensive refuge: near or complete
concealment (reading/telephone/
sleeping pods, meeting rooms
with 3+ walls, private ofﬁces, tree
houses)
Common Features
• Spaces with weather/climate
protection, or speech and visual
privacy
• Spaces reserved for reﬂection,
meditation, rest, relaxation,
reading, or complex cognitive
tasks
• Operable, adjustable or translucent
(or semi-opaque) shades, blinds,
screens or partitions
• Drop or lowered ceiling or sofﬁt,
overhang or canopy
• Lowered or varied light color,
temperature or brightness
Left: Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, CO. Image
© Terry Feuerborn/Flickr.

Above: Protected seating alcoves along
the Henderson Bridge, Singapore provide a
sense of refuge. Image © Reggie Wan/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design48

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Mystery condition has a palpable sense of anticipation, or of being teased, offering the senses a kind of denial and reward that compels one to further investigate the space.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
The Mystery pattern is largely based on the idea th at people have two basic needs in environments: to understand and to explore (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and that these ‘basic needs’ should occur “from one’s current position” in order to engender a sense of mystery (Herzog and Bryce, 2007).

The Mystery pattern has evolved from research on visual preference and perceived danger, as well as pleasure responses to anticipatory situations. Mystery engenders a strong pleasure response within the brain that may be a similar mechanism to that of anticipation, which is hypothesized to be an explanation for why listening to music is so pleasurable – in that we are guessing what may be around the corner. [P13] The beneﬁts of mystery conditions are suggest ed to include improved preference for a space; heightened curiosity; increased interest in gaining more information and greater likelihood of encountering other biophilic conditions.

A quality mystery condition does not engender a fear response; the conditions that differentiate between surprise (i.e., fear) an d pleasure center around the visual depth of ﬁeld. An obscured view with a shallow depth of ﬁeld has shown to lead to unpleasant surprises, whereas greater visual access, with a medium (≥20 ft) to high (≥100 ft) depth of ﬁeld is preferred (Herzog and Bryce, 2007).

A good mystery condition could also be expressed through the obscuring of the boundaries and a portion of the focal subject (i.e., room, building, outdoor space, or other information source), thereby enticing the user to anticipate the full extent of the subject and explore the space further (Ikemi, 2005).

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
Mystery characterizes a place where an individual f eels compelled to move forward to see what is around the corner; it is the partially revealed view ahead.

The objective of the Mystery pattern is to provide a functional environment that encourages exploration in a manner that supports stress reduction and cognitive restoration. While other ‘Nature of the Space’ patterns can be experienced in a stationary position, mystery implies movement and analysis starting from a place perceived in a fundamentally positive way.

Mystery conditions have their place among indoor and outdoor plazas, corridors, pathways, parks, and other transitory spaces. The s ense of mystery can be diluted over time and with routine exposure; howeve r, strategies that include

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P2] Non-Visual Connection with Nature
[P3] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
[P6] Dynamic & Diffuse Light
and sometimes also:
[P7] Connection with Natural Systems
[P10] Complexity & Order
[P11] Prospect
[P12] Refuge
[P13]

MYSTERY
**
Mystery is the promise of more
information achieved through
partially obscured views or
other sensory devices that
entice the individual to travel
deeper into the environment.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 49
revolving content or information, such as peek-a-boo windows into common areas where activity is constantly changing, will be most effective in spaces routinely occupied by the same group of people
Design considerations that will help create a quality Mystery condition:
• Curving edges that slowly reveal are more effective than sharp corners in drawing people through a space.
• Dramatic shade and shadows can enhance the mystery experience. • Strategies that provide dark shadows or shallow dep th of ﬁeld could instill unappreciated surprise or fear.
• The speed at which users are transiting through a s pace will inﬂuence both the size of the aperture and the size of the subject; faster typically means bigger.
• Organically evolved mystery conditions (e.g., low m aintenance gardens with winding paths) are expectedly going to change characteristics over time. These changes should be monitored as they may enhance the mystery condition, or otherwise degrade it as it evolves into a surprise condition (e.g., overgrowth of plantings leads to obscuring of depth of ﬁeld).

This process of denial and reward, obscure and reveal is evident in Japanese garden design and various mazes and labyrinths throughout the world. The gardens at Katsura Imperial Villa, in Kyoto, Japan, make strong use of Mystery to draw visitors through the space and instill a sense of fascinatio n. The strategic placement of buildings within the garden allows them to be hi dden and slowly revealed at various points along the garden path, encouraging the user to explore further.

Prospect Park, in Brooklyn, New York, is an excelle nt example of Mystery. In classic Olmsted style, many views throughout the pa rk are obscured through the use of topography and vegetation. Key focal poi nts in the landscape are revealed from stationary prospect points within the park. The focal points within the park (trees, buildings, lake and meadows) give the space a degree of legibility, but obscured views entice occupants to explore the space further, in order to understand it, which cannot be achieved in a single visit.

EXAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Spatial Attributes
• Views are medium (≥ 20 ft) to
high (≥ 100 ft) depth of ﬁeld
• At least one edge of the
focal subject is obscured,
preferably two edges
• Auditory stimulation from
an imperceptible source
• Peek-a-boo windows
that partially reveal
• Curving edges
• Winding paths
Common Features
• Light and shadow
• Sound or vibration
• Scent
• Activity or movement
• Artwork or installation
• Form and ﬂow
• Translucent materials
Far left: Lan Su Chinese Garden, Portland,
OR. Image courtesy of Catie Ryan.

Left: Obscured views in Prospect Park
in Brooklyn, New York, by Frederick Law
Olmsted and Calvert Vaux create a sense
of mystery and enticement. Image © Ed
Yourdon/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design50

THE EXPERIENCE
A space with a good Risk/Peril condition feels exhilarating, and with an implied threat, maybe even a little mischievous or perverse. One feels that it might be dangerous, but intriguing, worth exploring and possibly even irresistible.

ROOTS OF THE PATTERN
Risk can be generated by a learned or biophobic response triggered by a near and present danger. This danger, however, is inert and unable to cause harm due to a trusted element of safety. The deﬁning difference between Risk/Peril and fear is the level of perceived threat and perceived control (Rapee, 1997).

Having an awareness of a controllable risk can supp ort positive experiences that result in strong dopamine or pleasure responses. These experiences play a role in developing risk assessment during childho od. In adults, short doses of dopamine support motivation, memory, problem sol ving and ﬁght-or-ﬂight responses; whereas, long-term exposure to intense R isk/Peril conditions may lead to over-production of dopamine, which is implicated in depression and mood disorders.[P14]

WORKING WITH THE PATTERN
The objective of the Risk/Peril pattern is to arouse attention and curiosity, and refresh memory and problem solving skills. There are different degrees of risk that can be incorporated into a design depending on the intended user or the space available; a cantilevered walkway over a sheer cliff is an extreme case; viewing a predator in a zoo exhibit may provide a greater sense of control; whereas, rock- hopping through a gentle water feature presents the risk of getting one’s feet wet.

Design considerations that will help create a quality Risk/Peril condition:
• Risk/Peril design interventions are usually quite deliberate and as such will not be appropriate for all user groups or places. • Design strategies that rely on spatial conditions will be easier to implement when incorporated as early as concept des ign and schematic phases of the design process.
• The element of safety must protect the user from harm while still permitting the experience of risk.

RELATION TO OTHER PATTERNS
Common overlaps:
[P1] Visual Connection with Nature
[P5] Presence of Water
[P11] Prospect
[P14]

RISK/PERIL
*
Risk/Peril is an identiﬁable
threat coupled with a
reliable safeguard.

© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 51
At Frank Lloyd Wright’s home, Taliesin, in Spring Green, Wisconsin, The Birdwalk is a thrilling narrow balcony that cantilevers out over the hillside. Artist Michael Heizer’s Levitated Mass (pictured below) at Los Angeles County Museum of Art is an enormous boulder that spans over a pedestrian ramp, and under which visitors pass. The balancing act is seems improbable, but the bracing provides some reassurance of safety, and visitors ﬂock en ma sse to be photographed below the rock.

Lower-level risk, like getting one’s feet wet, may be a more appropriate strategy for some settings. A great example would the stepping stone path through the water feature designed by Herbert Dreiseitl at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, Germany.

EXAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Spatial
Attributes
• Heights
• Gravity
• Water
• Predator-prey
role reversal
Perceived
Risks
• Falling
• Getting wet
• Getting hurt
• Loss of
control
Common Features
• Double-height atrium with
balcony or catwalk
• Architectural cantilevers
• Inﬁnity edges
• Façade with ﬂoor-to-
ceiling transparency
• Experiences or objects
that are perceived to be
defying or testing gravity
• Transparent railing or ﬂoor plane
• Passing under, over
or through water
• Proximity to an active honeybee
apiary or predatory animals
• Life-sized photography
of spiders or snakes
Far left: Denver Art Museum by Daniel
Libeskind, Denver, CO. Image © Thomas
Hawk/Flickr.

Left: The Levitated Mass at Los Angeles
County Museum of Art. Michael Heizer, artist.

Image © Kate Dollarhyde/Flickr.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design52

FINAL THOUGHTS
The science supporting biophilic design is still emerging. In many ways, it could be argued that the research is really just corrobor ating the rediscovery of the intuitively obvious. Unfortunately, too much of our modern design is oblivious to this profound knowledge. Deep down, we know that the connection to nature is important. When asking people to think about their favorite places for vacation, the majority will describe some place outdoors; we use the term ‘recreation’ and forget that recreation is about recreating, restoring ourselves. So while empirical evidence is accumulating, we ought to go about rest oring the human-nature connection in the built environment.

Just to remind ourselves why biophilic design is so important, consider that in the 12,000 years since humans began farming and other activities that transformed the natural landscape (Smithsonian, 2014), only in the last 250 years have modern cities become common. Within the last few years we became urban dwellers, with more people living in cities than in the count ryside. In coming decades, it is projected that 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities. With this shift, the need for our designs to (re)connect people to an experience of nature becomes ever more important. Biophilic design is not a luxury, it’s a necessity for our health and well-being.

We hope “14 Patterns of Biophilic Design” helps shed light on the importance of the human connections with nature in our built e nvironment. We encourage people to challenge convention by bringing biophilic design patterns into a vision for healthy homes, workplaces and cities.
“A new discipline
needs to
abstract its
patterns as
they appear.

It is building its
own foundation
and logical
skeleton, upon
which future
growth can
be supported.

Knowing its
basic patterns
early on will
speed up the
language’s
development,
and guide it
in the right
direction.”
Nikos A. Salingaros, 2000
“The Structure of Pattern
Languages”
Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright, Bear Run, PA. Image © Brandon Sargent/Flickr. © 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 53

APPENDIX

ENDNOTES
[P1] Stress recovery from visual connections with
nature have reportedly been realized through
lowered blood pressure and heart rate (Brown,
Barton & Gladwell, 2013; van den Berg, Hartig,
& Staats, 2007; Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005);
reduced attentional fatigue, sadness, anger,
and aggression; improved mental engagement/
attentiveness (Biederman & Vessel, 2006), attitude
and overall happiness (Barton & Pretty, 2010).

There is also evidence for stress reduction related
to both experiencing real nature and seeing
images of nature (e.g., Grahn & Stigsdotter,
2010; Leather et al., 1998; Bloomer, 2008; Kahn,
Friedman, Gill et al., 2008; Hartig et al., 2003),
that natural environments are generally preferred
over built environments (e.g., van den Berg, Koole
& van der Wulp, 2003; Hartig, 1993; R. Kaplan
& Kaplan, 1989; Knopf, 1987; Ulrich, 1983).

Visual access to biodiversity is reportedly more
beneﬁcial to our psychological health than access to
land area (i.e., quantity of land) (Fuller, Irvine, Devine- Wright et al., 2007).
[P2] The Non-Visual Connection with Nature pattern is
derived from data on reductions in systolic blood
pressure and stress hormones (Park, Tsunetsugu,
Kasetani et al., 2009; Hartig, Evans, Jamner et
al., 2003; Orsega-Smith, Mowen, Payne et al.,
2004; Ulrich, Simons, Losito et al., 1991), impact
of sound and vibration on cognitive performance
(Mehta, Zhu & Cheema, 2012; Ljungberg, Neely, &
Lundström, 2004), and perceived improvements in
mental health and tranquility as a result of non-visual sensory interactions with non-threatening nature (Li,
Kobayashi, Inagaki et al., 2012; Jahncke, et al.,
2011; Tsunetsugu, Park, & Miyazaki, 2010; Kim,
Ren, & Fielding, 2007; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003).
[P3] The Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli pattern has
evolved from research on looking behavior
(particularly periphery vision movement reﬂexes);
eye lens focal relaxation patterns (Lewis, 2012;
Vessel, 2012); heart rate, systolic blood pressure
and sympathetic nervous system activity (Li, 2009;
Park et al, 2008; Kahn et al., 2008; Beauchamp,
et al., 2003; Ulrich et al., 1991); and observed and
quantiﬁed behavioral measures of attention and
exploration (Windhager et al., 2011).
[P4a] The Thermal & Airﬂow Variability pattern has
evolved from research measuring the effects of
natural ventilation, its resulting thermal variabil ity, and worker comfort, well-being and productivity
(Heerwagen, 2006; Tham & Willem, 2005; Wigö,
2005), physiology and perception of temporal and
spatial alliesthesia (pleasure) (Parkinson, de Dear
& Candido, 2012; Zhang, Arens, Huizenga & Han,
2010; Arens, Zhang & Huizenga, 2006; Zhang,
2003; de Dear & Brager, 2002; Heschong, 1979),
Attention Restoration Theory and impact of nature
in motion on concentration (Hartig et al., 2003;
Hartig et al., 1991; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and,
generally speaking, a growing discontent with the
conventional approach to thermal design, which
focuses on trying to achieve a narrow target area of
temperature, humidity and air ﬂow while minimizing
variability (e.g., de Dear, Brager & Cooper, 1997).
[P4b] Heerwagen (2006) explained that evidence has
shown that people like moderate levels of sensory
variability in the environment, including variation
in light, sound and temperatures, (e.g., Elzeyadi,
2012; Humphrey, 1980; Platt, 1961), and that
an environment devoid of sensory stimulation and
variability can lead to boredom and passivity (e.g.,
Schooler, 1984; Cooper, 1968).
[P5] The Presence of Water pattern has evolved from
research on visual preference for and positive
emotional responses to environments containing water
elements (Windhager, 2011; Barton & Pretty, 2010;
White, Smith, Humphryes et al., 2010; Karmanov &
Hamel, 2008; Biederman & Vessel, 2006;Heerwagen
& Orians, 1993; Ruso & Atzwanger, 2003; Ulrich,
1983); reduced stress, increased feelings of tranquility, lower heart rate and blood pressure, and recovered
skin conductance from exposure to water features
(Alvarsson, Wiens, & Nilsson, 2010; Pheasant, Fisher,
Watts et al., 2010; Biederman & Vessel, 2006);
improved concentration and memory restoration
induced by complex, naturally ﬂuctuating visual stimuli (Alvarsson et al., 2010; Biederman & Vessel, 2006);
and enhanced perception and psychological and
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 55

REFERENCES
Alcock, I., M.P. White, B.W. Wheeler, L.E. Fleming, & M.H.

Depledge. (2014). Longitudinal Effects on Mental He alth of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas.

Environmental Science & Technology, 48 (2), 1247-
1255.

Alexandra Health (2013). Creating a Healing Environ ment. A Healing Space: Creating Biodiversity at Khoo Teck P uat Hospital. Singapore: 10-19. Web. June 2014: <http://www. ktph.com.sg/uploads/KTPH_EBook/index.html#80>.

Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jaco bson, I.

Fiksdahl-King, & S. Angel (1977). A Pattern Language:

Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford
University Press. pix., 1171.

Alvarsson, J., S. Wiens & M. Nilsson (2010). Stress Recovery during Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental
Noise. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 7 (3), 1036-1046.

Appleton, J. (1996). The Experience of Landscape. Revised Ed. London & New York: Wiley. (original publication, 1977) pp.xiv, 282.

Arens, E., H. Zhang, & C. Huizenga (2006). Partial- and Whole- body Thermal Sensation and Comfort, Part II: Non-uniform Environmental Conditions. Journal of Thermal Biology,
31, 60-66.

Balling, J.D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments. Environment and
Behavior, 14 (1), 5-28.

Barton, J. & J. Pretty (2010). What Is the Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise for Improving Mental Health. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 3947–3955.

Beatley, Timothy (2012). Singapore: City in a Garden. Available:
http://biophiliccities.org/blog-singapore/. Web. 22 nd
July 2013.

Beauchamp, M.S., K.E. Lee, J.V. Haxby,& A. Martin (2003). FMRI Responses To Video and Point-Light Displays of Movi ng
Humans and Manipulable Objects. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 15 (7), 991-1001.

Beckett, M. & L.C. Roden (2009). Mechanisms by whic h
circadian rhythm disruption may lead to cancer. South
African Journal of Science 105, November/December
2009.

Bejan, A. & J.P. Zane (2012). Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics,
Technology, and Social Organization. New York: Random
House First Anchor Books, 304.

Berto, R. (2007). Assessing the Restorative Value o f the Environment: A Study on the Elderly in Comparison w ith Young Adults and Adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 42 (5), 331-341.

Biederman, I. (2011). University of Southern Califo rnia, Department of Psychology. Personal communication with
the authors.

Biederman, I. & E. Vessel (2006). Perceptual Pleasu re & the Brain. American Scientist, 94(1), 249-255.

Blood, A., & R.J. Zatorre (2001). Intensely Pleasur able Responses to Music Correlate with Activity in Brain
Regions. Proceedings from the National Academy of
Sciences, 98 (20), 11818-11823.

Bloomer, K. (2008). The Problem of Viewing Nature T hrough Glass. In Kellert, S.R., J.H. Heerwagen, & M.L. Mad or
(Eds.). Biophilic Design (253-262). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

Brager, Gail (2014). University of California Berke ley, Center for the Built Environment. Personal communication with the authors.

Brown, D.K., J.L. Barton, & V.F. Gladwell (2013). Viewing Nature Scenes Positively Affects Recovery of Autonomic Function Following Acute-Mental Stress. Environmental Science &
Technology, 47, 5562-5569.

Browning, W.D. & J.J. Romm (1994). Greening the Building and the Bottom Line. Rocky Mountain Institute.

Buraei, Za/f_ir (2014). Pace University, Department of Biology and Health Sciences. Personal communication with the
authors.

City of San Francisco (2013). San Francisco Parklet Manual. San Francisco: San Francisco Planning Department. 1-12.

Clanton, N. (2014). Clanton & Associates, Inc. Pers onal communication with the authors.

Clearwater, Y.A., & R.G. Coss (1991). Functional Es thetics to Enhance Wellbeing. In Harrison, Clearwater & McK ay
(Eds.). From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York:

Springer-Verlag, pp410.

Cooper, R. (1968). The Psychology of Boredom. Science
Journal 4 (2): 38-42. In: Heerwagen, J.H. (2006). Investing In People: The Social Bene/f_its of Sustainable Design .

Rethinking Sustainable Construction. Sarasota, FL.

September 19-22, 2006.
de Dear, R. (2011). Revisiting an Old Hypothesis of Human Thermal Perception: Alliesthesia. Building Research &
Information, 39, 2.
de Dear, R. & G. Brager (2002). Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings. Energy and Buildings, 34, 549-561. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design56
de Dear, R., G. Brager, & D. Cooper (1997). Develop ing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and Preference, Final Report. ASHRAE RP- 884 and Macquarie Research Ltd.

Dosen, A.S., & M.J. Ostwald (2013). Prospect and Re fuge Theory: Constructing a Critical De/f_inition for Architecture and Design. The International Journal of Design in
Society, 6 (1), 9-24.

Elzeyadi, I.M.K. (2012). Quantifying the Impacts of Green Schools on People and Planet. Research presented at the USGBC Greenbuild Conference & Expo, San Francisco,
November 2012, 48-60.

Figueiro, M.G., J.A. Brons, B. Plitnick, B. Donlan, R.P. Leslie, & M.S. Rea (2011). Measuring circadian light and its impact on adolescents. Light Res Technol. 43 (2): 201-215.

Forsyth, A. & L.R. Musacchio (2005). Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns.

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 13-30, 60-65, 74-82, 95-98.

Fromm, E. (1964). The Heart of Man. Harper & Row.

Frumkin, H. (2008). Nature Contact and Human Health: Building the Evidence Base. In: S.R. Kellert, J.H. Heerwagen, & M.L.

Mador (Eds.). Biophilic Design (115-116). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons.

Fuller, R.A., K.N. Irvine, P. Devine-Wright, P.H. Warren, & K.J.

Gaston (2007). Psychological Bene/f_its of Greenspace
Increase with Biodiversity. Biology Letters 3 (4), 390-394.

Grahn, P. & U.K. Stigsdotter (2010). The Relation B etween Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Urban Green Space and
Stress Restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 94,
264-275.

Hägerhäll, C.M., T. Purcella, & R. Taylor (2004). F ractal Dimension of Landscape Silhouette Outlines as a Predictor of Landscape Preference. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 24, 247-255.

Hägerhäll, C.M., T. Laike, R. P. Taylor, M. Küller, R. Küller, & T.

P. Martin (2008). Investigations of Human EEG Response
to Viewing Fractal Patterns. Perception, 37, 1488-1494.

Hartig, T., M. Mang, & G. W. Evans (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experience. Environment and
Behavior, 23, 3–26.

Hartig, T. (1993). Nature Experience in Transaction al
Perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25, 17-36.

Hartig, T., G.W. Evans, L.D. Jamner, D.S. Davis, & T. Gärling (2003). Tracking Restoration in Natural and Urban Field Settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,
109–123.

Heerwagen, J.H., & G.H. Orians (1986). Adaptations to
Windowlessness: A Study of the Use of Visual Decor i n
Windowed and Windowless Of/f_ices. Environment and
Behavior, 18 (5), 623-639.

Heerwagen, J.H. & B. Hase (2001). Building Biophili a:

Connecting People to Nature in Building Design. US Green Building Council. Posted March 8, 2001. http://www.
usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/External/Docs8543.pdf. Web. 9
July 2013.

Heerwagen, J.H. (2006). Investing In People: The So cial Bene/f_its of Sustainable Design. Rethinking Sustainab le Construction. Sarasota, FL. September 19-22, 2006.

Heerwagen, J.H. & G.H. Orians (1993). Humans, Habit ats and Aesthetics. In: S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds .). The Biophilia Hypothesis (138-172). Washington: Island Press. pp484.

Heerwagen, J. H., & B. Gregory (2008). Biophilia and sensory aesthetics. In S.R. Kellert, J.H. Heerwagen, & M.L. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp.227-242). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Heerwagen, J.H. (2014). J.H. Heerwagen & Associates ;
University of Washington, Department of Architectur e.

Personal communication with the authors.

Herzog, T.R. & A.G. Bryce (2007). Mystery and Preference in Within-Forest Settings. Environment and Behavior, 39 (6), 779-796.

Herzog, T.R. & L.S. Kropscott (2004). Legibility, Mystery, and Visual Access as Predictors of Preference and Perceived Danger in Forest Settings without Pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677.

Heschong, L. (1979). Thermal Delight in Architecture.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in School s: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance. Paci/f_ic Gas and Electric Company:

California Board for Energy Ef/f_iciency Third Party Program.

Heschong Mahone Group (2003). Windows and Classrooms: A Study of Student Performance and the Indoor Environment.

Paci/f_ic Gas and Electric Company: California Board f or Energy Ef/f_iciency Third Party Program.

Hildebrand, G. (1991). The Wright Space: Pattern & Meaning in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Houses. Seattle: University of
Washington.

Hosey, L. (2012). The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp216.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 57
Humphrey, N. (1980). Natural Aesthetics. In B. Mike llides (Ed.) Architecture for People. London: Studio Vista. In:

Heerwagen, J.H. (2006). Investing In People: The So cial Bene/f_its of Sustainable Design. Rethinking Sustainab le Construction. Sarasota, FL. September 19-22, 2006.

Hunter, M.D., S.B. Eickhoff, R.J. Pheasant, M.J. Douglas, G.R.

Watts, T.F.D. Farrow, D. Hyland, J. Kang, I.D. Wilk inson, K.V. Horoshenkov, & P.W.R. Woodruff (2010). The State of Tranquility: Subjective Perception is Shaped By Contextual Modulation of Auditory Connectivity. NeuroImage 53,
611–618.

Ikemi, M. (2005). The Effects of Mystery on Prefere nce for Residential Façades. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 25, 167–173.

Jacobson, M., M. Silverstein & B. Winslow (2002). Patterns of Home. Connecticut: The Taunton Press.

Jahncke, H., S. Hygge, N. Halin, A.M. Green, & K. D imberg (2011). Open-Plan Of/f_ice Noise: Cognitive Performanc e and Restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
31, 373-382.

Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons From Environ mental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11 (4), 305-328.

Kahn, Jr. P.H. & S.R. Kellert (2002). Children and Nature:

Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary
Investigations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kahn, Jr. P.H., B. Friedman, B. Gill, J. Hagman, R.L. Severson, N.G. Freier, E.N. Feldman, S. Carrere, & A. Stolyar (2008).

A Plasma Display Window? The Shifting Baseline Problem
in a Technology Mediated Natural World. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 28 (1), 192-199.

Kahn, Jr. P.H., R.L. Severson, & J.H. Ruckert (2009 ). The Human Relation with Nature and Technological Nature .

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (1), 37-42.

Kandel, E.R., J.H. Schwartz, T.M. Jessell, S.A. Siegelbaum, & A.J. Hudspeth (2013). Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kaplan, R. & S. Kaplan (1989). The Experience of Nature:

A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan & R.L. Ryan (1998). With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature.

Washington: Island Press. 1-6, 67-107.

Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and Landscape: Concep tions and Misconceptions. In J. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental
Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 45– 55). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Bene/f_its of Nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.

Karmanov, D. & Hamel, R. (2008). Assessing the rest orative potential of contemporary urban environment(s).

Landscape and Urban Planning 86, 115-125.

Kellert, S.R. & E.O. Wilson (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis.

Washington: Island Press. pp484.

Kellert, S.R. & B. Finnegan (2011). Biophilic Desig n: the Architecture of Life (Film). Bullfrog Films.

Kellert, S.R., J.H. Heerwagen, & M.L. Mador Eds. (2 008).

Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science & Practice of
Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, S.Y. & J.J. Kim (2007). Effect of /f_luctuating i lluminance on visual sensation in a small of/f_ice. Indoor and Built Environment 16 (4): 331–343.

Kim, J.T., C.J. Ren, G.A. Fielding, A. Pitti, T. Ka sumi, M.

Wajda, A. Lebovits, & A. Bekker (2007). Treatment w ith Lavender Aromatherapy in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit
Reduces Opioid Requirements of Morbidly Obese Patients
Undergoing Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding.

Obesity Surgery, 17 (7), 920-925.

Knopf, R.C. (1987). Human Behavior, Cognition, and Affect in the Natural Environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 783–825).

New York: Wiley.

Koga, K. & Y. Iwasaki (2013). Psychological and Physiological Effect in Humans of Touching Plant Foliage - Using the
Semantic Differential Method and Cerebral Activity as
Indicators. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 32 (1), 7.

Kohno, M., D.G. Ghahremani, A.M. Morales, C.L. Robe rtson, K. Ishibashi, A.T. Morgan, M.A. Mandelkern & E.D. London (2013) Risk-Taking Behavior: Dopamine D2/D3 Receptors,
Feedback, and Frontolimbic Activity. Cerebral Corte x,
bht218. First published online: August 21, 2013
Kopec, Dak (2006). Environmental Psychology for Design.

O.T. Kontzias (Ed.), New York: Fairchild Publicatio ns Inc. p38-57.

Leather, P., M. Pyrgas, D. Beale, & C. Lawrence (19 98).

Windows in the workplace: sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior, 30 (6): 739+. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 3 May 2010.

Leslie, R.P. & K.M Conway (2007). The lighting pattern book for homes. New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
pp222.

Lewis, Alan Laird (2012). The New England College o f
Optometry. Personal communication with the authors.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design58
Li, Q. (2010). Effect of Forest Bathing Trips on Human Immune Function. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15 (1), 9-17.

Li, Q., Kobayashi, M., Inagaki, H., Wakayama, Y., Katsumata, M., Hirata, Y., Li, Y., Hirata, K., Shimizu, T., Nakadai, A. & Kawada, T. (2012). Effect of Phytoncides from Forest Environments on Immune Function. In Q. Li (Ed.). Forest Medicine (157-167). ebook: Nova Science Publishers.

Li, Q., Kobayashi, M., Wakayama, Y., Inagaki, H., Katsumata, M., Hirata, Y., Shimizu, T., Kawada, T.,Park, B.J., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T. & Miyakazi, Y. (2009). Effect of phytoncides from trees on human natural killer cell function. International Journal of Immunopathology and pharmacology, 22 (4):
157-167.

Lichtenfeld, S., A.J. Elliot, M.A. Maier, & R. Pekrun (2012).

Fertile Green: Green Facilitates Creative Performance.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (6),
784-797.

Ljungberg, J., G. Neely, & R. Lundström (2004). Cognitive performance and subjective experience during combined
exposures to whole-body vibration and noise. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health, 77, 217–221.

Loftness V. & M. Snyder (2008). Where Windows Become
Doors. In: S.R. Kellert, J.H. Heerwagen, & M.L. Mador
(Eds.). Biophilic Design (119-131). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

Lottrup, L., P. Grahn, & U.K. Stigsdotter (2013). Workplace Greenery & Perceived Level of Stress: Bene/f_its of Access to a Green Outdoor Environment at the Workplace.

Landscape & Urban Planning, 110 (5), 5-11.

Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deﬁcit Disorder. New York: Algonquin Books. pp390.

Louv, R. (2009). Do our kids have nature-de/f_icit disorder. Health and Learning, 67 (4), 24-30.

Mehta, R., R. Zhu, & A. Cheema (2012). Is Noise Always Bad? Exploring the Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative
Cognition. Journal of Consumer Research 39(4), 784-799.

Mower, G.D. (1976). Perceived Intensity of Peripheral Thermal Stimuli Is Independent of Internal Body Temperature.

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
90 (12), 1152-1155.

Muir, J. (1877). Mormon Lilies. San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 19 July 1877.

Nasar, J.L. & B. Fisher (1993). ‘Hot Spots’ of Fear and Crime:

A Multi-Method Investigation. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 13, 187-206.

Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames.

Landscape Journal, 14 (2),161-169.

Nicol, J.F., & M.A. Humphreys (2002). Adaptive Thermal
Comfort and Sustainable Thermal Standards for Buildings.

Energy & Buildings, 34 (1), 563-572.

Nicklas, M.H. & G.B. Bailey (1996). Student Performance in Daylit Schools. Innovative Design. Web. June 2012, http:// www.innovativedesign.net/Profile-Resources-Technical-
Papers.html
Nordh, H., T. Hartig, C.M. Hägerhäll, & G. Fry (2009).

Components of Small Urban Parks that Predict the
Possibility of Restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 8 (4), 225-235.

NYT Archives. Then And Now: Re/f_lections On The Millennium; The Allure of Place in a Mobile World. December 15,
1999 New York Times Editorial. Web. May 2014, http://
www.nytimes.com/1999/12/15/opinion/then-and-now-
re/f_lections-on-the-millenium-the-allure-of-place-in-a-mobile- world.html
Olmsted, F.L. (1993). Introduction to Yosemite and the Mariposa Grove: A Preliminary Report, 1865. Yosemite Association.

Orians, G.H. & J.H. Heerwagen (1992). Evolved Responses to Landscapes. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby
(Eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology
and the Generation of Culture (555-579). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, A. J., Payne, L.L., Godbey, G. (2004).

Interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults. Journal of Leisure Research 6 (2), 232-256.

Painter, Susan (2014). AC Martin. Personal communication with the authors.

Park, B.J., Y. Tsunetsugu, H. Ishii, S. Furuhashi, H. Hirano, T.

Kagawa & Y. Miyazaki (2008). Physiological effects of
Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest) in a mixed forest in Shinano Town, Japan. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23, 278-283.

Park, B.J., Y. Tsunetsugu, T. Kasetani, T. Morikawa, T. Kagawa, & Y. Miyazaki (2009). Physiological Effects of Forest
Recreation in a Young Conifer Forest in Hinokage Town,
Japan. Silva Fennica, 43 (2), 291-301.

Parkinson, T., R. de Dear, & C. Candido (2012). Perception of Transient Thermal Environments: Pleasure and Alliesthesia.

In Proceedings of 7th Windsor Conference, Windsor, UK.

Petherick, N. (2000). Environmental Design and Fear: The Prospect-Refuge Model and the University College of the Cariboo Campus. Western Geography, 10 (1), 89-112.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC 59
Pheasant, R. J., M. N. Fisher, G. R. Watts, D. J. Whitaker, & K.

V. Horoshenkov (2010). The Importance of Auditory-Visual Interaction in the Construction of ‘Tranquil Space’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 501-509.

Platt, J.R. (1961). Beauty: Pattern and Change. In D.W. Fiske & S.R. Maddi (Eds.) Functions of Varied Experience.

Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. In: Heerwagen, J.H. (2006).

Investing In People: The Social Bene/f_its of Sustaina ble Design. Rethinking Sustainable Construction. Sarasota, FL.

September 19-22, 2006.

Rapee, R. (1997). Perceived Threat and Perceived Control as Predictors of the Degree of Fear in Physical and So cial Situations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 455-461.

Ruddlell, E.J., W.E. Hammitt (1987). Prospect Refuge Theory:

A Psychological Orientation for Edge Effects in Recreation Environment. Journal of Leisure Research, 19 (4), 249-
260.

Ruso, B., & K. Atzwanger (2003). Measuring Immediat e
Behavioural Responses to the Environment. The Michigan
Psychologist, 4, p. 12.

Ryan, C.O., W.D. Browning, J.O. Clancy, S.L. Andrews, & N.B.

Kallianpurkar (2014). Biophilic Design Patterns: Emerging Nature-Based Parameters for Health and Well-Being i n
the Built Environment. Archnet International Journal of Architectural Research, 8 (2), 62-76.

Salimpoor, V.N., M. Benovoy, K. Larcher, A. Dagher, & R. J.

Zatorre (2011). Anatomically Distinct Dopamine Rele ase During Anticipation and Experience of Peak Emotion to
Music. Nature Neuroscience, 14 (2), 257-264.

Salingaros, N.A. (2000). The structure of pattern l anguages.

Architectural Research Quarterly, 4, pp 149-162.
doi:10.1017/S1359135500002591.

Salingaros, N.A. (2012). Fractal Art and Architectu re Reduce Physiological Stress. Journal of Biourbanism, 2 (2), 11-28.

Salingaros, N.A. (2013). Uniﬁed Architectural Theory: Form, Language, Complexity. Portland: Sustasis Foundation.

Salingaros, N.A. & K.G. Masden II (2008). Intellige nce- Based Design: A Sustainable Foundation for Worldwid e
Architectural Education. Archnet International Journal of Architectural Research, 2 (1), 129-188.

Schooler, C. (1984). Psychological Effects of Compl ex
Environments During the Life Span: A Review and Theory.

Intelligence 8:259-281. In: Heerwagen, J.H. (2006).

Investing In People: The Social Bene/f_its of Sustaina ble Design. Rethinking Sustainable Construction. Sarasota, FL.

September 19-22, 2006.

Selhub, E.M. & A.C. Logan (2012). Your Brain on Nat ure, The Science of Nature’s In/f_luence on Your Health,
Happiness, and Vitality. Ontario: John Wiley & Sons
Canada. Web References. 14 August 2014. http://www.
yourbrainonnature.com/research.html
Smithsonian Institute (2014). Human Evolution Timel ine Interactive. Web. August 11, 2014. http://humanorigins. si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive.

Steg, L. (2007). Environmental Psychology: History, Scope & Methods. In L. Steg, A.E. van den Berg, & J.I.M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (1-
11), First Edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sternberg, E.M. (2009). Healing Spaces. Cambridge: Bleknap Harvard University Press, pp343.

Stigsdotter, U.A. & P. Grahn (2003). Experiencing a Garden:

A Healing Garden for People Suffering from Burnout
Diseases. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 14, 38-48.

Taylor, R.P., (2006). Reduction of Physiological St ress Using Fractal Art and Architecture. Leonardo, 39 (3), 245–251.

Terrapin Bright Green (2012). The Economics of Biophilia. New York: Terrapin Bright Green llc. pp40.

Tham, K.W. & H.C. Willem (2005). Temperature and Ventilation Effects on Performance and Neurobehavioral-Related
Symptoms of Tropically Acclimatized Call Center Operators Near Thermal Neutrality. ASHRAE Transactions, 687-698.

Thompson, D’Arcy W. (1917). On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press.

Tsunetsugu, Y., B.J. Park, & Y. Miyazaki (2010). Tr ends in research related to ‘‘Shinrin-yoku’’ (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing) in Japan. Environ Health
Prev Med 15:27–37.

Tsunetsugu, Y. & Y. Miyazaki (2005). Measurement of Absolute Hemoglobin Concentrations of Prefrontal Region by
Near-Infrared Time-Resolved Spectroscopy: Examples
of Experiments and Prospects. Journal of Physiological
Anthropology and Applied Human Science, 24 (4), 469-72.

Tsunetsugu, Y., Y. Miyazaki, & H. Sato (2007). Phys iological Effects in Humans Induced by the Visual Stimulation of Room Interiors with Different Wood Quantities. Journal of Wood Science, 53 (1), 11-16.

Tveit, M.S., A.O. Sang, & C.M. Hägerhall (2007). Scenic Beauty:

Visual Landscape Assessment and Human Landscape
Perception. In: Steg, L., A.E. van den Berg, & J.I. De Groot (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (37-
46). Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design60
Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In I. Altman, & J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (85-125). New York: Plenum
Press.

Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View Through a Window May In/f_lu ence Recovery from Surgery. Science 224 (April) 420-421.

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery During Exposure to natural and Urban Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 201-230.

Ulrich, R.S. (1993). Biophilia, Biophobia and Natural Landscapes.

In: S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson. The Biophilia Hypothesis (73-137). Washington: Island Press.

Urban Green Council (2013). Seduced by the View: A Closer Look at All-Glass Buildings. Report, Urban Green Co uncil New York Chapter of the US Green Building Council,
December 2013. http://urbangreencouncil.org/sites/
default//f_iles/seduced_by_the_view.pdf.
van den Berg, A.E., S.L. Koole, & N.Y. van der Wulp (2003).

Environmental Preference and Restoration: (How) Are They Related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-
146.
van den Berg, A.E. & M. ter Heijne (2005). Fear Ver sus Fascination: An Exploration of Emotional Responses to
Natural Threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25, 261-272.
van den Berg, A.E., T. Hartig, & H. Staats (2007). Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 79-96.
van den Berg, A.E. & C.G. van den Berg (2010). A comparison of children with ADHD in a natural and built setting. Child:
care, health and development, 37 (3), 430-439.

Vessel, Edward A. (2012). New York University Center for Brain Imaging. Personal communication with the authors.

Wang, K. & R.B. Taylor (2006). Simulated Walks thro ugh Dangerous Alleys: Impacts of Features and Progress on
Fear. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 269-283.

Wang, D.V. & J.Z. Tsien (2011). Convergent Processing of Both Positive and Negative Motivational Signals by the V TA
Dopamine Neuronal Populations. PLoS ONE 6(2), e17047.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017047.

White, M., A. Smith, K. Humphryes, S. Pahl, D. Snelling, & M.

Depledge (2010). Blue Space: The Importance of Water for Preference, Affect and Restorativeness Ratings of Natural and Built Scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
30 (4), 482-493.

Wigö, H. (2005). Technique and Human Perception of
Intermittent Air Velocity Variation. KTH Research S chool, Centre for Built Environment.

Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press, 157pp.

Wilson, E.O. (1993). Biophilia and the Conservation. In Kellert, S. R. & E. O. Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington:

Island Press. p31.

Windhager, S., K. Atzwangera, F.L. Booksteina, & K. Schaefera (2011). Fish in a Mall Aquarium-An Ethological Investigation of Biophilia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 23-30.

Yamane, K., M. Kawashima, N. Fujishige, & M. Yoshida (2004).

Effects of Interior Horticultural Activities with Potted Plants on Human Physiological and Emotional Status. Acta
Hortic, 639, 37-43.

Zald, D.H., R.L. Cowan, P. Riccardi, R.M. Baldwin, M.S. Ansari, R. Li, E.S. Shelby, C.E. Smith, M. McHugo, & R.M. Kessler (2008). Midbrain Dopamine Receptor Availability Is Inversely Associated with Novelty-Seeking Traits in Humans. T he
Journal of Neuroscience, 31 December 2008, 28(53),
14372-14378; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2423-08.2008
Zhang, H. (2003). Human Thermal Sensation and Comfo rt in Transient and Non-Uniform Thermal Environments, Ph. D.

Thesis, CEDR, University of California at Berkeley, http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/11m0n1wt
Zhang, H., E. Arens, C. Huizenga, & T. Han (2010). Thermal Sensation and Comfort Models for Non-Uniform and Transient Environments: Part II: Local Comfort of Individual Body Parts.

Building and Environment, 45 (2), 389-398.

Zube, E.H., & D.G. Pitt (1981). Cross-Cultural Perc eption of Scenic and Heritage Landscapes. Landscape Planning,
8, 69-81.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS BY TERRAPIN
These publications and others can be accessed for FREE on Terrapin Bright Green’s website: www.terrapinbg.com/publications The Economics of Biophilia
Why Designing with Nature in Mind Makes Financial Sense This paper makes the business case for incorporating biophilia into the places where we live and work. We share several examples of small investments in biophilic design that lead to very healthy returns: Integrating views to nature into an office space can save over $2,000 per employee per year in office costs; and providing patients with views to nature could save over $93 million annually in national healthcare costs. These examples, based on scientific research, serve to demonstrate the financial potential for the large-scale deployment of biophilic design in hospitals – speeding up patient healing; in offices – boosting productivity; in schools – improving test scores; and in retail outlets – boosting sales.

In 2014, The Economics of Biophilia was recognized with the Environmental Design Research Association’s 2014 Achievement Award.
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green
Tapping Into Nature
The Future of Energy, Innovation & Business
By tapping into billions of years of research and development, innovative companies are abstracting strategies from the natural world and developing truly transformative technologies. Organisms have flourished on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, continuously adapting to our planet’s diverse environments and diffuse energy flows. Tapping into Nature explores how pioneering companies are leveraging these adaptations and demonstrates the vast and largely untapped market potential of bioinspired innovation. In this paper, Terrapin explores nine cross-sector topics and selects natural strategies related to each. The biological strategies represent only a fraction of the designs found in nature. Each section then presents bioinspired products—some of which are Terrapin collaborations—that have been developed by companies using these strategies. All told, this set of strategies and products begins to convey the breadth of innovation in the natural world. © 2015 Terrapin Bright Green
Midcentury (Un)Modern
An Environmental Analysis of the 1958-73 Manhattan Ofﬁce Building This paper compares the relative opportunities of retrofit vs. replacement strategies for the tens of million square feet of commercial office buildings built in Manhattan from the 1950s through 1970s, most of which were built with single-glazed curtain walls – designed to the standards and ideals of their day. Today we are acutely aware of the demands buildings place on precious resources like energy and water. This segment of the city’s building stock needs to be overhauled; the question is how best to approach the task. Based on in-depth analysis of a representative early curtain wall building, this paper explores three main conclusions: 1) Maintain, with an intermediate stage of energy savings; 2) Retrofit, theoretically achieving 40% lower energy use; and 3) Replace, could a high-performance replacement building increase occupancy while actually reducing total energy use? And, what are the environmental burdens? © 2013 Terrapin Bright Green
Printed locally on 100% post-consumer recycled paper using non-toxic inks and wind-powered energy.
© 2014 Terrapin Bright Green, LLC
Man is an outdoor animal. He toils at desks and talks of ledgers and parlors and art galleries but the endurance that brought him these was developed by rude ancestors, whose claim to kinship he would scorn and whose vitality he has inherited and squandered.

He is what he is by reason of countless ages of direct contact with nature.

James H. McBride, MD, 1902
Journal of the American Medical Association

NEW YORK CITY , NY USA
TERRAPINBRIGHTGREEN.COM
[email protected]
+1.646.460.8400
The Economics of Biophilia © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc Why designing With
nature in mind makes
financial sense
the economics
of biophilia
The Economics of Biophilia2
about terrapin
Terrapin Bright Green is an environmental consulting and strategic planning firm committed to improving the human environment through high performance development, policy, and related research, in order to elevate conversations and help clients break new ground in thinking creatively about environmental opportunities. Since 2006, our firm and network of specialists have worked to shape the outcome of large-scale planning and design projects around the world. Terrapin has offices in New York city and Washington, Dc, and works with private companies, public institutions, and government agencies on a variety of project types. Visit us at www.terrapinbrightgreen.com.
acknoWledgements
The authors would like to thank the Peer Review committee for their valuable contributions. The authors would also like to thank Olin Nettles for his proofreading assistance. The opinions and conclusions in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the reviewers.
peer revie W committee
Judith Heerwagen J. H. Heerwagen & Associates
Vivian loftness carnegie Mellon University center for Building Performance & Diagnostics
Susan Painter Ac Martin Partners
Terrapin Partners: Bill Browning, chris Garvin, Bob Fox, Rick cook Terrapin Staff: leslie labruto, Namita Kallianpurkar,
catie Ryan, Siobhan Watson, Travis Knop
copyright 2012 by Terrapin Bright Green
cover image: Dockside Green, Vancouver, Bc, courtesy of Joe Van Belleghem Terrapin Bright Green llc
New York NY | Washington Dc
www.terrapinbrightgreen.com
[email protected]
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 3
abstract
Biophilia, the innate human attraction to nature, is a concept that has been recognized for several decades by the scientific and design communities, and intuitively for hundreds of years by the population at large. Biophilic design has often been regarded as a luxury for property owners who want the best possible workplace for their employees, or who want to showcase their efforts to be more environmentally responsible.

In reality, improving community well-being through biophilia can impact productivity costs and the bottom line. Today productivity costs are 112 times greater than energy costs in the workplace. We believe that incorporating nature into the built environment is not just a luxury, but a sound economic investment in health and productivity, based on well- researched neurological and physiological evidence. In this paper, we will share several examples of small investments involving very low or no up-front cost, such as providing employees access to plants, natural views, daylight, and other biophilic design elements. These measures provide very healthy returns. Integrating quality daylighting schemes into an office space can save over $2,000 per employee per year in office costs, whereas over $93 million could be saved annually in healthcare costs as a result of providing patients with views to nature.

These examples, based on scientific research, will serve to demonstrate the financial potential for a large-scale deployment of biophilic design.

Whether it is hospitals that allow patients to heal more quickly, offices that boost productivity, schools that improve test scores, or retail outlets with higher sales, this paper makes the business case for incorporating biophilia into the places where we live and work.
table of contents
introduction 4
the economic advantages
of biophilia in sectors
of society
10 DRIVING PROFIT MARGINS
IN THE WORKPlAcE 10
HEAlTHIER PATIENTS,
HEAlTHIER PROFITS 15
THE IMPORTANcE OF NATURE
IN RETAIl SPAcES 18

BETTER FUTURES FOR
ScHOOlcHIlDREN 21
PROPERTY VAlUE, cRIME,
AND WEll-BEING 24
going forWard With
biophilic design 27
appendix: cAlcUlATIONS 29
references 33
the economics of biophilia

WHY DESIGNING WITH NATURE IN MIND
MAKES FINAN cIAl SENSE
The Economics of Biophilia4
introduction
Humans have traditionally improved the places in which we live and work to increase our comfort and productivity. These improvements have been based upon technological advancements that improved the health and welfare of building occupants, but have paid little attention to more subtle physiological needs. Recent advancement in our understanding of natural systems, coupled with a growing understanding of the subtle neurological and physiological functions associated with contact with nature, have allowed us to identify strategies to increase economic gains, improve productivity, and strengthen the social fabric of communities. Although the cognitive benefits of biophilia are well studied by the scientific community, the economic benefits of biophilic design accrued through implementing its many associated strategies remain an understudied element of producing the best designs for our built environment.

In the last twenty years, studies examining the human attraction to nature have yielded convincing evidence that link interactions with nature with positive gains in productivity, increased healing rates, and even enhanced learning comprehension, in a wide range of sectors. These investments in health and productivity may affect more sectors than initially anticipated. The monetary gains from providing people access to biophilic design elements produces results ranging from remarkable sales boosts in retail stores, to taxpayer savings stemming from improved student test scores, to safer urban communities.

This paper presents to a general audience an argument in favor of biophilic design, by examining scientific studies of nature’s effect on productivity and human health in a variety of built environments, and assigning economic values to these outcomes in an effort to promote the large-scale deployment of biophilic design. The aim of this exercise is to show the economic value in paying attention to biophilic design, not just as a luxury, but as a way to improve profits. In order to understand the case for utilizing biophilic design, it is crucial to discuss how productivity, health, and well-being can be measured—ranging from reduced absenteeism to greater worker satisfaction—and translated into dollar savings. Our investigation into “human capital management” will provide the foundation to understand why society can no longer afford to ignore the value of nature. Highlighting specific case studies will then provide insight into how best management practices in biophilic design can render profit through smart yet simple natural design strategies.

WHAT IS B IOPHI lIA ?
Humans have evolved in the larger context of the natural environment, and we have developed to respond to these natural surroundings. In fact, our ancestors remained hunter-gatherers whose dwellings were seamlessly integrated into their natural surroundings until fairly recently in human development. As a result, our development has been entrained by sensory interactions with nature and familiarity with the spatial properties emotional affiliations
Biophilia is the innately emotional
affiliation of human beings to other
living organisms. life around us
exceeds in complexity and beauty
anything else humanity is ever likely
to encounter. – E.O. Wilson, 1984
Photo courtesy of Figuura
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 5
of various natural landscapes. In the age of the Industrial Revolution, a transformative shift towards urbanization, fabrication, and isolation from nature ushered in a departure from traditional agrarian practices and the active interaction with the natural world that accompanied them. More and more, workers became more familiar with the conveyor belt and the cubicle than with the characteristics of the natural world.

The term biophilia, stemming from the Greek roots meaning love of nature, was coined by the social psychologist Erich Fromm. It came into use in the 1980s when Edward O. Wilson, an American biologist, realized the implications of this departure from nature and consequently pioneered a new school of thought focused on the need to bring humans back in contact with nature. “Biophilia,” Wilson described, “is the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms.” He added, “life around us exceeds in complexity and beauty anything else humanity is ever likely to encounter” (Wilson, 1984).

The concept of biophilia implies that humans hold a biological need for connection with nature on physical, mental, and social levels, and that this connection affects our personal well-being, productivity, and societal relationships. Whether one is engaging with nature by walking through a park, by interacting with animals, or simply by having a view of greenery from one’s home or place of work, biophilia has many applications that help transform mundane settings into stimulating environments.

Although the concept of biophilia is relatively straightforward to grasp, the neurological and physiological underpinnings and their impacts on the environment are critical for one to truly appreciate its value.

The millions of neural channels in our brain link to the human body’s autonomic nervous system. This system consists of two elements:
the sympathetic and the parasympathetic systems. The sympathetic system stimulates the human body when cognitive function is needed.

The parasympathetic system serves to relax the body, and is used for internal processes such as digestion. When the body’s natural balance of sympathetic and parasympathetic is achieved, the body is in the ideal state of homeostasis. In chaotic and unsettling environments, the body’s sympathetic system is highly engaged in a “fight-or-flight” mindset. concurrently, the parasympathetic system is suppressed, disrupting our natural balance and resulting in energy drain and mental fatigue.

This combination induces stress, frustration, irritability, and distraction.

In contrast, human interaction with nature provides an increase in parasympathetic activity resulting in better bodily function and reduced sympathetic activity. The result is decreased stress and irritability, and the increased ability to concentrate.

One of the many components of biophilia’s influence is the connection that humans have with certain fractal patterns that appear commonly in the natural world. Fractal patterns found in nature can positively affect human neural activity and parasympathetic system mechanisms. When subjects were shown images of fractal patterns in nature or townscapes of the built environment, EEG results reflecting neural and parasympathetic biophilia as a concept
The concept of biophilia implies that
humans hold a biological need for
connection with nature on physical,
mental, and social levels and this
connection affects our personal
well-being, productivity, and societal
relationships. – Sheeps Meadow, 2004
Photo courtesy of Stephen Doyle
The Economics of Biophilia6
system reactions showed that subjects were more wakefully relaxed when exposed to natural landscapes. The study concluded that in environments with many stimuli and patterns, the patterns that are most likely to hold our attention and induce a relaxed response are fractal patterns commonly found in nature (Hagerhall, 2008).

Neuroscientists have found that views of complex, dynamic natural scenes trigger many more interactions of the mu (opioid) receptors in the large rear portion of the visual cortex. Viewing nature is literally a pleasurable experience. Views with less visual richness, such as a blank wall or a tree-less street, are processed in the small forward portion of the visual cortex and trigger far fewer of the mu receptors, triggering less pleasurable mental reactions (Biederman & Vessel, 2006). In contrast, movement in a natural setting, such as waves, leaves in a breeze, fish swimming in an aquarium, or a flickering fire, capture and hold our attention.

Other physiological effects of exposure to nature are well documented.

For example, the effects of walking through forest atmospheres versus urban areas have been documented by comparing the salivary cortisol, blood pressure, and heart rate of subjects. On average, salivary cortisol (a stress hormone) was 13.4-15.8% lower, pulse rate was reduced by

3.9-6.0%, and systolic blood pressure was lower in individuals who walked through the forest, compared with those who walked through urban areas. Most impressive, overall parasympathetic activity— which occurs when we feel relaxed— increased by 56.1%, whereas sympathetic activity—which occurs when we feel stressed—decreased by 19.4% in subjects who walked through the forest (Park, 2010). These studies support Kaplan and Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART):
that nature serves as a positive restorative environment for humans and is an effective platform for stress management, health promotion, psychotherapy, and disease deterrence.

Stress is a known cause of both mental health disorders and cardiovascular diseases. According to the World Health Organization, mental health disorders and cardiovascular diseases are expected to be the two prime contributing factors to illnesses worldwide by 2020 (WHO, 2008). Treatment for cardiovascular disorders account for $1 of every $6 spent on healthcare in America (cDc, 2011). If workers are faced with nowhere to relieve stress in the office, the premature onset of psychiatric, stress-induced, and anxiety-related illnesses can surface (cDc, 2011). Studies show that our ability to directly access nature can alleviate feelings of stress, thus bolstering the case for biophilia in the workplace (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). Heartbeat has been measured in natural and urban environments in relation to spatially selective attention. After test subjects viewed videos of the two aforementioned environments, their heart beat interval results suggested that videos depicting natural environments had an involuntary relaxing effect on autonomic functions, inducing positive cardiac deceleration as well as beneficial physiological arousal (laumann et al., 2003).

We’re hardWired for it
Affective responses toward
environmental settings are not
mediated by cognition but stem from
a rapid, automatic, and unconscious
process by which environments
are immediately liked or disliked...
because of the hardwired emotional
affiliation with certain natural
elements, nature-based architecture
can awaken fascination for natural
forms – Joye, 2007
Photo courtesy of cook+Fox Architects
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 7
Another emerging field of research surrounding human interactions with nature, known as Shinrin-yoku in Japan, continues to provide solid evidence of the benefits of natural environments on human health.

Shinrin-yoku is the ancient Japanese practice of restorative walks through natural settings, most often forests. In English, Shinrin-yoku directly translates to “forest bathing”. Forest bathing experiments were conducted among 87 non-insulin-dependent diabetics over the course of six years to test Shinrin-yoku’s ability to effectively decrease blood glucose levels in patients. After walking 3-6 kilometers in the forest, blood glucose levels dropped on average from 179 milligrams to 109 milligrams. To ensure that this was attributable to the forest environment rather than simply the aerobic activity of walking, patients were also monitored while exercising on indoor treadmills and in indoor pools. compared with these forms of exercise, which effectively reduced blood glucose levels by 21.2%, forest bathing decreased blood glucose by an impressive 39.7% (Ohtsuka, 1998). Within forests, human hormonal secretion and autonomic nervous functions are stabilized as we breathe in organic compounds called phytoncides excreted by the forest. New Shinrin-yoku studies show that inhaling these pungent compounds has tremendous health benefits that are difficult to reap in the urban and built environments that confine so many individuals today.

Our body’s response to daylight is another important clue as to how we can harness the power of biophilia. Daylight affects both our eye functions and our inherent circadian rhythms. light therapy works by exposing the retina to specific wavelengths of light to treat imbalances of circadian rhythm—the daily cycle of hormonal activity observed in living organisms. That balance is partially tied to the changing color of daylight over the course of a day. Morning light is yellow, becoming bluer in mid-day and shifting to red in the late afternoon. Exposure to natural light serves to balance our hormonal levels of serotonin (linked to our mood) and inhibit the production of melatonin (used to regulate sleep).

When there is an imbalance of serotonin and melatonin in our bodies, our sleep-wake pattern is disturbed, which in turn inhibits our neurological and immune system functions. To enable our bodies to reach an optimal hormonal balance, natural daylighting provides the greatest amount of lux, or unit of luminance, and the specific wavelengths of light needed by the human body to establish and maintain the serotonin-melatonin balance. Sunlight on a clear day is 500 to 1,000 times greater than artificial lighting (Boyce, 2010). This is an important consideration while designing indoor environments to incorporate more natural light.

These explanations of nervous system activity in mankind provide some of the fundamental physiological value of biophilia. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the neurological effects of nature deprivation as we interact less and less with nature on a daily basis because of a rise of a lifestyle led mainly indoors.
biophilia & phytoncides
In the forest, volatile and non-volatile
compounds called phytoncides are
emitted by plants. Inhaling these has
proven to decreased blood pressure
and stabilize autonomic nervous
activity – Ohtsuka, 1998
Photo courtesy of Bill Browning
The Economics of Biophilia8
BIOPHI lIA -BASED D ESIGN
Three pillar concepts serve as the tenets of biophilic design: Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space. Nature in the Space refers to the incorporation of plants, water and animals into the built environment. Examples include potted plants, water features, aquariums, and courtyard gardens, as well as views to nature from the inside of a building. The prevalence of the courtyard in traditional architecture is a good example of our early attraction to incorporating nature directly into our built environment. These direct connections to nature—especially dynamic nature that incorporates movement— produce the strongest biophilic reactions.

Natural Analogues are one degree of separation away from true nature. Natural Analogues are materials and patterns that evoke nature and are characterized by four broad types: representational artwork, ornamentation, biomorphic forms, and the use of natural materials.

Pictures of trees and water, building elements that mimic shells and leaves, furniture with organic rather than geometric shapes, and visible wood grain fall under the umbrella of natural analogues. The benefits of nature represented in artwork are measurable but less effective than benefits derived from actual trees or plants in the outdoors.

Nature of the Space, a similar concept, refers to the way humans respond psychologically and physiologically to different spatial configurations. As mankind developed in the savannas of Africa, our species’ existence among low-growing grasses, clusters of shade trees, and broad vistas have yielded a modern-day affinity for similar landscapes in indoor and outdoor environments (Kellert et al., 2008). In fact, our innate preference for open spaces does not extend to just any open space; physiological research indicates that our bodies react most positively to savanna-like settings with moderate to high depth and openness.

Spatial organization around us drives a major portion of our emotional and mental state. The design concepts of prospect and refuge— elevated views coupled with protected spaces—as well as enticement and peril—exploring unseen space and evoking pleasurable distress— are examples of Nature of the Space.

There is evidence that we are neurally predisposed to prefer vast, expansive views from a position of refuge. In a functional magnetic resonance imaging test (fMRI) that measured neural activity as a response to a variety of pictures, researchers found that subjects who were shown images of prospect from a point of refuge experienced the most fMRI activity in a part of the brain associated with pleasure. Moreover, the test results showed that natural settings were generally preferred to man-made environments. Anthropologists attribute this phenomenon to our evolutionary connection with nature, and the preference for views of prospect to the basic human need to find the best location for a camp or village (Biederman & Vessel, 2006).
biophilia & the savannah
Frank lloyd Wright’s design for
the S. c. Johnson Wax building is
reminescent of a savannah forest,
providing the same biophilic feeling
of refuge that a real savannah would
provide. The skillful use of nature
of the space makes this building’s
design particularly resonant, and
is probably the reason that it has
remained largely unchanged for the
past 73 years. – Frank Lloyd Wright,
S.C. Johnson Wax Building, 1936 Photo courtesy of Jeff Dean © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 9
lINKING D ESIRE FOR N ATURE WITH D Oll ARS
Researchers have investigated and widely documented various physiological and psychological effects of exposure to nature. The results of these studies—spanning recovery rates of hospital patients through retail sales trends affected by daylighting—often express increases in emotional value. However, the economic benefits of reconnecting people to nature are often overlooked because of the difficulty of quantifying the variables associated with the positive outcomes. By assigning value to a variety of metrics influenced by biophilic design, the business case for biophilia proves that disregarding humans’ inclination towards nature is simultaneously denying potential for positive financial growth.

Over the last quarter century, case studies have documented the advantages of biophilic experiences, including improved stress recovery rates, lower blood pressure, improved cognitive functions, enhanced mental stamina and focus, decreased violence and criminal activity, elevated moods, and increased learning rates.

How do we take the evidence for these benefits and translate them to economics? In the past, research groups have reported various metrics of productivity including revenue, billable hours, net income, and market share gained. current research uses both direct and indirect approaches.

Direct measures of productivity encompass quantifiable reported values, for example, the number of customers served or calls taken during a given time period. These metrics can be assigned monetary values in their respective settings and directly converted to cost savings for a company or institution. Indirect measures, although seemingly intangible and unquantifiable, are shown to have merit when examined in detail. Indirect measures of productivity include absenteeism, tardiness, hours worked, safety rule violations and other measures that add up quickly in a corporate budget (Miller, 2009). For this paper, indicators of productivity will include the following and will be translated into dollars where most applicable:
• Illness and absenteeism
• Staff retention
• Job performance (mental stress/fatigue)
• Healing rates
• classroom learning rates
• Retail sales
• Violence statistics
When linked to the effects of a renewed connection with nature, these metrics show remarkable gains, upon which companies and institutions can capitalize. This paper aims to showcase the economic value in paying attention to biophilic design, not just as a luxury, but as a way to improve profits. In the pursuit of maximizing efficiency while minimizing costs, emphasis on worker productivity is extremely undervalued, The Economics of Biophilia10
because productivity benefits are not always immediately apparent, whereas cost reduction strategies are directly identifiable. A quandary arises for decision-makers who are attempting to balance shareholder interests with operational dynamics (Heerwagen, 2000). An investment in employee workspace seems less fruitful than an investment in technology upgrades, where the rates of return are calculable. The myriad metrics that define worker productivity are rarely coordinated, making the payoff more difficult to quantify.

Industries spanning a variety of sectors—from hospitals to corporate offices—spend, on average, 112 times the amount of money on people as on energy costs in the workplace. This is precisely where the argument for biophilic design begins to pique the interest of business owners, superintendents,
cE
Os, policy-makers, and builders. Using 2009 values,
the cost per square foot of a given corporate office space is overwhelmingly devoted to salary; 90.3% of costs per square foot are funneled towards salary, while only 8.9% is paid toward rent and mortgage, and 0.8% represents energy costs (BOMA, 2010, US Department of
la
bor, 2010).

These statistics make it clear that the smartest economic investment is an investment in employees, their productivity, and their overall satisfaction.

Small improvements in productivity and reduced absenteeism could boost profits and the bottom line more dramatically than reducing energy costs. In short, productivity drives profit.
th e ec onomic ad vantages of bi ophilia
in se
ctors of so
ciety
In today’s society, sectors across industry are reaping the economic benefits of biophilic design. By examining five of these sectors— workplaces, healthcare, retail stores, schools, and communities— we can begin to understand the fiscal implications of biophilic design across the economy. The numbers and percentages presented reflect powerful evidence that many traditional design strategies that ignore nature can lead to negative impacts on human health, child development, community safety, and worker satisfaction. These effects translate directly to increased profits.

D
R
IVING
PR
OFIT
MA

RGINS I
N T
HE
WO
RKP lAcE
The
workplace is the crux of progress in modern society; it is where the average US employee spends more than 43 hours per week (US c
ensus Bureau, 2010). Professional and business employers pay their employees an average of $33.24 an hour or $67,880 per year—fifteen workers alone can cost an employer over $1 million in salary (Bureau of
l
abor Statistics, 2011a, 2011b). Employers hope their employees are productive every hour, but functioning at 100% efficiency is unlikely, given the built environment around workers and other external stimuli.

The main causes for deficient productivity include absenteeism, loss of focus, negative mood, and poor health. The built environment, though © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 11
not always the cause of these stressors, when well-designed, can be a reliever of these unwanted symptoms.

In the last decade, American psychologists have aggregated the five strongest requirements for basic functioning that, if neglected, can trigger worker comprehension problems and dissatisfaction in the office space (Kellert, 2008). These are:
• Need for change (varying temperature, air, light, etc.) • Ability to act on the environment and see the effects • Meaningful stimuli (stagnant atmospheres cause an onset of chronic stress)
• One’s own territory to provide safety, an identity, and protection
• View to the outside world
Absenteeism
These fundamental needs can be met through biophilic design strategies in the workplace (Bergs, 2002). If implemented, the resulting profit margins contribute to the sustainable growth of successful businesses.

One example of this is reducing absenteeism. Biophilic changes made to a workplace can reduce absenteeism over a long period of time, reduce complaints that drain human resource productivity, and help retain employees over many years.

Unnecessary and avoidable absenteeism should not be disregarded financially. In 2010, the US Department of labor reported an annual absenteeism rate of 3% per employee—or 62.4 hours per year per employee lost—in the private sector. Therefore, an employer will lose $2,074 per employee per year to employee absences. Across twenty employees, the same company will lose over $41,000 in salary costs.

The number is even more dramatic in the public sector. The reported average absentee rate for the public sector is 4%. With over 83 hours lost to absences per year, an employee’s absence costs $2,502 per year (US Department of labor, 2010). In a large organization, this translates to millions of dollars lost to absenteeism. In all sectors, efforts to reduce absenteeism by even a fraction of a percent through the implementation of biophilic design can yield substantial financial benefits for an organization.

The potential for building design to cut human resources costs is highlighted by a recent study of an administrative office building at the University of Oregon (Elzeyadi, 2011). The building is an effective laboratory for testing the biophilia hypothesis: 30% of the offices overlook trees and a manicured landscape to the north and west, 31% overlook a street, building and parking lot to the south and east, and 39% of the offices are on the interior of the building, offering no outside view at all. The building occupants are a mix of administrative offices, with no hierarchical placement of departments or employees within the predicting absenteeism
Elzeyadi’s study at the University of
Oregon found that 10% of employee
absences could be attributed to
architectural elements that did
not connect with nature, and that
a person’s view was the primary
predictor of absenteeism. Features
like green roofs can provide excellent
views to nature even in commercial,
urban settings. – Green roof at the
offices of Cook+Fox Architects and
Terrapin Bright Green, NYC, 2010
Photo courtesy of cook+Fox Architects

10%
of employee
absences can be
attributed to
architecture With
no connection to
nature
The Economics of Biophilia12
floor. When asked to rate scenes according to their preference, the building’s occupants heavily favored the vegetated views over the urban views, and either view over none at all. These preferences did not merely increase or decrease workers’ happiness; researchers found that the quality of employees’ view from their office significantly affected how they behaved at work.

Employees with the views of trees and landscape (north and west) took an average of 57 hours of sick leave per year, compared with 68 hours per year of sick leave taken by employees with no view. When placed on a continuum, employees with an urban view ranked between the other two groups, in terms of both preference of view and sick days taken.

When view quality was combined with lighting quality and window area, architectural elements explained 10% of the variation in sick leave days taken. Furthermore, the study found the quality of a person’s view to be the primary predictor of absenteeism. The study also examined where people spent their breaks, and found that employees with better views were likely to spend more time at their desk. Employees with urban views or no views at all were more likely to spend their lunch breaks walking around or in another part of the building. These findings, taken together, indicate that people’s access to natural scenery is significantly correlated to their job satisfaction, health, and productivity.

Studies show that there is a marked difference in peoples’ reactions to natural scenes versus sterile office environments. In a test of 90 participants investigating heart rate recovery from low-level stress, three groups of 30 participants each were exposed to one of three conditions:
a glass window with a view to nature, a plasma screen with a high- definition view of the same setting as the glass window, or a curtained wall. The restorative qualities of the view to nature were significantly higher than both the plasma screen and the curtained wall, both of which yielded equally low physiological recovery patterns. Once again, the results support Attention Restoration Theory (ART), suggesting that nature promotes recovery from mental fatigue. It appears that Nature in the Space enables better focus, mental stamina, and productivity— behaviors that benefit workers and employers alike (Kahn, 2008).

Furthermore, the results of this study highlight the importance of dynamic nature, such as moving water and trees swaying in the wind.

Whereas static nature, such as potted indoor plants and artwork depicting natural scenes, is measurable and preferable to no exposure to nature at all, the benefits of dynamic nature elicit the most positive physiological responses. Movement in nature evokes associations across all human senses, rather than just visual stimulation. As a tenet of human psychology, we thrive on this sensory interaction with life.

Thus, dynamic nature serves as the best strategy within biophilic design to provoke the optimal physiological response.

The outcome of this study was not a coincidence; there exists a physiological connection between humans and nature that explains why human attention is neurologically restored. When individuals attempt to © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 13
focus, there is a neurological restraint that instructs the brain not to be distracted or stimulated by other items or tasks—a function that requires a great deal of energy. Attentional fatigue results in environments where this focus is difficult to achieve, causing stress to slow the heart rate and breathing while simultaneously rousing digestion to raise energy levels. The combination induces lowered concentration and decreased effectiveness (Maas, 2011). This means that we get bored with visually unstimulating spaces, and, rather than being a distraction, nature serves as a source that renews our attention, reinstating cognitive functioning with natural elements that invoke affective responses.

Presenteeism
The results of poor indoor environments also have financial implications in the form of “presenteeism.” Presenteeism describes the phenomenon in which workers clock in for work, but are mentally removed from the workplace, causing labor-related financial losses for the company.

Presenteeism can result from sleepiness, headaches, colds, and asthmatic drain, if air supply is poor. Presenteeism costs employers in the private sector $938 and employers in the public sector $1,250, per employee per year. For a company with 100 employees, this equates to over $100,000 lost per year in unproductive time at work. Providing access to natural daylighting, outdoor views, and natural ventilation can reduce eyestrain, relieve mental fatigue and return workers’ attention to their work.

Although many studies have examined the effects of daylighting and views to the outdoors, the integration of plants and greenery into the workplace also results in productivity gains and reduced psychological stress (Bergs, 2002).

Green space in an office increases productivity in a range of ways, and increased productivity has a significant impact on overall operating costs.

SOURCES: US DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR 2010, BLS 2011; BOMA 2010

ABSENTEEISM

2.7%

PRESENTEEISM

1.3%

PRODUCTIVE

SALARIES
& BENEFITS

86.3%
ENERGY

0.8%
RENT

8.9%

UNPRODUCTIVE

SALARIES
& BENEFITS
biophilia can re-engage
losses from unproductive
operating costs
More than 90% of a company’s operating
costs are linked to human resources, and
financial losses due to absenteeism
and presenteeism account for 4%.

Commercial spaces that give occupants
access to nature serve as a release to
outside stresses, and tend to cause
less environmental stress themselves. It
makes fiscal sense for companies to try
to eliminate environmental stress that
cost them thousands of dollars per year
in employee costs.

Graphics credit: catie Ryan for Terrapin Bright Green
The Economics of Biophilia14
Economically, the value of a view to nature has been quantified. Strategic seating arrangements at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District call center revealed surprisingly variable worker performance results (Heschong, 2003c). The numbers of calls handled per hour by employees with seated access to views of vegetation through large windows from their cubicles far surpassed the number of calls handled per hour by employees with no view of the outdoors. Researchers concluded that those with views of nature handled calls 6-7% faster than those with no views. The value proposition was clear: With a large number of employees, profit margins grew significantly. construction costs for the operable windows and the slight increase in square footage requirements (due to rearranging employees’ workstations to allow access to natural view) totaled $1,000 per employee, whereas the annual productivity savings averaged $2,990 per employee. The initial investment payback was achieved within 4 months, with long-term productivity improvements yielding increased profits. This is a benchmark any company could justify and feasibly achieve if this biophilic application were adopted (Heschong, 2003c; loftness, 2008).

When deciding where to invest money internally within a company, the data shows that there is a comparative advantage to investing in the employees. A typical company of 1000 employees, with an average compensation cost per employee of $33.24 per hour, could increase its profits by $3.9 million annually just by increasing its productivity margin as little as 6%. If this company takes measures to retain employees, the cost of turnover for one position can be avoided. The costs of termination, replacement, and the loss in productivity equate to $1,000, $9,000, and $15,875 respectively per employee. This means that losing one employee due to dissatisfaction, illness, or poor work environment could cost the organization $25,875 on average (loftness, 2007).

These new research results are shifting the trend toward better building design, using biophilia to revolutionize the way employers attract employees. Major companies, such as Herman Miller, use their lush landscape and green building to entice top candidate employees to join their organization; the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park in Manhattan was designed to ensure that 90% of all employees had views to parks, green roofs and/or rivers, specifically to create an iconic building with the explicit purpose of attracting and retaining the best employees.

Another comparative examination of an old office space characterized by poor lighting and air quality versus a healthy, brightly daylit office showed greater activation of hormonal stress in the former and significantly less headaches in the latter (Thayer et al., 2010). Because high levels of hormonal and cranial stress are strongly associated with advancing coronary heart disease—a disease that costs Americans over $108 billion a year— the physical environment of the workplace can play a role in better health in both short and long term situations. natural analogues
The Bank of America Tower at One
Bryant Park was designed with a
focus on biophilia, with the express
purpose of attracting and retaining
the best employees. The building is
extensively daylit, and incorporates
natural materials such as wooden
floors and ceilings designs, and
stone details with a high fossil
content. – Bank of America Tower at
One Bryant Park, NYC, 2010
Photo courtesy of cook+Fox Architects
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 15
In 1978, ING Bank directors shared a vision for their new 538,000 square foot headquarters in Amsterdam. The focus of the building design was to maximize natural lighting, integrate organic art, and install water features to enhance the productivity of its workers while also creating a new image for the bank. The productivity savings in this case were astounding: absenteeism decreased by 15% after construction was completed. Employees looked forward to coming to work and voluntarily tended to the natural features in the office (Romm & Browning, 1994).

The bank additionally saved an estimated $2.6 million per year after all energy system and daylighting units were installed. Overall, ING’s image as a progressive and creative bank corresponded with the growth of users who decided to switch to ING as their primary bank, bumping it from the fourth most popular bank to the second most popular bank in the Netherlands (Romm & Browning, 1994).

These studies make it clear that businesses can benefit by capitalizing on nature’s free provisions.

HEA lTHIER PATIENTS , H EA lTHIER P ROFITS –
BIOPHI lIc D ESIGN IN H OSPITA lS
Despite the downturn in the economy, spending in the healthcare sector is at an all-time high and is continuing to grow. In 2009, the United States spent almost $2.5 trillion on healthcare (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009a). The Office of the Actuary of centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services anticipates this number to increase an additional 6.7% by 2017. current research that demonstrates incorporating even the smallest elements of biophilia into the healthcare industry can reduce the cost of both patient care and staffing while improving medical outcomes.

In 2010, the United States spent $40 billion on healthcare construction (US Department of commerce, 2011). If biophilic design strategies including gardens and access to daylight are considered during the construction phase, the prospect exists to cut operational costs that compound over the span of a hospital’s life cycle. Over fifty studies have been published that associate biophilic elements as primary influences for faster recovery rates for patients, decreased dependency on medication, reduced staff and family stress, and improved emotional wellness as a result of natural daylighting and views to nature.

In 1984, Roger Ulrich pioneered a seminal study to measure the influence of natural and urban sceneries on patients recovering from gallbladder surgery. Some patients were provided with views to nature, whereas others looked at brick walls. With all other variables equal, his findings revealed accelerated recovery rates and reduced stress for the patients who had views of nature. On average, patients whose windows overlooked a scene of nature were released after 7.96 days, compared with the

8.71 days it took for patients whose views were of the hospital’s exterior walls to recover sufficiently to be released—a decrease of 8.5% (Ulrich, 1984). Breaking down this study into economic terms yields a significant healing vie Ws
Patients with a view to nature, instead
of a nondescript wall, are more
likely to experience hospital stays
that are 8.5% shorter, with fewer
negative observational comments
from nurses, and significantly fewer
strong post-surgical analgesics.
– Ulrich, 1984
Photo courtesy of G. Brändle, Agroscope
The Economics of Biophilia16
cost reduction to the patient and the hospital at large. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the average expenditure per diem for a hospital stay after surgery in 2004 was $5,059 (Machlin & carper, 2007). Applied to Ulrich’s study of 46 patients, the cost of patient care could have been reduced by over $161,000 if patients were released just one day sooner. While this is not a hard and fast calculation of cost savings, it speaks to the general magnitude of savings that a biophilically designed hospital might be able to achieve.

As providers attempt to reduce patients’ average length of stay in hospitals due to the rising per diem costs of inpatient care, biophilic design strategies serve as a catalyst and cost-effective method to achieve these savings. It is promising to imagine the overwhelmingly positive economic savings across the 5,795 hospitals in the country if each patient were given the opportunity to recover in rooms with views of nature (American Hospital Association, 2010). In 2007, 44,993 major operational procedures took place in the United States, resulting in hospital stays that averaged 4.8 days (Hall et al., 2010). In Ulrich’s study of patients recovering from gall bladder surgery, he found that a view to nature resulted in a hospital stay that was 8.5% shorter (Ulrich, 1984).

If we apply this percentage to the 4.8 day hospital stay it normally takes to recover from major surgery, we estimate that the average length in hospital stay will decrease by roughly half a day (.41 days). Given that the national average expense per diem of a hospital stay after surgery is $5,059, and that the number of surgeries in the United States has remained relatively stable since 2007, we estimate that the nationwide savings per year due to reduced hospital stay associated with major surgery is $93,324,031 (Machlin & carper, 2007). Again, the purpose of this calculation is not to pinpoint an exact industry cost savings, but rather to generate an idea of what the macroeconomic impacts of biophilic design are on the healthcare industry (see Appendix).

Other reports support Ulrich’s findings. A 1996 study conducted by Beauchemin and Hays found a decreased length of stay for patients in sunny, daylit rooms, when compared with those in dull rooms with artificial lighting (Beauchemin & Hays, 1996). In the study of 174 patients with bipolar disorder and depression, those staying in naturally daylit units were released after an average of 16.7 days, while patients in dully lit rooms stayed an average of 19.5 days; an average length of 2.6 days more for patients lacking access to natural light. A similar study conducted in 2001 found a mean stay that was 3.67 days shorter for bipolar patients in rooms with direct morning sunlight when compared with those who had none (Benedetti et al., 2001). Yet again, biophilic design strategies reveal opportunities for increased cost savings; pharmaeconomists at the University of Texas estimate that each case of treated bipolar disorder costs a minimum of $11,720 (Begley et al., 1998). If one applies this number to the context of the work of Benedetti et al., and if a fraction of this value was deducted because of reduced treatment time, $271,904 could have potentially been avoided had the other 87 patients in this study also been released earlier as a result of recovering in naturally lit rooms.
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 17
The cost of medication in America has skyrocketed in the last fifty years; the United States collectively spent $2.6 trillion in healthcare costs, which equals more than 17% of the nation’s GDP (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2010). More money per person is spent on healthcare in the United States than in any other country (WHO, 2009). Reducing these costs is critical for the economic stability of the hospital system and its users. In 2005, a study assessed the significance of sunlight in a hospital room on patients’ recovery from a cholecystectomy, by measuring the quantity of analgesic medication and pain medication costs. The patients were divided into rooms with varying sunlight. Patients on the bright side were exposed to 46% higher sunlight intensity than those housed in dimmer rooms. The result of the study measured standard morphine equivalent, based on all opioid medication used postoperatively. The study determined that patients exposed to greater dosages of sunlight perceived less pain, took 22% less analgesic medications per hour, and accumulated 21% less in pain medication costs for the length of their stay (Walch et al., 2005).

Tending to the psychological needs of patients has understated economic benefits. Research results demonstrate that poor design and lack of exposure to nature inhibit recovery rates and stabilized blood pressure, exacerbate anxiety and increase administration of pain medications.

Increases in stress in both patients and nursing staff arise when there is high responsibility (the responsibility of recovering, and the responsibility of patient well-being, respectively) and low control (inability to alter surroundings and the inability to take a break, respectively). Studies in horticulture therapy and healing gardens for patients have directly credited these activities with reducing patient and staff stress, reducing patient medication use, and increasing staff satisfaction (Sadler et al., 2008). There are many factors that influence and trigger stress, but the built environment can act as a stress reliever for outside stresses, as well as independently trigger positive physiological reactions. Thus, a biophilic built environment can provide positive distractions. Positive distractions also promote well-being by evoking positive feelings that hold attention away from bothersome thoughts. Other interventions include the presence of natural elements such as water, plants, trees, and non-threatening animals. Also, while not as impactful as dynamic Reducing the average length of stay
in hospitals by 0.41 days can amount
to $93 million in reduced hospital
costs every year. According to scientific
studies, adequate access to daylighting
and other biophilic elements can impact
the health of patients in such a positive
way they can achieve and possibly go
beyond these estimated savings. See
Appendix for further explanation of this
calculation.
½
DAY
1 2
3 4
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sa
5 6

NATURAL VIEWS REDUCE LENGTH OF HOSPITAL STAY, AND SAVE MONEY

DAYLIGHTING REDUCES

HOSPITAL LENGTH OF STAY

AND REDUCES COSTS
= $93 M
Graphics credit: catie Ryan for Terrapin
The Economics of Biophilia18
types of nature, scenes of nature in artwork and murals have been shown to reduce anxiety and discomfort. Patients in a Swedish university hospital who were recovering from open heart surgery experienced the least post-operative anxiety when looking at pictures of natural scenes that included water, compared with pictures of abstract art, a control picture, or no picture at all (Ulrich & lunden, 1990).

Healing gardens have repeatedly been found to evoke pleasurable memories, promote good health, and act as a place of social connectivity for patients. The benefits of nature in the hospital setting extend to family members and visitors as well; an overwhelming 95% of all people visiting inpatients, surveyed across four independent hospitals, reported feeling more relaxed, rejuvenated, and positive.

They also reported feeling less stressed and more able to cope with the situation (Marcus & Barnes, 1995). The evidence-based design research and results have been so compelling that Naomi Sachs of the Therapeutic landscapes Resource center estimates that between 280-570 hospitals in America have incorporated large-scale healing gardens into their design layout to provide patients with a sense of control, physical movement, and access to nature as a positive distraction (Domke, 2008).

The benefits accrued from exposure to nature extend not only to patients, but are also significant for hospital staff, considering that the alertness of nurses in hospitals is crucial to the comfort and health of patients. Nurses and hospital staff feel the effects of anxiety, depression, and lower job satisfaction when they have limited access to views to nature or contact with the outdoors. conversely, staff members recover from stress more easily and perform better when provided with access to gardens and sunlight.

Evidence suggests that natural light, access to nature, and views of nature should be incorporated into design for healthcare facilities.

While there are initial upfront costs to this design, the payback is in quantifiable patient and staff benefits. Even though design in the healthcare field has only recently generated attention, conscientious scientific studies continue to support the integration of nature into hospital settings for patient wellness, increased profit margins, and reduced hospital budgets. Each of these health benefits has dual economic advantages that reflect the value of evidence-based biophilic design for hospitals.

THE I MPORTAN cE OF N ATURE IN R ETAI l S PAcES
In spite of the economic crisis in 2008, the average American spends $12,990 in retail settings per year. Biophilic design provides a way to tap into this $3.9 trillion market, to increase sales while providing a more enjoyable consumer experience (U.S. census Bureau, 2010). The psychologically soothing and calming effect of nature has been used to draw shoppers into stores and boost sales, significantly improving profit margins for stores with biophilic elements compared to those without. © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 19
There is evidence that consumers are likely to buy more merchandise in stores with strategically situated natural vegetation. It is not a coincidence that store and mall layouts are mapped to intentionally and meticulously guide shoppers through a maze of products surrounded by strategically placed plants, trees, and skylights; small yet powerful influences over consumers can lead retail stakeholders to enjoy greater profits if biophilic greening practices are employed (Joye, 2010). Builders have capitalized on our innate affinity for the savanna-like environments of our early Homo sapien ancestors—with clustered trees, semi-open spaces, refuge from the sun, water features, multiple-view corridors, and high levels of visual access—and we see these increasingly in shopping malls across the country (Heerwagen, 1998).

In a consumer study of biophilic store designs, participants were shown photographs of retail environments and asked to measure the visual quality, place perception (judgment of products, product value, and merchant responsiveness), patronage behavior (frequency and duration of shopping actions), and price perceptions in three different types of shopping environments: green streets with high vegetation content, enclosed sidewalks with scattered greenery, and streets with no visible vegetation. The results were clear: well-tended streets with large trees received the highest preference ratings even though plants obscured some products and building facades (Wolf, 2005). Images of tidy business districts with no trees received the lowest scores. The place perception results revealed that consumers associated trees as attractive and appealing additions to their shopping experience and ranked these streets as well-maintained, friendlier, and more worthy of their dollars than the barren or enclosed sidewalk streets. Shoppers said they would stay longer once in a shop and would visit the business district more frequently—an accurate reflection of spending habits— when vegetation was heavily prevalent.

This same study reveals a compelling increase in the hedonic value of goods sold in greener areas versus retail locations that are devoid of nature. When shown images of greener retail settings, respondents indicated that an acceptable price to pay was 20% higher for an item in convenient shopping (i.e., a sandwich for lunch), 25% higher for general shopping (i.e., a new jacket or watch), and 15% more for specialty shopping (i.e., a gift for a family member) (Wolf, 2005). The addition of plant life into the realm of retail shopping appears to act as a stimulus that boosts the image perception and economic viability of stores.

Daylighting in the retail setting also offers an easy method for stores to dramatically boost their sales—simply by ensuring that natural light floods the retail floor space. In 1993, Wal-Mart consulted with a number of sustainable design firms and institutions in an effort to design a prototype green store. Wal-Mart sought to improve energy efficiency, enhance indoor air quality, address water conservation, and increase native landscaping. In one of their stores, only half of the store was daylit, but a remarkable result occurred in those daylit areas, according to Wal-Mart’s former Vice President for Real Estate Tom Seay. The sales biophilia and retail
Retail customers judge businesses
surrounded by nature and natural
features to be worthy of prices up to
25% higher than businesses with no
access to nature. – Albee Square,
Brooklyn, NY, 2010
Photo courtesy of cook+Fox Architects
The Economics of Biophilia20
per square foot were significantly higher for departments located in the daylit sections of stores. In addition, sales in daylit departments of this new store were markedly higher than sales in the same department in other non-daylit stores (Romm & Browning, 1994).

The most extensive study linking daylighting to retail sales was conducted from 1999-2001 in a chain of 73 retail stores throughout california; 24 stores were categorized as having significant daylight illumination, whereas the remaining 49 relied on artificial light. A thorough analysis of sales reports showed, with 99% statistical accuracy, that non-skylit stores experienced a 40% increase in gross sales after the installation of skylights. The profit associated with the resulting increase in sales due to daylit areas was estimated to be at least nineteen times greater than the energy savings. As energy costs for these stores were found to be $0.24 to $0.66 per square foot less than traditionally lit stores, depending on the complexity of the monitoring system installed, the profit from the sales increase, at $4.56 to $12.54 per square foot, far overshadows energy savings. The statewide effect for california if daylighting design was adopted on a mass scale in retail environments would be over $47.5 million in increased profits and $2.5 million saved per year in energy costs (Heschong, 2003a).

The retail store business model across the country is starting to capitalize on daylighting to increase profits. Major corporations such as Target and Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI) have adopted daylighting strategies for their stores. Built in 1998, Target’s entirely daylit store in Phoenix, Arizona covered its skylights for six months out of the year, operating by electric lights, to measure any difference in sales that might occur as a result of a difference in lighting quality.

Unpublished estimates of sales increases show a 15-20% increase in sales in the six months where the store was lit only by daylight. This data was enough incentive for Target to open a similarly designed store in Turlock, california in 2000. This store experienced similar sales patterns in comparison with a non-daylit store (Edwards & Torcelli, 2002). To generalize the data, skylights statistically increase sales by $1.55 per square foot in grocery stores, clothing outlets, and retail chains across the country (Heschong, 2003). The addition of skylights alone translates to an annual sales boost ranging anywhere from $62,000 in a large grocery store to over $387,000 in a supercenter. concurrently, stores implementing these strategies are also driving down their energy costs by installing light sensors that adjust artificial lighting depending on the amount of daylight.

By embracing the notion that daylighting and greenery can boost revenue in the retail industry, developers and storeowners have the opportunity to achieve optimal profit margins that are economically, environmentally, and socially savvy.
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 21
BETTER F UTURES FOR Sc HOO lc HI lDREN –
BIOPHI lIc D ESIGN IN E DU cATIONA l S ETTINGS
Beyond cutting energy costs in schools, the education sector seems like an unlikely place to achieve major financial savings. The United States spends over $661 trillion on elementary and secondary education annually, with the cost of K-12 education averaging $10,249 per student (US census Bureau, 2009). There must be room for improvement in this sector to ensure that each dollar spent guarantees the best educational success for our nation’s youth. In the effort to reduce the number of absences and enhance student performance, current research shows that classrooms can be strategically designed with biophilic elements to foster better test scores, optimal health, and increased learning rates.

Furthermore, enabling children to play in schoolyards that provide access to nature has been shown to provide means of mental restoration, better behavior, and enhanced focus.

The classroom is perhaps the most influential environment outside the home where young students will experience rapid brain development and expansion in social skills. It is critical to infuse these learning environments with as many positive attributes as possible. In a 1996 study on student performance in daylit schools, with optimal daylight allowance from south-facing roof monitors that controlled sunlight to all major occupied space, attendance was found to increase 3.2-3.8 days per year compared with attendance at non-daylit schools. The cumulative value for three days of school for the estimated 633 students in the school district amounted to $126,283 in tax dollars that were not wasted through student absences (Nicklas & Bailey, 1996).

Student performance is another variable that can be influenced by biophilic principles. Across 17 studies from 1934-1997, experts agreed that good daylighting “improves tests scores, reduces off-task behavior, and plays a significant role in the achievement of students” (Kats, 2006). In the previous daylighting study by Nicklas and Bailey, test scores increased between 5-14%. The greatest indicator linking test score improvements to daylighting is the comparison with test score drops found in mobile classrooms in the same school district.

The mobile, windowless classrooms saw test scores drop 17% in the same study period (Nicklas & Bailey, 1996). In the capistrano, cA school district, students in classrooms with the most daylighting tested 7-18% higher than those with the least. Furthermore, these students also demonstrated a 20-26% faster learning rate (Heschong, 1999). The greatest improvements were seen in classrooms with both daylight and windows allowing direct views of nature.

The district’s small investment in the facilities to improve daylighting yielded test scores that increased dramatically compared to state averages. The facilities investment also saved on long-term operating costs through reduced energy consumption. The Heschong study estimates that the strategies of biophilia have statistically increased test scores by 5-18% and can continue to do so in schools across the country (Heschong, 1999). childhood development
Nature is critical in children’s
formative years. Studies show that
nature provides children with a
buffer against life’s stresses, and
enables them to form social bonds.

A study of daylighting in schools also
showed that children learn 20-26%
faster in natural daylight. – Wells &
Evans, 2003; Heschong, 2003
Photo courtesy of the US EPA
children
progressed
through school
curricula
20-26%
faster When
learning in
daylit
environments
The Economics of Biophilia22
This is not at all meant to diminish the importance of educational improvements relating to the quality of curriculum and school resources themselves. This is merely to say that an important factor in the quality of a school environment is a child’s daily exposure to nature. Given its well- documented impact on academic performance, school systems should see this as an additional, viable option to improving childrens’ academic performance. An effective and holistic way to ensure that student function in the most productive environment possible is to integrate biophilia into academic and institutional building design standards, while also investing in stronger school curriculum.

Integrating biophilia into a range of improvements to the American school system would improve the experience of hundreds of thousands of children every year. According to The National center of Secondary Education and Transition, as well as a wealth of additional research, an improved school experience may increase the rate of school retention as students move through the education system, which in turn has economic implications for our national economy (lehr et al., 2004). The NcSET estimates that a student who drops out of high school will earn $9,245 less per year than a high school graduate (Employment Policy Foundation, 2001). Furthermore, the Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that if the students who had dropped out of the class of 2007 had graduated high school, the national economy would have benefited from an additional $329 billion in income over their lifetimes (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007).

Beyond daylighting in schools, exposure to nature has been found to impact the stress levels of society’s youngest members. As the built environment continues to encroach on expanses of nature, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for children to experience the outdoors.

Despite this, children consistently prefer the outdoors; 96% of all children participating in a related study, who were asked to draw their favorite place, drew illustrations of an outdoor location (Moore, 1986).

To test the theory that nature affects childhood development, rural school children in five communities in upstate New York, around age nine, were monitored to determine if nature acted as a buffer in psychological stress levels. To validate the findings, two dependent variables served to measure their stress levels: (1) parent observations of their child’s distress and (2) the child’s own self-worth report. After controlling for factors like socioeconomic status, the impact of life stress among the 337 children in the study was significantly less in children with high levels of nature nearby compared to those with comparatively low levels of nature nearby (Wells & Evans, 2003).

These studies show that nature serves as a protective environment for children. Nature supplies social support for children as they interact with others in shared natural spaces. Equally, if not more importantly, is that when children become engaged in nature, their neural mechanisms are allowed to rest and recover. Attentional restoration is critical for children. Without it, children will increasingly respond to distracting stimuli, experience greater loss of focus, and have difficulty managing daily tasks (Wells & Evans, 2003).
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 23
Students themselves are recognizing the need for more green space in their lives. In Brook Park in the Bronx, New York, teenage students continue to convert asphalt-laden space into urban planting areas. The students were motivated by the desire to have less costly access to fresh vegetables, as well as to have a safe space for social bonding.

Over the course of a few months, the students were able to donate food to a pantry that feeds 500 people (Gonzalez, 2009). The garden continues to act as a promoter of well-being and social cohesion amongst students in the area.

Other similar transformations are occurring in New York. In conjunction with the PlaNYc 2030 initiative and the Trust for Public land, students and faculty at P.S. 33 helped design Queens Village, a new playground available to the school’s 1,000 students and families. The formerly vacant lot provides a secure place for students to explore nature, use their imaginations, and receive their daily dosage of greenery (The Trust for Public land, 2011).
biophilic ne W york: AN EcONOMI c VISION OF A NATURE -FIllED FUTURE FOR NEW YORK cITY The impacts of biophilia are diverse, and studies showing their benefits focus on disparate sectors of the economy. Fully incorporating biophilia into a city’s design, however, would concentrate these benefits and create powerful cumulative impacts. In New York city, green spaces are often shared amongst multiple users. Their impacts cross sectors and the density of users multiplies their effects. Imagine, for example, a green space sandwiched between a school and a hospital: a single space may allow daylight to penetrate into students’ classrooms, provide the community with a space for relaxing or exercising, and offer views of nature from hospital room windows. Incorporating green spaces into New York city’s design through green walls, pocket parks, daylighting strategies, and bringing nature into indoor spaces may have benefits far beyond what can be predicted by studies of individual impacts.

Extrapolating the proven impacts of biophilia to New York city’s economy provides a taste of the economic benefits we might expect to see in a future biophilic city. Please see Appendix for complete explanations of how these numbers were derived.
• daylighting reduces student absenteeism. Providing adequate daylighting to all students in New York city public schools could re-engage $297 million in wasted taxpayer dollars and save $247.5 million in lost parental wages resulting from missed school.
• biophilic work environments increase office workers’ productivity. creating biophilic work environments for many of New York city’s office workers would result in over $470 million in recouped productivity value. • biophilic landscapes reduce crime. Biophilic landscapes throughout the city could save New York $1.7 billion in incarceration costs.

This sampling of economic impacts of biophilia in New York city adds up to over $2.7 billion per year in 2010 dollars. Though the cost of creating vegetated spaces can seem high, the enormous value of a biophilic city has the potential to outweigh the costs by far.

Photo courtesy of Battery Park city Authority
The Economics of Biophilia24
It is time to start relying on our affinity to nature to design schools that use biophilic standards to complement the efforts being made to improve educational curricula. The lessons from the healthcare and retail sectors show that their biophilic standards decrease costs while improving outcomes. Keeping children in school until they graduate and helping them to focus their attention on learning has immense benefits to society at large.

PROPERTY VAlUE , cRIME , AND W Ell-B EING –
THE cOST B ENEFITS OF N ATURE IN cOMMUNITIES
communities are economic webs consisting of homes, parks, transportation nodes, commercial spaces, and public buildings. The people in communities, both permanent and temporary, interact with and affect this ecosystem. When people are deprived access to nature and its many benefits, there are economic consequences—specifically in health and societal costs. conversely, the added benefit to humans is calculable and substantial. Access to parks and views to nature within a community may be a cost-effective strategy to reduce the impact of our medical and social problems. To this end, we can quantify in dollars the importance of providing people with access to nature in the built environment and reveal the economic value of trees, parks, and other forms on nature in neighborhood design.

People are willing to pay more for good views of distance, views of water, and views of large trees. In a study in cleveland, Ohio, good landscaping aesthetics coupled with large shade trees added an average of 7% to rental rates. Housing with landscapes rated as excellent were priced 4-5% higher than equivalent houses with poor landscaping (laverne & Winson-Geideman, 2003). comparisons of real estate prices in the Puget Sound region showed property value increases averaging 58.9% for homes with full views of the Sound, while partial views added only about 30%. The greatest increase in value came from lakefront property, which added 127% value to the house (Benson et al., 1998). This is not an uncommon trend in the real estate market. People are willing to pay for nature, validating its consideration during a project’s design phase. cities around the world are recognizing the importance of biophilia in the form of access to park space and gardens. Singapore’s economic growth is astounding as its population has doubled to more than 5 million in the last 25 years. In that same time period, Singapore devised a Green Plan aimed at luring investment into the area. In the process, its green coverage on rooftops and in parks has increased from slightly greater than one-third of the city’s area to almost one half the entire area of Singapore (Kolesnikov-Jessop, 2011). The city’s 10-year development plan seeks to transform and revitalize Singapore from being the “Garden city” to the international “ city in a Garden”, while simultaneously becoming a leader in the economic market. Experts anticipate Singapore will expand as a global hub for innovation, markets, business, and entrepreneurs (Ministry of National Development, Singapore, 2011). Singapore is catching hold people Will pay
127%
more for a
property With a
vieW to Water
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 25
of a revolutionary concept as they continue to identify greenery as part of a strategy to lure investment, and drive economic growth that concurrently increases quality of life and delivers more business to the city every year.

The Trust for Public land conducted an analysis in 2003 to quantify the economic benefits of access to nature in the form of parks in cities. The team identified several overarching factors that reinforce the economic importance of encouraging individuals to interact with nature through parks. The factors examined included property value (also referred to as “hedonic value,” or the increased property value associated with proximity to parks), tourism (visits to city parks that drive collective wealth), direct use (recreational opportunities within parks), health (savings in medical costs due to physical activity), community cohesion (avoidance of antisocial problems), and other factors linked to savings from clean air and water. Each of these factors provided a different type of insight into the economic importance of interactions with nature (Harnik & Welle, 2009).
• In Washington, D.c., researchers estimated a 5% premium on those properties within 500 feet of a park.
• After collecting data on the number of park users in
Sacramento, california and determining the average
difference in medical costs between active and inactive persons, the city estimated an annual savings of $19.8
million as a result of access to park space.

Access to natural environments positively affects a range of issues, from economic benefits to community cohesion. Neighborhood layouts have the ability to alienate or integrate its social fabric. While this sort of “social capital” cannot be quantified directly in economic terms, a study showed the financial value of park supporters by summing financial contributions and the dollar value of volunteer hours, which in Philadelphia with its abundant park space yielded a community cohesion value of $8.6 million (Harnik & Welle, 2009).

Access to nature has significant influence over the actions and social behavior of communities. cognitive studies have shed light on the benefits of interactions with nature, such as reduced hostility among prison inmates after participating in gardening projects and fewer reports of mental anguish for poverty-stressed inner-city residents.

Nature’s calming influence even reduces mental fatigue and outbursts of anger. To test this notion, Kuo and Sullivan conducted a study of 145 urban public housing residents with varying proximity to spaces of nature. Space ranged from green (ample trees) to barren (no visible trees). levels of mental fatigue were compared using Digit Spin Backwards (DSB) tests, which attribute inability to concentrate to mental fatigue. Residents living in green settings demonstrated higher scores in attention span and reliability. Further, the results of the study found that some types of domestic violence were 25% less prevalent in the greener housing developments compared to the barren housing cluster (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001a).
children with ADHD who take a
20-minute walk through a park are
likely to exhibit significantly better
concentration than by doing the
same in a downtown area. Nature
has major implications for the way we
treat for ADHD. – Taylor & Kuo, 2009
valuing a Walk in the park
Photos courtesy of colourbox.com and Dan Burden (pedbikeimages.org) The Economics of Biophilia26
Another 2001 study by Kuo and Sullivan measured the difference in crime rates over a two year period, in a large public housing development in urban chicago. A section of buildings that were surrounded by greenery was compared with another that was devoid of surrounding nature.

The study reported 52% fewer felonies in the greener buildings, 7-8 % of which could be linked to increased access to nature (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001b). Applied across chicago’s 12 family-aimed public housing developments, assuming that the rates of crime remain fairly consistent across each development, and assuming that each of these felonies resulted in arrest and incarceration, we estimate that this results in a rough savings of $162,200 to the Illinois Department of corrections each year (chicago Housing Authority 2011, Durose & langan 2003).

This number, as with all of our other estimates, is intended merely as a rough estimate of the cost-savings attributable to biophilic design. It also takes into consideration only reduced crime, and does not consider the myriad other health and operational benefits of biophilic design (see Appendix).

As an observation separate from the statistical analysis of the Kuo and Sullivan study, housing developments with large trees have been found to attract people to be outdoors, talk with neighbors, and develop stronger social bonds (Heerwagen, 2006). The conclusions from these studies provide possible interventions for reducing aggression and violence in the inner city. From a community standpoint, the amount of substantiated evidence linking decreased conflictive behavior with the integration of greenery and vegetation in communities shows that it is worthwhile, both economically and socially, to incorporate biophilia into urban design.

Recent studies have also linked walks in community park spaces with a reduction in the behavioral symptoms of ADHD. In 2009, 16 children, all diagnosed with either ADD or ADHD, were exposed to three settings with varying degrees of greenery: park setting (most greenery), neighborhood street (modest greenery), and downtown area (no greenery). Based on the level of “green dosage” provided to the children, the children experienced significantly greater ability to concentrate and greater positive attention rates after walking in the park compared with the other two environments. This suggests that exposing children with attention deficits to a natural environment can substantially enhance their attention performance (Taylor & Kuo, 2009).

There are 5.2 million children in America diagnosed with ADHD, and $2.28 billion is spent on ADHD medication alone. In fact, the average family that purchases ADHD medication pays $25-109 per month for it (Scheffler et al., 2007). If providing children access to parks and nature within a community reduced the medication intake by a conservative 10%, families nationwide could save a cumulative $228 million in ADHD medication in 2004 numbers. considering that Scheffler et al. have measured an annual growth rate in expenditures on ADHD medication of

22.6%, the savings resulting from a reduced consumption will increase proportionally as well (see Appendix).

Exposure to nature could be used as
a way to minimize symptoms of ADD
and ADHD in children. This could result
in reduced consumption of ADD and
ADHD medication. A 10% reduction in
spending on this medication amounts
to around $228 million annually
in savings to American families (see
Appendix for further information).
biophilia can reduce
medical expenditure
Graphics credit: catie Ryan for Terrapin Bright Green
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 27
Outdoor activities rather than drug prescriptions have also been identified as a means of treatment for obesity through the Park Prescriptions program suggested by the Institute at the Golden Gate. Their Park Prescriptions report states that 10% of the nation’s medical costs, or $150 billion, is attributed directly to obesity, and that $2,200 per person per year can be reduced if sedentary individuals become more physically active three or more days per week (Institute at the Golden Gate, 2010).

Another study that used a cost-of-illness approach to attribute medical and pharmacy costs for specific diseases to physical inactivity across members of Blue cross Blue Shield of Minnesota estimates that total health plan expenditures attributable to physical inactivity were $83.6 million for the year 2000 alone (Garrett et al., 2004).

There is also evidence that teenage girls develop better when they have views to nature from their homes. In a study of self-discipline in teenage girls, those with green space immediately outside their homes demonstrated more self-discipline than those without, by a margin of 20%.

Self-discipline was measured as a function of concentrating, inhibiting intial impuses, and delaying gratification (Taylor et al., 2001). Mastery of these personal skills often results in higher rates of professional, academic and personal success. As budgets across the country are cut for inner-city landscaping, children are deprived of resources that develop their self-discipline and meet their psychological needs.

Integration of green space into urban design cultivates a society that is more aware and invested in a long-term shift toward generations that are healthier, more productive, and more connected to nature. This shift could be manifested in an increase in the agency of marginalized or overlooked sections of the future labor force. Another way of addressing this could be a change in the structure of the real estate landscape. Recognizing the premiums that green properties generate could change building codes and best practices in construction in the long run, resulting in urban areas that move towards reconnecting with the native landscape.

The fact that these kinds of changes are already used, to highly positive effect, in cities like Singapore, should encourage governments, urban designers, developers and architects to follow their lead. going forWard With biophilic design
Humans have evolved and progressed alongside nature and its systems.

Because of this, the human mind and body function with improved efficiency when natural elements are present. Biophilic design optimizes productivity, healing time, learning functions, and community cohesion as the perfect partnering mechanism for business vendors, hospital owners, school administrators, contractors, and city planners alike who are seeking to reap maximal value through development and design.

The benefits of biophilia span many sectors. From the evidence presented, biophilic elements show productivity increases among staff when provided with nature in the workplace, with economic benefits ranging from $1,000 per employee to $3.6 million company-wide. nature affects health
The benefits of biophilia include
improved stress recovery rates,
lower blood pressure, improved
cognitive functions, enhanced mental
stamina and focus, decreased
violence and criminal activity,
elevated moods, and increased
learning rates. – Joye, 2007
Image courtesy of cook+Fox Architects
The Economics of Biophilia28
In the $2.5 trillion healthcare industry, simply increasing views from hospital beds to nature could yield over $93 million in annual savings nationwide as patients require less time in the hospital to recover from major surgery. The significant nationwide healthcare savings in recovery from these surgeries alone indicates that testing the effects of biophilia in other areas of healthcare is a worthwhile and potentially lucrative endeavor. Retail shops with natural greenery and daylighting consistently yield higher profit margins than their dim counterparts, offering a 12% competitive advantage for shops with more greenery and 40% for quality daylighting. children, the most vulnerable yet influential members of society, have been found to improve their test scores by 7-26% and have fewer absences from school when they are given access to daylighting. The network of communities that span the United States can economically benefit from the presence of nature, as a result of access to park space, while also encourage less crime and less need for medication within community inhabitants.

Recent research from neuroscience and endocrinology show the crucial role that experiencing nature has for our physiological well-being.

Implementing biophilic design into our workplaces, healthcare system, educational environments and communities is not just a nice amenity.

It has profound economic benefits. It is now imperative that we bring nature into our built environment.

Photo courtesy of cook+Fox Architects
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 29
appendix : cAlcUlATIONS
A. A BIOPHI lIc N EW Y ORK
The following are explanations for how each of the savings estimated for A Biophilic New York was calculated.

Schools
New York city schools currently report a 90.5% daily attendance rate (FY2011 Mayors Management Report). This translates to a 9.5% absence rate on a daily basis. With 1.1 million students in NYc public schools and a 180-day school year (NYc DOE), this means that there is a total of 19,332,500 absences per year. The operating budget for the New York city DOE is currently $19.2 billion. Dividing the operating budget by the total number of students and the number of school days, we calculated a rough cost to taxpayers of each day of school at about $94 per student per day. Rounding down to $90 to be conservative, we multiplied the cost of 1 day of school for one student by the number of annual absences, and found that $1.7 billion of taxpayer money is wasted each year on missed school. Students in daylit schools have been shown be absent from school three fewer times per year than students in schools without proper daylighting (Nicklas & Bailey, 1996).

We multiplied the cost of one day of missed school by the three reduced absences observed in students in daylit schools to estimate that $297 million in taxpayer money would be reengaged if New York city were to provide daylighting in all schools and thus achieve 3 fewer absences per student. Additionally, we estimated that $247.5 million would be saved by reducing the number of lost parental wages because of student absenteeism. We used the US EPA’s estimate that an average of $75 in parental wages is lost for a student absence from school (EPA, Benefits and costs of the clean Air Act, 2nd Prospective Study). This estimate assumes that a woman’s wages (which are on average lower than a man’s) will be lost, and accounts for the portion of the population with a stay-at-home parent that would not lose wages because of a school absence. Multiplying by 3 fewer absences assumed to result from daylighting in schools and by 1.1 million students, we calculated the $247.5 million in lost parental wages that could be saved by providing daylit school environments.

Crime
Studies have shown that living near vegetated landscapes can result in reduction of crime rates by 7% (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001b). In New York city, about 105,000 felonies are committed per year (105,496 felonies were reported in the Mayors Management Report FY2011). We assumed a median sentence of 3 years for felonies based on a national average (Durose & langan, 2003), and a cost of incarceration in NYc per inmate per year of $80,354 (Mayors Management Report FY2011). With a 7% reduction in felonies due to biophilic landscapes, we estimated that a calculations
a. a biophilic neW york
b. cost savings due to
biophilic hospital
recovery rooms
c. reduced prison costs
due to biophilic public
housing developments
in chicago
d. annual savings in
adhd medication
The Economics of Biophilia30
resulting reduction in the number of felonies committed in New York c ity by 7% could save $1.7 billion in incarceration costs.

Worker Productivity
New York
c
ity’s Gross c
ity Product is about $540 billion annually
(NY
c
ED
c
, New York c
ity at a Glance, 2011 Update). Of that amount,
we estimated the amount that is produced by workers in office environments. We assumed that workers in the finance, insurance, real estate, information, and other professional and business services categories generally work in office buildings. Those categories of the NY
c
G
c
P add up to approximately $157 billion. While a small number of the salaries earned in those sectors may not be in office environments, this estimate is almost certainly a low estimate of the portion of the city’s salaries earned in offices, as we left out all employees in the health care sector, government, and other categories that employ many people in offices. Private firms experience an absenteeism rate of about 3% (US Department of
l
abor, 2010). Multiplying by our conservative estimate
of the portion of NY
c
G
c
P earned in office environments, we calculated
that the lost productivity value of absent employees who work in office buildings in New York
c
ity is about $4.7 billion. Studies have shown
that biophilic work environments can reduce about 10% of workers’ absenteeism (Elzeyadi, 2011). Therefore, biophilic work environments could help New York
c
ity recoup $470 million in reduced absenteeism.

B. c
OST
SA
VINGS
DU
E T
O B
IOPHIlIc
HO
SPITAl
REcO
VERY
RO
OMS
United
States hospitals could benefit enormously from biophilic design.

To roughly estimate the extent of these savings, Terrapin Bright Green sought to calculate what the rough nationwide benefit would be if more hospitals were designed to give patients a view to nature. The National Health Statistics Reports’ “National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2007 Summary” cites 44,993 procedures for hospital discharges in the United States. All of these discharges were from short-stay, nonfederal hospitals, and exclude newborn infants. Each of these procedures resulted in a hospital stay that averaged 4.8 days (Hall et al., 2010).

In Ulrich’s 1984 study, a view out of a recovery room window to nature resulted in an 8.5% shorter hospital stay. Using this proportion, 8.5% of the 4.8-day average in-patient stay is .41 days (almost half a day). We estimate that if all recovering inpatients were given access to a view out of a window to nature, the average hospital stay would be 4.39 days, or half a day earlier. The average expense per diem of inpatient care after surgery is $5,059 (Machlin &
c
arper, 2007). Based on these numbers,
the savings calculations associated with providing inpatients recovering from surgery a view to nature are as follows.

To find the average post-surgery cost of a hospital stay per patient, we multiplied the average expense per diem of inpatient care by the length of the 4.8-day average stay. This means that hospitals pay $24,283.20 per patient for post-surgery hospital stays. If we apply the results of the © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 31
Ulrich study to this scenario, and assume that providing a view to nature out of a hospital recovery room window reduces the patient’s stay by .41 days (or 8.5%), then providing this view will result in an average post- surgery hospital stay that costs $22,209.01 ($5,059 per night x 4.39 days = $22,209.01).

The difference between the average cost of an inpatient stay and the same cost to a biophilically designed hospital is $2,074.19. To apply this cost savings nationwide, we multiplied this per-patient savings by the 44,993 comparable operational procedures that happen every year in the US, the national savings would be $93,324,030 if every one of these patients had recovered with a view to nature.

Although this calculation assumes that all non-federal hospitals in the United States do not integrate biophilia into their design, we assume that the number of hospitals that do not adhere to this rule are small enough to be included in a margin of error. This calculation was not meant to be used as a precise calculation of nationwide savings, but a rough estimation of what could be if hospital recovery rooms were designed to give patients access to nature.
c.

REDU cE
D
PR
ISON c
OSTS
DU
E T
O B
IOPHI lIc
P U
BlIc
HO
USING
DE
VE lO

PMENTS I
N c
HI cA
GO

Frances Kuo and William Sullivan’s 2001 study on crime rates in inner cities accounts for a 7-8% reduction in violent and property crimes as a result of greener surroundings in
c
hicago’s Ida B. Wells Public Housing
Development. This is a valuable clue as to what an increase in biophilic design in public housing developments would do when scaled up over an entire city. Since the data provided by Kuo and Sullivan dealt with c
hicago, this paper will scale up the resulting reduction in crime over the c
ity of c
hicago. c
hicago has 12 other public housing developments
aimed at families, and 41 more housing developments aimed at senior citizens (
c
hicago Housing Authority, 2011). Assuming that we could only compare the Ida B. Wells Houses to other developments aimed at families, we focused on these 12 housing developments.

Part of the assumptions of this calculation was that the crime rates across
c
hicago’s 12 family-aimed public housing developments are comparable to the crime rates at Ida B. Wells. We also assumed that the layout was comparable, and that none of them already incorporate biophilic design to any significant extent. The Kuo and Sullivan study quotes a 52% decrease in total crimes, or a reduction in buildings that had high levels of vegetation, compared to buildings that had low levels of vegetation, over a two year period, in
c
hicago’s Ida B. Wells houses
(Kuo & Sullivan, 2001b). The results of the study attribute 7-8% of this decrease to vegetation. The number of crimes are detailed in Table 1.

The difference between the crime in high vegetation and low vegetation is 2.1 violent crimes and 1.5 property crimes. We than halve these numbers, since they were measured over a 2-year period. Since 8% of table 1 Violent
cr imes
Property
cr imes
h
igh
vegetation 4.0 3.3
l
ow
vegetation 1.9 1.8
The Economics of Biophilia32
the reduction in crime is attributable to vegetation, we can say that .084 violent crimes and .06 property crimes are attributable to vegetation.

We multiply the above numbers by 12 to scale them up to the 12 public housing developments in question, and arrive at 1.008 instances of violent crime and .72 instances of property crime.

We must assume for this calculation that each reported crime resulted in arrest and incarceration. We know that the average annual cost of incarceration in a state prison is $22,650, and that the average length of incarceration in state prisons for violent crime is 5.5 years, while the average length of incarceration in state prisons for property crime is

2.25 years (Durose & langan, 2003).

We then multiply the number of crimes in chicago by the length of each type of incarceration and the cost of incarceration (see Table 2). When we add the total costs of incarceration for violent and property crimes, we get $162,264.60.

Based on our assumptions, we roughly estimate that if all of chicago’s 12 public housing units were designed with access to nature, the Illinois State Department of corrections would save $162,264.60 every year, solely due to reduced crime. This figure does not consider the reduced operating costs of buildings that incorporate natural daylight and ventilation systems, or the savings resulting from myriad other health benefits that access to nature bring.

D. A NNUA l SAVINGS IN ADHD M EDI cATION
Studies show that giving children access to nature improves their concentration and enhances their rate of learning. Tayler & Kuo suggest that this could one day become a method of preventing the symptoms of ADHD. For the purposes of this paper, we thought it was valuable to calculate a rough estimate of the nationwide savings that result from reduced consumption of ADHD medications.

A paper by Scheffler et al. cites that in 2004, global expenditure on ADHD medication was US $2.4 billion, and that 95%, or US $2.28 billion, of this can be attributed to the United States. A 2009 study of children with ADHD found that children with ADHD scored 13.37% higher on tests measuring their concentration after a walk in the park than after a walk through a downtown area (Taylor & Kuo, 2009). Based on this improvement in score, we assume that a nationwide trend towards increased access to parks for children with ADHD could reduce the average consumption of ADHD medications by 10% (reduced from

13.37% to be conservative). Based on 2004 numbers, this translates to an annual savings of $228 million on ADHD medication expenditure.

This figure does not take into consideration that Scheffler et al. predict an increase in expenditure on ADHD medication of 22.6% every year in the U.S. alone, which means that the expenditure on these medications (and therefore potential savings) are signficantly higher today. table 2 Violent
crimes
Property
crimes
crime reduction
due to greenery 1.008 0.72
total length of
incarceration 5.544 1.62
total cost of
incarceration $125,571 $36,693
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 33
references
Akbari, H. “Shade trees reduce building energy use and cO2 emissions from power plants.” Elsevier Science ltd., Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119-S126. Berkeley, cA. 2002.

Alliance for Excellent Education. 2007. The High cost of High School Dropouts:

What the Nation Pays for Inadequate High Schools. Issue Brief.

American Hospital Association. “Fast Facts on US Hospitals.” Health Forum llc. chicago, Il. 2010.

Beauchemin, Kathleen M. and Peter Hays. “Sunny hospital rooms expedite recovery.” Elsevier Science ltd., Journal of Affective Disorders 40: 49-51.

Alberta, canada. 1996.

Begley, c.E., J.F. Annegars, A.c. Swann, c. lewis, S. coan, W.B. Schnapp, and l. Bryant-comstock. “The lifetime costs of bipolar disorder in the US: an estimate for new cases in 1998.” The University of Texas Health Science center. Houston, TX. 2001.

Benedetti, Francesco, cristina colombo, Barbara Barbini, Euridice campori, and Enrico Smeraldi. “Morning sunlight reduces length of hospitalization in bipolar depression.” Elsevier Science ltd., Journal of Affective Disorders 221-223. Milan, Italy. 2001.

Benefits and costs of the clean Air Act from 1990-2020. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. March 2011. Final Report.

Benson, Earl, Julia Hansen, Arthur l. Schwartz Jr., Greg T Smersh. 1998.

Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. 16: 1, 55-73.

Bergs, J. A. “Effect of Healthy Workplaces: Office work, well-being, and productivity.” Green Solar Architecture. Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 2002.

Biederman I, Vessel EA. Perceptual pleasure and the brain. Am Sci 2006; 94:249–255.

BOMA. Benchmarking Reports. Experience Exchange Report (EER). BOMA International. Released 1991.

BOMA. Benchmarking Reports. Experience Exchange Report (EER). BOMA International. Released July 2010.

Boyce, Peter R. “Review: The Impact of light in Buildings on Human Health.” Indoor and Built Environment. February 2010 vol. 19 no. 1, 8-20.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, ‘Expenditures/Employment: State Prison Expenditures, 2001.’ Office of Justice Programs. Washington, D.c. 2001.

Bureau of labor Statistics. “American Time Use Survey.” United States Department of labor. Washington, D.c. 2010.

Bureau of labor Statistics. “Employer costs for Employee compensation new release.” United States Department of labor. Washington, D. c.

June 2011a.

The Economics of Biophilia34
Bureau of l abor Statistics. “Private industry employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation.” Table 6. Washington, D.
c
. June 2011b.
c
alifornia Department of Education. ‘2006-2007 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR)’. Policy and Evaluation Division. April 2009. c
D
c. c
enters for Disease c
ontrol and Prevention. “Physical Activity and Health:

A Report of the Surgeon General.” Web. 1999.
c
D
c. c
enters for Disease c
ontrol and Prevention. “Heart Disease and Stroke
Prevention.” Atlanta, GA.
c
dc.gov. Web. 2011.
c
hicago Housing Authority. Housing. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011 http://www. thecha.org/pages/housing/19.php
Davinge, Andrea, Tina M. Waliczek, R. D. li
neberger, and J. M. Zajicek. “The Effect
of li
ve Plants and Window Views of Green Space on Employee Perceptions of Job Satisfaction.” HortScience 43(1): 183-187. San Marcos, TX. 2008.

Domke, Henry. “What’s new with healing gardens?” Healthcare Fine Art. Interview with Naomi Sachs. Web. 9 March 2008.

Donovan, Geoffrey H. and David T. Butry. “The value of shade: Estimating the effects of urban trees on summertime electricity use.” Elsevier Science l
td., Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 662-668. 2009.

Durose, Matthew, Patrick A. la
ngan. “State co
urt Sentencing of co
nvicted Felons,
2000.” U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs. 2003.

Edwards,
l
. and P. Torcelli. “A
l
iterature Review on the Effects of Natural
l
ight
on Building Occupants.” National Renewable Energy l
aboratory. NRE
l
/TP-
550-30769. Golden,
c
O. 2002.

Elzeyadi, I. “Daylighting-Bias and Biophilia: Quantifying the Impacts of Daylight on Occupants Health.” In: Thought and le
adership in Green
Buildings Research. Greenbuild 2011 Proceedings. Washington, D c:

U
SGBc
Press. 2011.

Employment Policy Foundation. 2001. Give yourself the gift of a degree. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://www.epf.org/media/newsreleases/2001/ nr20011219.htm
EPA. “Indoor Air Facts No. 4, Sick Building Syndrome”. Research and Development (MD-56). Washington, D.
c
. 1991.

Faryon, Joanne, and Kevin c
rowe. “Empty Seats c
ost School Districts Millions.”
Watchdog Institute, 27 June 2011. Web.

Fisk, W. Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationships with building energy efficiency. Technical Report 25:537-66, l
BN
l
, 2000.

Garrett, N.A., Brasure M., Schmitz, K.H., Schultz, M.M., Huber, M.R. “Physical Inactivity: Direct cost to a health plan.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27 (4), pp. 304-309. 2004.

Gonzalez, David. “In the Bronx, l
ess Asphalt, More Vegetables.” The New York
Times. Aug 7, 2009.
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 35
Grahn, Patrik and Ulrika K. Stigsdotter. “The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration.” Elsevier Science ltd., Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning. 264-275. 2010.

Hagerhall, caroline M, Thorbjorn laike, Richard P Taylor, Marianne Kuller, Richard Kuller, Theodore P Martin. 2008. Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception. Volume 37, pp 1488-1494.

Hall MJ, DeFrances cJ, Williams SN, Golosinskiy A, Schwartzman A. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2007 summary. National health statistics reports; no 29. Hyattsville, MD: National center for Health Statistics. 2010.

Harnik, Peter and Ben Welle. “Measuring the Economic Value of a city Park System.” The Trust for Public land. Washington, D.c. 2009.

Heerwagen, Judith H. “Design, Productivity and Well Being: What are the links?”. Presented at AIA conference on Highly Effective Facilities. cincinnati, OH. 1998.

Heerwagen, Judith H. “Green Buildings, Organizational success, and Occupant productivity.” Building Research and Information. Vol. 28 (5):353-367. london, UK. 2000.

Heerwagen, Judith H. “Investing in People: The Social Benefits of Sustainable Design.” Presented at Rethinking Sustainable construction. Sarasota, Fl. 2006.

Heschong, lisa. Heschong Mahone Group. “Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance.” california Energy commission: Pacific Gas and Electric company. Fair Oaks, california. 1999.

Heschong, lisa. Heschong Mahone Group. “Daylight and Retail Sales.” california Energy commission: Pacific Gas and Electric company. Fair Oaks, california. 2003a.

Heschong, lisa. Heschong Mahone Group. “Windows and classrooms: A Study of Student Performance and the Indoor Environment.” california Energy commission: Pacific Gas and Electric company. Fair Oaks, california. 2003b.

Heschong, lisa. Heschong Mahone Group. “Windows and Offices: A Study of Office Worker Performance and the Indoor Environment.” california Energy commission: Pacific Gas and Electric company. Fair Oaks, california. 2003c.

Institute at the Golden Gate. 2010. Parks Prescriptions: Profiles and Resources for Good Health from the Great Outdoors. Full Report.

Joye, Yannick. 2007. Architectural lessons From Environmental Psychology:

The case of Biophilic Architecture. Review of General Psychology. Vol. 11, No. 4, 305–328.

Joye, Yannick, Kim Willems, Malaika Brengmen, and Kathleen Wolf. “The effects of urban retail greenery on consumer experience.” Elsevier Science ltd.

Urban Forestry & Urban Gardening 9 (2010) 57-64. Belgium. 2010.

The Economics of Biophilia36
Kahn, Peter H. et al. “A plasma display window?—The shifting baseline problem in a technologically mediated natural world.” Elsevier Science ltd., Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 192-199. May 2008.

Kats, Gregory. “Greening America’s Schools – cost and Benefits”. capital E Report. The US Green Building council. 2006.

Kellert, Stephen et.al. Biophilic Design. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.

Kellert, Stephen R., and Edward O. Wilson. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington.

D.c.: Shearwater, 1993. Print.

Kelley, Tina. “On a Rainy Day, a Garden Opens for Healing.” The New York Times. Blog Post. 26 September. Web. 2008.

Kim, J. T., c. J. Ren, G.A Fielding. “Treatment with lavender aromatherapy in the post-anesthesia care unit reduces opioid requirements.” Department of Anesthesiology, New York University Medical center. National Institutes of Health. Jul: 920-5. 2007.

Kolesnikov-Jessop, Sonia. “An Urban Jungle for the 21st century.” The New York Times. New York: NY. July 2011.

Kuo, Frances E., and William c. Sullivan. “Aggression and Violence in the Inner city: Effects of Environment via Mental Fatigue.” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33(4):543-571. Sage Publications. 2001a.

Kuo, Frances E., and William c. Sullivan. “Environment and crime in the Inner city: Does Vegetation Reduce crime?” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33 (3):343-367. Sage Publications. 2001b.
laumann, K. et al. Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23:125–134. 2003. laverne, Robert J., and Kimberly Winson-Geideman. The influence of trees and landscaping on rental rates at office buildings. Journal of Arboriculture 29(5):

September 2003.
lehr, camilla A., David R. Johnson, christine D. Bremer, Anna cosio, Megan Thompson. 2004. Increasing Rates of School completion: Moving from Policy and Research to Practice. National center on Secondary Education and Transition. Full Report.
loftness, Vivian, Volker Hartkopt, Beran Gurtekin. “Building Investment Decision Support (BIDSTM).” carnegie Mellon University center for Building Performance and Diagnostics. Pittsburg, PA. 2007.
loftness, Vivian. “Sustainable Design for Health & Productivity.” center for Building Performance & Diagnostics. 2008.

Maas, Jonathan. “Take a hike! How attention restoration theory shows that nature sharpens the mind.” Ode for Intelligent Optimists. Vol. 8, Issue 4.

September 2011.

Machlin, S. R. and carper, K. Expenses for Inpatient Hospital Stays, 2004.

Statistical Brief #164. March 2007. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/ data_files/ publications/st164/stat164.pdf
© 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 37
Marcus, clare c., and Marni Barnes. “Gardens in Healthcare Facilities: Uses, Therapeutic Benefits, and Design Recommendation.” University of california at Berkeley. The center for Health Design. 1995.

Mathis, William J. “The cost of Implementing the Federal No child left Behind Act: Different Assumptions, Different Answers.” Peabody Journal of Education. Published by lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2005.

Mayor’s Management Report, Fiscal Year 2011. city of New York. September 2011.

Miller, Norm G., Dave Pogue, Quiana D. Gough, and Susan M. Davis. “Green Buildings and Productivity”. JOSRE. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2009.

Ministry of National Development. “From Garden city to city in a Garden.” Singapore. April 2011.

Moss, M. J. cook, K. Wesnes, and P. Duckett. “Aromas of rosemary and lavender essential oils differentially affect cognition and mood in health adults.” Division of Psychology, University of Northumbria. International Journal of Neuroscience. Jan; 113(1): 15-38. 2003.

Moore, R. c. Childhood’s domain. london: croom Helm. 1986.

Niklas, Michael H., and Gary B. Bailey. “Student Performance in Daylit Schools.” Innovative Design. Raleigh, North carolina. 1996.

NYc At-A-Glance, 2011 Update. NYc Economic Development corporation. 2011.

New York city Department of Education. 2011-2012 School Year calendar. schools.nyc.gov.

Office of the Actuary (OAcT) center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “National Health Expenditure Data: Overview, Forecast summary and selected tables.” 2008-2010.

Ohtsuka, Yoshinori, Noriyuki Yabunaka, Shigeru Takayama. Shinrin-yoku (forest- air bathing and walking) effectively decreases blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. International Journal of Biometeorolgy. 41:125-127. 1998.

Park, Bum Jim, Yuko Tsunetsugu, Tamami Kasetani, Takahide Kagawa, Yoshifumi Miyazaki. 2010. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine. 15:18–26.

Romm, Joseph J. and William D. Browning. “Greening the Building and the Bottom line.” Rocky Mountain Institute. Snowmass, colorado. 1994.

Rosseter, Robert. “New AAcN Data Show the Impact of the Economy on the Nurse Faculty Shortage.” American Association of college of Nursing.

Washington, D.c. September 2009.

Sadler, Blair l., Jennifer R. DuBose, Eileen B. Malone, and craig M. Zimring. “Healthcare leadership: The Business case for Building Better Hospitals through Evidence Based Design.” Georgia Institute of Technology, The center for Health Design. 2008.

Scheffler, Richard M., Stephen P. Hinshaw, Sepideh Modrek, and Peter levine.

The Economics of Biophilia38
“The Global Market for ADHD Medications.” Health Affairs, 26, No. 2 (450- 457). 2007.

Taylor, A., and Frances E. Kuo. “children With Attention Deficits concentrate Better After Walk in the Park.” Journal of Attention Disorders. No. 12; 402.

SAGE Publications. 2009.

Taylor, A., Frances E. Kuo, W.c. Sullivan. “Views of Nature and Self-Discipline:

Evidence from Inner city children.” Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Vol. 22. No. 1-2: 49-63. Web. 2001.

Thayer, Julian F. et al. “Effects of the physical work environment on physiological measures of stress.” lippincott Williams & Wilkins. The European Society of cardiology. 2010.

The Trust for Public land. “chambers county, Greenprint for Growth and conservation.” June 2009.

The Trust for Public land. “Asphalt lot Transformed into a Student-Designed Play Space at P.S. 33.” Press Release. May 25, 2011.

Ulrich, R. S. “View through a window may influence recovery from surgery” Science, Vol. 224. 1984.

Ulrich, R.S. and lunden. “Effects of Nature and Abstract Pictures on Patients Recovering from Open Heart Surgery.” Paper presented at the International congress of Behavioral Medicine. Uppsala, Sweden. June 27-30. 1990.

Ulrich, R. S. “How Design Impacts Wellness.” Healthcare Forum Journal.

October. 1992.

US census Bureau. 2002. Economic census NAIcS. Washington, D.c. July 2011.

US census Bureau. School Expenditures by Type of control and level of Instruction. Table 216. Washington, D.c. 2009.

US census Bureau. current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Washington, D.c. 2010.

US Department of commerce. ‘June 2011 construction at $772.3 Billion Annual Rate.’ US census Bureau News. Washington, D.c. August 2011.

US Department of Education, National center for Education Statistics. (2011).

Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NcES 2011-015), Table 190. © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc 39
US Department of Energy. ‘Energy Savers Booklet: Tips on Saving Energy & Money at Home.’ Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Washington, D.c. May 2009.

US Department of Health and Human Services. centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure 2009 Highlights. 2009a.

US Department of Health & Human Service. ‘Statistics on Hospital Stays.’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD. 2009b.

US Department of Health and Human Services. centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure 2010 Highlights. 2010.

US Department of labor. Absences from work of employed full-time wage and salary. Washington, D.c. 2010.

US Department of labor. National Wage Index. Washington, D.c., 2009.

USGBc. Building Technology Program, High Performance Buildings. Washington, D.c. 2008.

Victoria Press. “Natural Ventilation Systems.” Resource Smart Business.

Sustainability Victoria. Melbourne, AU. 2009.

Walch, Jeffrey M., Bruce S. Rabin, Richard Day, Jessica N. Williams, Krissy choi, and James D. Kang. “The Effect of Sunlight on Postoperative Analgesic Medication Use.” Psychosomatic Medicine 67:156-163. 2005.

Warren, Jennifer. “High cost of Prisons Not Paying Off.” los Angeles Times.

Web. June 2006.

Washington State University. Daylight Dimming controls. cooperative Extension Energy Program. 2003.

Wells, NM and GW Evans. Nearby Nature: A Buffer of life Stress Among Rural children. Environment and Behavior. 35(3). pp. 311-330.

Wilson, Alex. “Productivity and Green Buildings.” Environmental Building News.

EBN: 13:10. 2004.

Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Wolf, K.l., 2005. Trees in the small city retail business district: comparing resident and visitor perceptions. Journal of Forestry 103, 390–395.

The Economics of Biophilia © 2012 Terrapin Bright Green llc Terrapin Bright Green llc
New York NY | Washington Dc
www.terrapinbrightgreen.com
[email protected]

Hayward City CouncilMarch 19, 2024

Hayward City Council
March 19, 2024