78
ing the health benefits associated with engaging with nature (Seymour, 2016), as they consider elements of biophilic design to potentially improve health and wellbeing in the built environment. Since
the late nineteenth century a number of descriptive models have attempted to encapsulate the dimensions of human health and ecosystems, as well as their interrelationships (Seymour, 2016, p. 2). What
is evident in the literature is that the interrelationship of humans with the natural environment does
have an impact on human wellbeing both from a psychological and physiological perspective.
According to Kellert and Wilson, humans do have an inherent biological-based connection to nature
(Kellert & Wilson, 1993) (Fig. 6.1).
Where we have identified in Chap. 5 the long history of human and nature interaction, in this chapter I explore further the phenomena of biophilia, the innate tendency of our human attraction to
nature, and the deep connection that exists between the two. Through the description of a nature
language, this brings the narrative to a culmination within the contemporary context of the twentyfirst century, reflecting on the vast and complex interconnections and patterns between people and
their natural environments.
Further, the chapter explores the key requirements for improving both physiological and psychological well-being by identifying the need for human-nature affiliations and addressing a design paradigm that includes biophilic design and biophilic patterns, interaction patterns of a nature language,
and the alignment between a physical design lens and an ecopsychology narrative.
6.2 Innate Affiliation with Nature
In the Biophilia Hypothesis (1986), Edward O. Wilson noted that humans needed daily contact with
nature to be healthy and gain longevity. His reasoning was that humans have co-evolved with nature
and are part of it, noting that biophilia is “the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other
living organisms. Innate means hereditary, and hence, part of ultimate human nature” (Kellert &
Wilson, 1993, p. 31). Biophilia supports the proposition that our environment needs to include the
essentials of nature for providing us with psychological and physiological health:
Over thousands of generations the mind evolved within a ripening culture, creating itself out of symbols and
tools, and genetic advantage accrued from planned modifications of the environment. The unique operations of
the brain are the result of natural selection operating through the filter of culture. They have suspended us
between the two antipodal ideas of nature and machine, forest and city, the natural and artificial, relentlessly
seeking, in the words of the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan, an equilibrium not of this world (Wilson, 1984, p. 12).
This affiliation with nature continues to be critical in modern-day human health and wellbeing
literature and practice (Kellert, 1997, 2012), and has been strongly identified as a crucial issue in the
health sciences. A growing body of research reveals that exposure to nature continues to result in
positive health benefits in a wide range of sectors; at work, home, recreation, community areas and
even within the urban environments where people work and live (Browning, Ryan, & Clancy, 2014;
Kellert, 2012). While humans may have an inherent affiliation with nature, the benefits from contact
with it depend on repeated experience of biophilic effect elements (Roös, Jones, Downton, &
Zeunert, 2018).
Alexander and his colleagues highly argued that this affiliation to nature is needed. In A Pattern
Language (1977), Alexander et al. state:
People need contact with trees and plants and water. In some way, which is hard to express, people are able to be
more whole in the presence of nature, are able to go deeper into themselves, and are somehow able to draw
sustaining energy from the life of plants and trees and water – Pattern 173 ‘Garden Wall’ (Alexander et al., 1977,
p. 806)
6 Interconnections Between People and Their Natural Environments
ing the health benefits associated with engaging with nature (Seymour, 2016), as they consider elements of biophilic design to potentially improve health and wellbeing in the built environment. Since
the late nineteenth century a number of descriptive models have attempted to encapsulate the dimensions of human health and ecosystems, as well as their interrelationships (Seymour, 2016, p. 2). What
is evident in the literature is that the interrelationship of humans with the natural environment does
have an impact on human wellbeing both from a psychological and physiological perspective.
According to Kellert and Wilson, humans do have an inherent biological-based connection to nature
(Kellert & Wilson, 1993) (Fig. 6.1).
Where we have identified in Chap. 5 the long history of human and nature interaction, in this chapter I explore further the phenomena of biophilia, the innate tendency of our human attraction to
nature, and the deep connection that exists between the two. Through the description of a nature
language, this brings the narrative to a culmination within the contemporary context of the twentyfirst century, reflecting on the vast and complex interconnections and patterns between people and
their natural environments.
Further, the chapter explores the key requirements for improving both physiological and psychological well-being by identifying the need for human-nature affiliations and addressing a design paradigm that includes biophilic design and biophilic patterns, interaction patterns of a nature language,
and the alignment between a physical design lens and an ecopsychology narrative.
6.2 Innate Affiliation with Nature
In the Biophilia Hypothesis (1986), Edward O. Wilson noted that humans needed daily contact with
nature to be healthy and gain longevity. His reasoning was that humans have co-evolved with nature
and are part of it, noting that biophilia is “the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other
living organisms. Innate means hereditary, and hence, part of ultimate human nature” (Kellert &
Wilson, 1993, p. 31). Biophilia supports the proposition that our environment needs to include the
essentials of nature for providing us with psychological and physiological health:
Over thousands of generations the mind evolved within a ripening culture, creating itself out of symbols and
tools, and genetic advantage accrued from planned modifications of the environment. The unique operations of
the brain are the result of natural selection operating through the filter of culture. They have suspended us
between the two antipodal ideas of nature and machine, forest and city, the natural and artificial, relentlessly
seeking, in the words of the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan, an equilibrium not of this world (Wilson, 1984, p. 12).
This affiliation with nature continues to be critical in modern-day human health and wellbeing
literature and practice (Kellert, 1997, 2012), and has been strongly identified as a crucial issue in the
health sciences. A growing body of research reveals that exposure to nature continues to result in
positive health benefits in a wide range of sectors; at work, home, recreation, community areas and
even within the urban environments where people work and live (Browning, Ryan, & Clancy, 2014;
Kellert, 2012). While humans may have an inherent affiliation with nature, the benefits from contact
with it depend on repeated experience of biophilic effect elements (Roös, Jones, Downton, &
Zeunert, 2018).
Alexander and his colleagues highly argued that this affiliation to nature is needed. In A Pattern
Language (1977), Alexander et al. state:
People need contact with trees and plants and water. In some way, which is hard to express, people are able to be
more whole in the presence of nature, are able to go deeper into themselves, and are somehow able to draw
sustaining energy from the life of plants and trees and water – Pattern 173 ‘Garden Wall’ (Alexander et al., 1977,
p. 806)
6 Interconnections Between People and Their Natural Environments