Biophilic Design for Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment: Enhancing Sustainability and Livability
 |
| Source: leungchopan/elements.envato.com |
Environmental and Social Issues of Our Urban Areas
Rapid urbanisation is resulting in dense, overpopulated built environments dominated by buildings and the hard infrastructure that services them. The United Nations predicts that by 2030, 60% of the world's population will live in urban environments (UN-HABITAT, 2008). One of the negative outcomes of urbanisation is the exclusion of living elements. Humans are increasingly disconnected from living elements, with devastating effects on health and well-being for humans and remaining living environments.
Children in cities have little or no access to 'nature'. They cannot explore outdoors, resulting in most of their growing lives being spent indoors, in front of a TV or computer, which results in overweight, sedentary children, physical health issues, and various psychological disorders.
In line with this realisation, ensuring each citizen has access to the use of urban green space and fulfilling their social needs, particularly in a high-density urban area, has become highly important. According to the World Health Organisation (2010), every city is recommended to provide a minimum of 9 square metres of urban green space for each person, provided that it should be accessible, safe and functional. WHO also suggests that, ideally, a city can provide as much as 50 square metres of urban green space per person.
The application of urban green standards varied in many cities (see Table 1). In Vienna, each population has been provided 120 square metres of urban green space. For this reason, in 2016, Mercer's Quality of Living Survey (Mercer LLC, 2021) voted that Vienna is the most liveable city in the world. Singapore is considered the third densest city globally, providing each of its population with 66 square metres of urban green space. The provision of urban green space per person in Kuala Lumpur has declined from 13 square metres in 2010 to 8.5 square metres in 2014, which is slightly above India (Maryanti et al., 2016).
 |
| Table 1: The adoption of urban green space standards in several cities Modified from Maryanti et al. (2016) |
Excessive impervious surfaces in the streets, parking lots and buildings, and insufficient green areas to absorb the stormwater have partly caused flash floods to become common in densely populated urban areas in Malaysia. Furthermore, notable attention was garnered after Kuala Lumpur was described as getting hotter by 0.6 degrees Celcius per decade, which is the world's highest value so far reported for the urban heat island (UHI) effects until 2005 (Davis et al., 2005).
Partly due to the UHI effects and unwalkable streets, Malaysian are reported to be physically inactive. A massive study of about 717,000 people in 111 countries by Standford University (2017) concludes that Malaysians are the world's third laziest people. The study measured how many steps people take for an average of 95 days, using the data gathered from their handphones with a fitness app that detects movement. Thanks to its generous urban green spaces and shaded streets, Singapore scored high at number nine with 5,674 steps. Malaysians are third from the bottom, with only 3,963 steps a day.
Unsurprisingly, Malaysia is the most obese country in Asia. Based on the British medical journal, The Lancet, 45.3% of Malaysians were obese (The Star Online, 2014). Exacerbating this is that a newly released Healthiest Workplace survey conducted by AIA Vitality (2020) found that 51% of Malaysian employees have at least one dimension of work-related stress.
Biophilia and Biophilic Design
What has been said earlier points to the evident fact that urban areas in Malaysia need a higher provision of urban green space. The human-oriented planning and design of the built environment, which includes the provision of walkable space, community space, and green space with environmental-friendly considerations, are fundamentally related to occupants' physical and spiritual well-being. A growing body of scientific study indicates that humans need daily contact with nature to be productive and healthy and are interdependent and interconnected to nature and other forms of life.
 |
| Outdoor connection to nature Source: deborahd18/elements.envato.com |
 |
| Partly-outdoor connection to nature Source: Garakta-Studio/elements.envato.com |
 |
| Indoor connection to nature Source: anontae2522/elements.envato.com |
Many studies have provided evidence of Biophilia's health and restorative benefits (Frumkin, 2001). A study reveals the benefits of nature as a healing effect (Reeve et al., 2017). Another study provided evidence of the connection between intrinsic human physiological and psychological reactions to nature and Biophilia's environmental, economic, and social value in responding to human concerns (Soderlund and Newman, 2015).
Indeed, nature is not an optional but essential quality of modern urban life. The vital benefits of Biophilia urge us to not only conserve and restore the existing natural elements but also insert new forms of nature for the twenty-first century.
The biophilic design came into sight after the term biophilia. While biophilia is the theory, biophilic design involves a process that offers a sustainable design strategy that incorporates reconnecting people with the natural environment (Beatley, 2011). Alexander (2002) defines biophilic design as the "integration" or sometimes "manipulation" of natural elements or systems to create a sense of "life" in the built environment. Studies reveal that people's concentration increases after they spend time in nature or even viewing scenes of nature reduces stress, and improves cognitive functions and creativity (Lee, 2019).
Soderlund and Newman (2015) have proposed a new set of design principles and practices where nature needs to play a bigger part called "biophilic architecture." They assert that humans have an innate connection with nature to make buildings more effective human abodes. Indeed, building and nature integration in building design performs as compensation for the loss of green space during urban development.
Taking biophilic design to the city scale, Beatley (2011) has evidenced the validity of this approach, pointing to numerous exemplars and precedents that can enable the successful implementation of this process, supporting the following definition of a biophilic city:
"Biophilic cities are cities of abundant nature in close proximity to large numbers of urbanites; biophilic cities are biodiverse cities, that value, protect and actively restore the biodiversity; biophilic cities are green and growing cities, organic and natural" (Beatley, 2011).
Furthermore, the successful application of biophilic design strategies (e.g. cycling, electric vehicles) could reduce dependence on fossil fuels and increase cities' resilience. Biophilic qualities will be more critical as the world population continues to urbanise.
Key Strategies of Biophilic Design
Despite recent research on biophilic design, there is a misconception that biophilic design is solely about introducing vegetation to the built environment (e.g. green roofs, green walls, water sensitive site, or urban design) in contrast to eliciting biophilia responses as part of the overall experience of the built environment. This experience includes elements that are not plants, whereby some biophilia effects can be achieved without the physical, tangible link to nature. Indirect experiences of nature or living systems, including purely artistic representations of nature and nature's illusions, can generate biophilic psycho-physiological responses.
Browning et al. (2014) proposed '14 Patterns of Biophilic Design' that relate human biological science and nature to the design of the built environment (see Table 2). In effect, these Patterns offer a series of tools for understanding design opportunities and avenues for design applications that may enhance individual and societal health and well-being.
Later, Downton et al.'s (2016) research concluded that the addition of another 'Pattern' to address virtual biophilic effects is required (see Table 3). They have argued that virtual Biophilia (generated by virtual experience) is beneficial for environments that cannot easily accommodate real biological systems (e.g. rooms buried deep inside large buildings).
 |
| Table 2: 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design Source: Browning et al., 2014 |
 |
| Table 3: Another 'Pattern' to address virtual biophilic effects Source: Downton et al., 2016 |
More recently, Xue et al. (2019) propose 41 biophilic strategies identified through a Biophilic workshop with multi-stakeholders, and they are summarised into six categories, as shown in Table 4. According to the authors, the framework bridges the gap between indoors and outdoors, building and nature, design and management, environment and perception.
 |
| Table 4: The biophilic framework consisting of 42 biophilic strategies Source: Xue et al., 2019 |
Conclusion and Recommendation
The environmental and social issues associated with urban areas in Malaysia warrant sufficient and generous provision of urban green space, especially above the minimum requirement. This is imperative because the most liveable city is the one that provides extensive green space for its population.
Biophilic design that connects human physical, and mental well-being and nature has become increasingly relevant in recent years. Biophilic design is a rapidly evolving discipline and should be set to become a vital part of making the kind of modern, liveable city that Kuala Lumpur aspires to be. The increasing urbanisation rate in Malaysia will lead to more people desperately searching for nature to feel fresh. Indeed, the biophilic design will get more critical day by day.
Globally, there has been a significant shift towards incorporating requirements for biophilic design strategies in newer versions of green building rating tools. This shows the increasing interest in this area by building designers and end-users. In recent years, there are strong voices that green building design and green building rating tools should go beyond the engineering approach, which is building-centric, through the indoor-outdoor and building-nature connections.
Given this, a review of Malaysia's Green Building Index (GBI) rating tool from a biophilic design or health and well-being perspective will likely be of great value to the local building industry. Since the GBI rating tool is implemented voluntarily, it is recommended for the local authorities or policy-makers to rethink the current implementation of urban green space policy in Malaysia. It is essential to provide more urban green space and make sure that such provision will contribute positively to urban surroundings and improve the urban dwellers' quality of life.
References
AIA Vitality (2020). Malaysia's Healthiest Workplace: Employee Health is Key to Business Success.
Alexander, C. (2002). The Nature of Order. Center for Environmental Structure: Berkeley, California.
Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning, 2nd Ed. Island Press: Washington DC.
Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O & Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green, LLC: New York.
Davis, M.P., Nordin, N.A., Ghazali, M., Durak, M.J. & Reimann, G. (2005). Reducing urban heat island effect with thermal comfort housing and honeycomb townships. Paper presented at Sustainable Building South East Asia Conference, Malaysia (April).
Downton, P., Jones, D.S. & Zeunert, J. (2016). Creating Healthy Places. Melbourne Metro: Docklands, Melbourne.
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20 (3), 234-240.
Kellert, S.R. & Calabrese, E.F. (2008). The Practice of Biophilic Design.
Lee, S.H. (2019). Effects of biophilic design on consumer responses in the lodging industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 141-150.
Maryanti, M.R., Khadijah, H., Muhammad Uzair, A. & Megat Mohd Ghazali, M.A.R. (2016). The urban green space provision using the standards approach: issues and challenges of its implementation in Malaysia. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 210, 369-379.
Mercer LLC (2021). Quality of Living 2016.
Reeve, A., Nieberler-Walker, K. & Desha, C. (2017). Healing gardens in children's hospitals: reflections on benefits, preferences and design from visitors' books. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 26, 48-56.
Soderlund, J. & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2 (4), 950-969.
Stnadford University (2017). Standford researchers find intriguing clues about obesity by counting steps via smartphones.
The Star Online (2014). Malaysia's Obesity Rate Highest in Asia. 16 June.
UN-HABITAT (2008). State of the World's Cities 2008/2009: Harmonious Cities. Earthscan: London.
Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press: Cambridge (MA).
World Health Organization (2010). Urban Planning, Environment and Health: From Evidence to Policy Action.
Comments
Post a Comment