80
form-making processes of the living systems of nature, as well as designing and planning with a
regenerative-adaptive process that unfolds the living environments of place (Roös, Jones, Downton,
& Zeunert, 2018; Salingaros, 2013).
6.3 Biophilic Design and Patterns
By nature, human beings are subconscious, constantly engaging with patterns of biophilia that exist
in the surrounding environment (Downton et al., 2017b). Many patterns of biophilia are available to
trigger and work with our senses. In this way, it is possible to create places that connect us with these
patterns. While biophilia is the theory, biophilic design as advocated internationally by Kellert et al.
(2008) and Beatley (2011) involves a process that incorporates reconnecting people with the natural
environment. Beatley has evidenced the validity of this approach in Biophilic Cities (Beatley, 2011),
pointing to numerous exemplars and precedents that can enable the successful implementation of this
process. He has advocated putting the biophilia hypothesis into practice at an urban scale, proposing
the essential elements of a biophilic city, and tabling examples and stories about cities that have successfully integrated biophilic elements (Beatley, 2011).
In health and wellbeing, Ryan, Browning, Clancy, Andrews, and Kallianpurkar (2014) have validated the relevance of biophilic design to humans whereby research in the neurosciences, endocrinology and other fields have scientifically validated the positive psychophysiological and cognitive
benefits afforded by biophilia in design interventions. In the built environment sector, Söderlund and
Newman (2015) have proposed a new set of design principles and practices where nature needs to
play a bigger part called ‘biophilic architecture’, asserting that humans have an innate connection with
nature that can assist in making buildings and cities more effective human abodes. Söderlund and
Newman (2015) have also concluded that biophilic design is emerging as a social movement.
In Creating Healthy Places (2017), authors Downton, Jones, Zeunert, and Roös (2017a) have
sought to apply biophilic design patterns as design and performance parameters in the new underground railway system in Melbourne. Subsequently, Downton et al. have argued that the research
findings could potentially support the measurable, positive impacts of biophilic design on human
health, strengthening the empirical evidence for the human-nature connection and highlighting its
importance within both design research and design practice (Downton et al., 2017a). This argument is
clearly validated by Kellert et al. (2008), who state that biophilic design has the potential to enrich
nature and humanity, and propose that:
…combining the biophilic desire to harmonise with nature together with the design of the built environment,
results in some degree of deliberate refashioning of nature to satisfy human needs, but in ways that celebrate the
integrity and utility of the natural world (Kellert et al., 2008, p. 14).
To implement biophilic design, Browning et al. (2014) have proposed ‘14 Patterns of Biophilic
Design’ – a framework for relating human biological science and nature to the design of the built environment, offering tools for understanding opportunities and avenues for design applications as a way
to effectively enhance health and wellbeing for individuals and society. Building further upon these 14
patterns, Downton et al. (2017a) added an additional pattern, ‘Virtual connection to nature’, to deal
with complex constraints in the built environment (Table 6.1). These virtual representations of nature
could be implemented in design solutions where the provision of actual natural elements such as vegetation is impossible (Downton et al., 2017a, p. 25). Further, to apply biophilic design in its simplest
form, Potteiger and Purinton (1998), Browning et al. (2014) and Kellert and Calabrese (2015) grouped
biophilic design patterns in three categories of reference: Nature in the Space; Natural Analogues, and
Nature of the Space.
6 Interconnections Between People and Their Natural Environments
form-making processes of the living systems of nature, as well as designing and planning with a
regenerative-adaptive process that unfolds the living environments of place (Roös, Jones, Downton,
& Zeunert, 2018; Salingaros, 2013).
6.3 Biophilic Design and Patterns
By nature, human beings are subconscious, constantly engaging with patterns of biophilia that exist
in the surrounding environment (Downton et al., 2017b). Many patterns of biophilia are available to
trigger and work with our senses. In this way, it is possible to create places that connect us with these
patterns. While biophilia is the theory, biophilic design as advocated internationally by Kellert et al.
(2008) and Beatley (2011) involves a process that incorporates reconnecting people with the natural
environment. Beatley has evidenced the validity of this approach in Biophilic Cities (Beatley, 2011),
pointing to numerous exemplars and precedents that can enable the successful implementation of this
process. He has advocated putting the biophilia hypothesis into practice at an urban scale, proposing
the essential elements of a biophilic city, and tabling examples and stories about cities that have successfully integrated biophilic elements (Beatley, 2011).
In health and wellbeing, Ryan, Browning, Clancy, Andrews, and Kallianpurkar (2014) have validated the relevance of biophilic design to humans whereby research in the neurosciences, endocrinology and other fields have scientifically validated the positive psychophysiological and cognitive
benefits afforded by biophilia in design interventions. In the built environment sector, Söderlund and
Newman (2015) have proposed a new set of design principles and practices where nature needs to
play a bigger part called ‘biophilic architecture’, asserting that humans have an innate connection with
nature that can assist in making buildings and cities more effective human abodes. Söderlund and
Newman (2015) have also concluded that biophilic design is emerging as a social movement.
In Creating Healthy Places (2017), authors Downton, Jones, Zeunert, and Roös (2017a) have
sought to apply biophilic design patterns as design and performance parameters in the new underground railway system in Melbourne. Subsequently, Downton et al. have argued that the research
findings could potentially support the measurable, positive impacts of biophilic design on human
health, strengthening the empirical evidence for the human-nature connection and highlighting its
importance within both design research and design practice (Downton et al., 2017a). This argument is
clearly validated by Kellert et al. (2008), who state that biophilic design has the potential to enrich
nature and humanity, and propose that:
…combining the biophilic desire to harmonise with nature together with the design of the built environment,
results in some degree of deliberate refashioning of nature to satisfy human needs, but in ways that celebrate the
integrity and utility of the natural world (Kellert et al., 2008, p. 14).
To implement biophilic design, Browning et al. (2014) have proposed ‘14 Patterns of Biophilic
Design’ – a framework for relating human biological science and nature to the design of the built environment, offering tools for understanding opportunities and avenues for design applications as a way
to effectively enhance health and wellbeing for individuals and society. Building further upon these 14
patterns, Downton et al. (2017a) added an additional pattern, ‘Virtual connection to nature’, to deal
with complex constraints in the built environment (Table 6.1). These virtual representations of nature
could be implemented in design solutions where the provision of actual natural elements such as vegetation is impossible (Downton et al., 2017a, p. 25). Further, to apply biophilic design in its simplest
form, Potteiger and Purinton (1998), Browning et al. (2014) and Kellert and Calabrese (2015) grouped
biophilic design patterns in three categories of reference: Nature in the Space; Natural Analogues, and
Nature of the Space.
6 Interconnections Between People and Their Natural Environments