ArticlePDF Available

Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture

December 2007
Review of General Psychology 11(4)

DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305

Authors:

Vilnius University

A review of findings from the field of environmental psychology shows that humans are aesthetically attracted to natural contents and to particular landscape configurations. These features are also found to have positive effects on human functioning and can reduce stress. However, opportunities for contact with these elements are reduced in modern urban life. It is argued how this evolution can have subtle but nontrivial adverse effects on psychological and physiological well-being. These can be countered by integrating key features of natural contents and structural landscape features in the built environment. Several practical proposals are discussed, ranging from literal imitations of natural objects (such as plants) to the use of nature's fractal geometry in an architectural context.

Patterns can be obtained by some simple mathematical transformations (Salingaros, 2003): (A) randomness; (B) translational symmetries; (C) reflectional symmetries; (D) rotational symmetries that are nested. (Copyright © Yannick Joye.)

…

The interior of Gaud ́’s Sagrada Familia contains schematic interpretations of natural contents. Left: columns as treelike structures. Right: flowerlike canopies. (From Guillaume Paumier. Used with permission).

…

The “forest of trees” in Calatrava’s Orient Station. (From Inge Kanakaris-Wirtl; www.structurae.de. Used with permission.)

…

Three-dimensional generation of the central spire of a Hindu temple. One architectural element is repeated on subsequent scales, which results in a complex aesthetic object. (Copyright © Yannick Joye.)

…

Figures - uploaded by Yannick Joye

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Yannick Joye

Content may be subject to copyright.

Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology:

The Case of Biophilic Architecture

Yannick Joye

Free University of Brussels

A review of ﬁndings from the ﬁeld of environmental psychology shows that humans are

aesthetically attracted to natural contents and to particular landscape conﬁgurations.

These features are also found to have positive effects on human functioning and can

reduce stress. However, opportunities for contact with these elements are reduced in

modern urban life. It is argued how this evolution can have subtle but nontrivial adverse

effects on psychological and physiological well-being. These can be countered by

integrating key features of natural contents and structural landscape features in the built

environment. Several practical proposals are discussed, ranging from literal imitations

of natural objects (such as plants) to the use of nature’s fractal geometry in an

architectural context.

Keywords: biophilia, environmental psychology, fractal architecture, biophilic archi-

tecture

Natural objects, shapes, and processes have

often acted as a source of inspiration throughout

the history of architecture. Perhaps the most

obvious example of this inspiration is ornament,

which often contains representations that are

closely similar to, or reminiscent of, the animal

and plant world. Besides such literal imitations,

some architects, notably Antonı´ Gaudı´, drew

lessons from the structural forces governing nat-

ural structures, resulting in efﬁcient and eco-

nomically built architecture (e.g., Sweeney &

Sert, 1960). Today, there seems to be a renewed

interest in the relation between nature and ar-

chitecture, especially in zoomorphic or biomor-

phic architecture (e.g., Feuerstein, 2002). More

speciﬁcally, such architecture makes use of dig-

ital design software, which allows one to easily

recreate the curvy shapes and geometry that are

characteristic of natural entities (Lynn, 1999).

This article afﬁrms the importance of natural

form as a perennial source of inspiration for

architecture. In fact, the main conclusion of this

study is that nature-based forms and organiza-

tions in architecture are valuable for human

emotional and cognitive functioning. However,

the exact way in which this conclusion is

reached differs in an important respect from the

narratives and arguments proposed in theories

of organic and biomorphic architecture, which

are often more philosophical (Lynn, 1998) or

even pseudophilosophical (e.g., Steiner, 1999)

in nature. In contrast, the argument for nature-

based forms in architecture in the current study

is mainly based on empirical ﬁndings from di-

verse psychological subdisciplines. In particu-

lar, the article starts with a concise review of

empirical ﬁndings from the ﬁeld of environ-

mental psychology and aesthetics. This survey

reveals that humans have an emotional relation

with natural elements and shows that contact

with natural form is in a sense good for human

psychological and physiological functioning. It

is argued that, by architecturally mimicking nat-

ural forms and structural organizations of natu-

ral settings, these beneﬁcial effects can be

tapped in a built context.

The Psychoevolutionary Framework

Different psychological subﬁelds study the

human relation with nature. For example, evo-

lutionary psychologists argue for the existence

of cognitive modules that are specialized in

conceptual and perceptual knowledge about

Yannick Joye, Business Economics and Strategic Policy

(BEDR), Free University of Brussels, Belgium.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to Yannick Joye, Business Economics and Strategic

Policy, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belginm. E-mail:

yannick.joye@telenet.be or yannick.joye@vub.ac.be

2007, Vol. 11, No. 4, 305–328 1089-2680/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305

305

natural entities. Such cognitive devices are

claimed to have evolved to handle the survival-

related challenges and opportunities that were

present in the natural settings in which human

ancestors lived (e.g., ﬁnding food; Mithen,

1996; Pinker, 1994). Scott Atran (1995) argues

how cross-cultural similarities in human folkbi-

ologies support the existence of such a system.

In particular, Western and non-Western individ-

uals seem to classify nature in similar ways and

consistently ascribe essences to the taxonomic

types of folkbiologies. Atran’s view is consis-

tent with the literature on category-speciﬁc def-

icits, in which people are reported to have de-

ﬁcient perceptual and conceptual knowledge

about the category of living things. One of the

interpretations of the causes of such deﬁcits is

that, under evolutionary pressures, speciﬁc neu-

ral areas have become specialized in informa-

tion about living entities (e.g., Caramazza &

Shelton, 1998).

Perhaps the psychological ﬁeld that has most

profoundly studied the human (affective) psy-

chological relation with natural entities is envi-

ronmental psychology. This research area draws

on numerous empirical studies and is, therefore,

less speculative than the just-mentioned modu-

larity thesis. One of the central issues of envi-

ronmental psychology is how different types of

settings can trigger different affective states in

individuals (e.g., liking or preference reactions).

Two important proposals have been advanced

with regard to the speciﬁc process underlying

these emotional states. In the preference matrix,

developed by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan, the

occurrence of such states is to a large extent the

result of cognitively assessing whether certain

informational features are present in a setting

(R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). This contrasts

with a central tenet of Roger Ulrich’s (1983)

psychoevolutionary framework. In this model,

which will form the backbone of the current

study, affective responses toward environmen-

tal settings are not mediated by cognition but

stem from a rapid, automatic, and unconscious

process by which environments are immedi-

ately liked or disliked. These fast affective re-

actions are claimed to be rooted in human evo-

lutionary history and are essentially adaptive:

They motivated the organism to quickly under-

take actions that contributed to its well-being

and survival. For example, if early humans

came across a setting containing an important

risk (e.g., turbulent water, a predator), this trig-

gered negatively toned affective reactions (e.g.,

dislike), ultimately leading to avoidance behav-

ior. On the other hand, if a setting offered good

opportunities for survival and reproduction, this

would have caused liking reactions, leading to

explorative behavior.

In agreement with Ulrich’s (1983) model,

empirical evidence shows that environments

(e.g., urban vs. natural) are processed according

to their affective valence. Moreover, this pro-

cess seems to occur very rapidly, which sup-

ports the immediate and automatic character of

these affective responses (Hietanen & Korpela,

2004; Korpela Klemettila¨, & Hietanen, 2002).

According to the psychoevolutionary frame-

work, survival chances further increased if these

emotional reactions had an inherited compo-

nent: No precious time and energy had to be

spent learning what kinds of environments were

either beneﬁcial or harmful (S. Kaplan, 1987,

1988; Ulrich, 1983). With regard to the neural

origin of these affective states, some researchers

attribute an important role to subcortical areas,

especially the amygdala. Because these struc-

tures are also involved in modulating stress-

related hormones, it provides an explanation of

why certain types of settings have a different in-

ﬂuence on autonomic stress responses (Parsons,

1991; see also Joye, 2007, for an in-depth discus-

sion of this issue).

Aesthetic Preference and Structural

Landscape Features

What is the character of the settings or ele-

ments that can trigger such immediate affective

states? The literature states that, on the one

hand, these reactions can be provoked by some

typical structural landscape features. Although

coming from a different research ﬁeld, geogra-

pher Jay Appleton was one of the ﬁrst to pro-

pose a model addressing this issue (Appleton,

1975). According to Appleton’s prospect–

refuge theory, human beings’ preference for

landscapes correlates with two environmental

qualities: prospect and refuge. The notion of

prospect refers to settings or landscape elements

that facilitate obtaining information about the

environment. A typical example is a hill, which

aids to visually access and inspect the surround-

ing area. On the other hand, refuge points to

settings that can provide shelter and protection.

306 JOYE

An evident example is a cave, which can protect

against predators and weather conditions.

Ulrich’s psychoevolutionary framework lists

some other visual cues that are associated with

immediate positive affective reactions: com-

plexity, gross structural properties (e.g., pat-

terns), depth properties, ground surface and

texture, absence of threats, and deﬂected vista

(Ulrich, 1983). The predictors in Rachel and

Stephen Kaplan’s preference matrix overlap to

a certain extent with the variables listed by

Ulrich. The Kaplans’ model (R. Kaplan &

Kaplan, 1989; S. Kaplan, 1987, 1988) describes

two types of postures toward the environment.

An individual can be actively involved in an

environment: One can, for example, explore the

setting. Alternatively, an individual can try to

understand the environment. The Kaplans argue

that these two attitudes are associated with four

structural landscape properties, each of which

correlates with positive aesthetic evaluations

and positively inﬂuences landscape selections.

The structural properties that facilitate involve-

ment in the environment are complexity and

mystery. Stephen Kaplan deﬁnes complexity as

a measure for “how much is ‘going on’ in a

particular scene, how much there is to look at”

(1988, p. 48). Mystery refers to settings whose

layout suggests that more information can be

acquired if the scene is penetrated more deeply.

An example of a mysterious landscape quality is

a deﬂected vista, such as a winding trail. Struc-

tural properties that facilitate understanding the

environment are coherence and legibility. Co-

herence refers to features that contribute to the

organization, understanding, and structuring of

the landscape image, such as symmetries, re-

peating elements, and unifying textures. Finally,

legibility refers to landscape qualities that help

to predict and maintain orientation in the land-

scape as one further explores it. Think, for ex-

ample, of a prominent rock functioning as an

orientation point.

The Aesthetic Appeal of Natural Contents

In addition to the previous structural land-

scape features, the ﬁeld of environmental psy-

chology also studies the natural contents that

contribute to the aesthetic qualities of settings:

namely (calm) water features and vegetative

elements. The explanatory framework, again, is

essentially evolutionary. These elements are

liked because they contributed to the survival

and reproduction of early humans. Flowers, for

example, signaled the presence of food sources

and were cues for future foraging sites. They

also helped in differentiating between different

vegetation types, because plants that are not

blooming often look quite similar (Orians &

Heerwagen, 1992). Trees protected against sun

and rain and offered early humans prospects on

the surrounding landscape and retreats from

predators (Appleton, 1975; Orians & Heerwa-

gen, 1992; Summit & Sommer, 1999).

These beneﬁts can explain why vegetative

elements and settings containing vegetation still

cause aesthetic or liking reactions. Different

empirical studies show that individuals consis-

tently prefer natural, vegetated landscapes over

urban settings without vegetation. When urban

environments are mutually compared, highest

preference is associated with urban settings con-

taining some vegetation, especially trees, or a wa-

ter feature (Smardon, 1988; Thayer & Atwood,

1978; Ulrich, 1986). Such phytophilia is also clear

from the observation that nonnatural environ-

ments (e.g., home and working interiors) often

contain actual vegetative elements or (decorative)

references to natural content (Eibl-Eibesfeldt,

1989; Heerwagen & Orians, 1986). Although em-

pirical research on preferential reactions toward

ﬂowers is scarce, some studies show that these

elements are indeed associated with positive aes-

thetic reactions (e.g., Haviland-Jones, Rosario,

Wilson, & McGuire, 2005; Todorova, Asakawa,

& Aikoh, 2004).

Still, a possible critique of preferential re-

search into greenery is that when vegetated

landscapes and nonvegetated (urban) architec-

tural settings are mutually compared, the latter

most often involve representations of quite

modern buildings or at least buildings that are

not very rich in form. However, it can be

pointed out that nature is often characterized by

a typical sort of geometry, or fractal geometry

(see later discussion). This type of geometry

often does not apply to modern buildings or

modern urban settings. A possibility that needs

to be entertained is that the preference for veg-

etated scenes is not due to the fact that it is a

natural setting but, instead, that it must (to a

certain extent) be drawn back to the underlying

geometric features of the scene. It would, there-

fore, be interesting to compare natural settings

with buildings or urban scenery that emulate a

307ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

more natural geometry, such as Gothic cathe-

drals. (Note that this critique does not under-

mine our plea for nature-based, or biophilic,

architecture but instead only strengthens it.)

The Savanna Hypothesis

In habitat theory, savannas are claimed to

be the settings in which early humans spent a

substantial part of their evolutionary history,

and these seem to display an ideal mix of the

previously discussed structural landscape fea-

tures and natural contents (Van den Berg,

2004). This type of biome can be broadly

described as low to intermediately complex

settings, having a relatively even and grassy

ground surface dotted with scattered trees or

tree groups. Savannas contain a high degree

of biomass and meat, and these are relatively

easily accessible for terrestrial beings (as op-

posed to, e.g., tropical forests). Furthermore,

the openness of savannas facilitates detecting

predators and game and is conducive of

movement and a nomadic lifestyle (Orians,

1980; Orians & Heerwagen, 1992).

The aesthetic preference for savanna-type

landscapes has been the subject of a few

empirical studies. Balling and Falk (1982)

found that young individuals preferred savan-

nas over other biomes without ever being

exposed to the former type of landscape. The

researchers hypothesize that these ﬁndings

could well point to an innate (aesthetic) pref-

erence for savannas (see also: Synek & Gram-

mer, 1998; but see Coss, 2003, for contrasting

ﬁndings). Consistent with the savanna hy-

pothesis, research indicates that people tend

to prefer tree shapes characteristic of high-

quality savannas: These typically have a low

trunk, a broad canopy, and a moderate canopy

layering (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992; Sommer

& Summit, 1995). Inquiries into the evolution

of artists’ work (e.g., John Constable) show an

increase of conspicuous savanna features over

time (e.g., opening up views; Heerwagen &

Orians, 1993). Furthermore, studies indicate

that when artiﬁcial changes are made to plants

and trees, these increasingly come to resemble

savanna-type vegetation (Heerwagen & Orians,

1993). Finally, areas that are created for recre-

ational or aesthetic purposes (e.g., parks or golf

terrains) often resemble savannas (Orians,

1980).

Within the ﬁeld of landscape aesthetics, the

savanna hypothesis is often taken for granted

and has remained mostly undisputed. Neverthe-

less, we ﬁnd it troubling that almost no attention

is paid to discussions in the ﬁeld of paleoan-

thropology. For instance, Wilson (1993) argues

how our preferences for nature, savannas in

particular, are remnants of paleohominid and

early Homo evolution in this type of biome, a

view shared by many in the ﬁeld of habitat

theory and landscape aesthetics. Yet there is no

consensus on the claim that the savanna is the

unique environment of evolutionary adapted-

ness. In his review, Potts (1998) sketches a

more complex view that is supported by scien-

tiﬁc environmental analyses. It evidences that,

during the evolution of early hominids, there

was quite some variation in the environments

that were inhabited, ranging from forests to

savannas to open-canopy woodlands. Still, it

could be countered that the truth value of the

savanna hypothesis does not have any bearing

on the ﬁnding that humans adapt to and display

positive affective afﬁliations with natural envi-

ronments. As Kahn (1999, p. 39) points out,

“The evolutionary account can hold, but the

savanna hypothesis needs to give way to a

broader account of genetic predispositions to

inhabited landscapes.”

Naturalness and Stress Reduction

Besides causing liking responses, natural el-

ements (e.g., vegetation and water features) are

also found to contribute to the restoration of

human individuals. Two major interpretations

of restorative responses have been proposed.

The ﬁrst, attention restoration theory (ART),

was developed by the Kaplans (e.g., R. Kaplan

& Kaplan, 1989). Essentially, ART interprets

restoration as the recovery of directed attention

or the ability to focus. This capacity is deployed

during tasks that require profound concentra-

tion, such as proofreading or studying. Natural

settings have been found to be ideally suited to

restore or rest directed attention (e.g., Hartig,

Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Ga¨rling, 2003; Hartig

Mang, & Evans, 1991).

The second major interpretation of restora-

tion is a part of Ulrich’s psychoevolutionary

framework. In this view, restoration applies to a

much broader context than attentional capaci-

ties (e.g., Parsons, 1991; Ulrich, 1993; Ulrich et

308 JOYE

al., 1991). More speciﬁcally, Ulrich under-

stands restoration as stress reduction, and stress

can occur even when directed attention is not

fatigued. Within Ulrich’s model, restorative re-

sponses are explained by the fact that early

humans were often confronted with threatening

and demanding situations (e.g., a predator). As

discussed, such confrontations lead to the quick

onset of negatively toned affective reactions and

corresponding adaptive behavior. Ulrich (1993)

notes that the immediate effects of such re-

sponses are beneﬁcial for the individual. Yet

such reactions also have a certain cost in that

they lead to physiological and psychological

stress (e.g., high blood pressure, feeling de-

pressed). When the threat has vanished, the

individual is in need of restoration from the

stress that has been caused. The beneﬁts of such

restorative responses are “a shift toward a more

positively toned emotional state, mitigation of

deleterious effects of physiological mobiliza-

tion (reduced blood pressure, lower levels of

circulating stress hormones), and the recharging

of energy expended in the physiological arousal

and behavior” (Ulrich, 1993, p. 99). These re-

storative responses typically occurred in natural

unthreatening (savanna-like) settings. Such

open, low-risk environments often contained a

(calm) water feature and sometimes had a small

ﬁre. Restoration was also facilitated by the avail-

ability of resources, which reduced stress related

to the uncertainty of ﬁnding food (Ulrich, 1993).

The stress-reducing effect of nature is still

effective today because those individuals who

could respond restoratively to stressful situa-

tions survived better. In an often-cited article in

Science, Ulrich (1984) discusses a study of hos-

pital patients who had undergone gall bladder

surgery and had rooms with views of either a

small tree group or of a brown brick wall. As

opposed to patients with the brick wall view,

patients with the tree view had shorter hospital

stays, received fewer negative comments from

the nurses, required less moderate and strong

analgesics, and had slightly fewer postoperative

complications. (For further research into the

relation between stress reduction and nature,

see, e.g., Custers, 2006; Hartig et al., 2003;

Parsons, Tassinary, Ulrich, Hebl, & Grossman-

Alexander, 1998; Ulrich, 1981; Ulrich et al.,

1991).

The Value of Nature-Based, or Biophilic,

Architecture

Although there is solid empirical evidence

that humans hold positive afﬁliations with a

speciﬁc set of landscapes and natural elements,

this does not preclude that some natural features

or occurrences also cause more negative and

even aversive reactions in humans (e.g., Mineka

¨hman, 2002; Van den Berg & ter Heijne,

2005). Another issue is that the experimental

outcomes are sometimes difﬁcult to integrate

into a coherent, overarching conceptual frame-

work. For example, what is the relation between

abstract structural landscape features and the

preference for water elements? Other issues are

that differences in nature appreciation are often

left in the dark in these discussions (but see Van

den Berg, 2004), and it is still a matter of debate

in which sense the genetic component of these

(positive) afﬁliations should be understood

(Cummins & Cummins, 1999). Still, whatever

the outcome of these matters, the general pic-

ture emerging from the previous concise review

is that humans have a (partly) hardwired emo-

tional afﬁliation with certain classes of natural

objects. Some researchers have argued about

the affective relation with natural elements and

landscapes in terms of biophilia (e.g., Kellert &

Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). Although the the-

oretical merits of this term have been ques-

tioned (Joye, 2007), in the remainder of this

report the notions biophilic and biophilia will

nevertheless be used as synthetic concepts.

The occurrence of biophilic responding

stands in sharp contrast with the observation

that there is increasingly less contact with na-

ture in Western technologically oriented societ-

ies. Wolff, Medin, and Pankratz (1999) found

that such an evolution has nontrivial effects on

cultural expressions of nature. In particular,

they made a historical study of word use in

dictionaries and found that, from the 20th cen-

tury onward, the use of (folk)biological terms

devolved, and their application lost precision. In

contrast, several nonbiological terms evolved

during this period (e.g., books, clothes, furni-

ture). Apart from being associated with an im-

poverishing conceptual framework for natural

objects, it is also plausible that reduced contact

with nature can be accompanied by a reduced

knowledge of the rich variety of forms charac-

teristic of natural entities. A probable artistic or

309ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

creative consequence is that the formal curric-

ulum of artists and architects becomes nar-

rower. The reason is that natural form can be

considered as a creative or compositional gram-

mar, which can be used for creating artwork, or,

as Stephen Kellert put it, “The aesthetics of

nature can function as a kind of monumental

design model” (Kellert, 1997, p. 36). The loss of

this monumental design model has its architec-

tural counterpart in modern urban settings,

which are increasingly governed by euclidean

geometry and stripped of ornament, patterning,

detailing, and color (Salingaros, 2004). Archi-

tectural references to nature can help put an end

to this uniformity. By encouraging architects to

integrate natural forms and patterns in their

work, they are motivated to study nature’s

shapes and compositional rules, and this can

enrich their creative curriculum.

Besides having creative consequences, re-

duced contact with natural form could also sub-

tly inﬂuence the way in which people think

about the world. Inquiries into semantic mem-

ory indicate that processing conceptual infor-

mation about living things mainly relies on per-

ceptual information (e.g., the concept “zebra”

activates perceptual information, such as

“stripes”), whereas processing nonliving things

or artifacts depends on functional information

(e.g., the concept “knife” activates functional

information, such as “cutting”; e.g., Crutch &

Warrington, 2003; Farah & McClelland, 1991).

These ﬁndings could have important implica-

tions. The presence of nonnatural things, and

especially artifacts (e.g., cell phones, comput-

ers, chairs, pots, printers), is ever increasing in

the human living environment at the expense of

natural structures or entities. A probable conse-

quence is that neural areas related to an object’s

functionality and hence functional analyses

(i.e., how an object should be used or manipu-

lated) are becoming increasingly more domi-

nant in our thinking about the constituents of the

modern living environment. As we become

more acquainted with such thinking, it is not

implausible that it will be deployed in other

domains as well (e.g., to generate explanations).

This could especially occur when knowledge

about phenomena in a certain domain, such as

the natural world, becomes increasingly more

scarce or more underdeveloped.

Although functional postures are important

and necessary in certain ﬁelds, transferring

them to other domains or contexts can prove

problematic and harmful. Today, we can wit-

ness how thinking about nature and natural re-

sources in terms of things that can be manipu-

lated has devastating effects. The upshot is that

this shifts the balance even further toward func-

tional thinking, because nature is replaced by

entities that predominantly require functional

analyses. Probably, this process can be coun-

tered by extensive contact with the natural

world, and developing a rich conceptual frame-

work about it (e.g., by nature education). This

could help people realize that functional think-

ing is not always desirable with regard to na-

ture. While being more speculative, it can be

hypothesized that integrating naturalistic ele-

ments in architecture can counteract the increas-

ing dominance of functional semantic networks

and the associated epistemological attitude. Ad-

mittedly, people will not consider biophilic ar-

chitecture or design as actual nature. However,

such architecture shares some essential formal

features with living things, and research indi-

cates that perceptual features are important for

recognizing living things. Biophilic design

could lead to more attentiveness to an object’s

perceptual qualities, thereby leading attention

away from its possible functions and the asso-

ciated functionalist postures. Furthermore, be-

cause of the (hardwired) emotional afﬁliation

with certain natural elements, nature-based ar-

chitecture can awaken fascination for natural

forms. Such an attitude could be ecologically

relevant, because it is found that proenvironmental

behavior is positively inﬂuenced by emotional

states toward nature (Kals, Schumacher, &

Montada, 1999).

Without a doubt, people can get used to less

formal diversity in the built environment. How-

ever, such a situation is not desirable because an

increasing dominance of uniform (modernist)

environments will probably have a number of

psychological and physiological costs. Recall

how, under evolutionary pressures, natural

forms and environments became associated

with a broad range of emotions, ranging from

fear to excitement. In the human ancestral

world, such associations promoted ﬁtness be-

cause they motivated the organism to undertake

adaptive reactions (e.g., ﬂight). Today, there

seems to be a discrepancy between the habitats

humans have evolved in and modern urban set-

tings. For example, it was already noted that the

310 JOYE

former was characterized by, among others, a

mix of complexity and order (S. Kaplan, 1987,

1988; Ulrich, 1983). Yet current architectural

settings do not appeal to this ordered complex-

ity. Modernist architecture mainly consists of

simple volumetric forms and thus deprives the

senses in their constant search for meaningful

information. On the other hand, postmodern and

deconstructive architecture deliberately destroy

architectural coherence, either by jumbling

together disparate stylistic and formal elements

or by placing the destruction of coherence

and structure at the heart of the tradition

(Salingaros, 2004). Furthermore, modern build-

ing is often dictated by efﬁciency and economic

motives, barely leaving room for symbolic and

stylistic references to natural contents (e.g., or-

nament; Pinker, 2002; Salingaros, 2004). In

short, much of the modern built environment

fundamentally lacks (references to) the contents

and structural organization that are characteris-

tic of a good habitat. Exposure to such environ-

ments could rapidly and automatically trigger

negatively toned feelings and the associated

stress-related endocrinal reactions (Ulrich,

1983). Although such responses could go by

largely unnoticed because of human habituation

to this type of environment, the long-term oc-

currence of such stress reactions could have

important health effects (Parsons, 1991).

Increasing urbanization undoubtedly has a

number of positive consequences. For example,

in modern cities, people come to live closer

together, which could promote social interac-

tion and the pleasure and enjoyment associated

with this (Van den Berg, Hartig, & Staats,

2007). Furthermore, there is nothing inherently

wrong or undesirable about modern building

styles, and there is no reason to doubt the gen-

uineness of positive reactions to such buildings.

What, according to the current argument, could

become problematic is the (growing) domi-

nance of such nonnatural building styles at the

expense of settings with natural form languages

(albeit natural or artiﬁcial ones). The core argu-

ment of the current study is that, by including

elements of ancestral habitats in the built envi-

ronment, one can counter potential deleterious

effects, which stem from this dominance, result-

ing in more positive affects and more relaxed

physiological and psychological states. In the

remainder of this article, such architectural in-

terventions are denoted as nature-based, or bio-

philic, architecture.

Integrating Structural Landscape Features

in Architecture

How can the structural landscape features,

discussed earlier, be meaningfully applied to the

built environment? This is a more difﬁcult issue

than applying well-deﬁned natural contents to

architecture, because the former features are of

a more abstract nature. Furthermore, only very

few researchers have addressed this issue and

proposed clear guidelines on how to success-

fully integrate these qualities in architectural

settings.

First, turn to the type of setting that contains

an ideal mix of these structural landscape fea-

tures, namely the savanna. An evident strategy

to imitate savannas is to integrate photographs

or projections of savannas in (interior) spaces.

Another, more architectural method consists of

mimicking key structural features of savannas.

Possible strategies include creating wide and

open spaces; making variations in the architec-

tural topography; integrating clusters of real or

symbolic trees (e.g., columns); and integrating a

water feature (e.g., a fountain) or even a small

ﬁre. Note how certain retail settings, such as

shopping malls, often contain these elements.

Because a major goal of the retail sector is

attracting people, it should be no surprise that

organizational features of preferred settings are

(intuitively) deployed in such commercial con-

texts (Heerwagen, 2003).

Because of their openness, savannas provided

good prospects on the surrounding area. Fur-

thermore, trees typical of savannas (acacias)

have low trunks and could, therefore, be

climbed to see across the landscape and to es-

cape predators. On the other hand, the broad

canopies provided good protection against sun

and rain. Grant Hildebrand (1999) uses Apple-

ton’s (1975) notions of prospect and refuge as

explanatory principles for the aesthetic appeal

of certain buildings. Although Hildebrand does

not provide exact guidelines, his analyses show

which spatial organizations inﬂuence the pros-

pect and refuge dimensions of buildings. With

regard to Frank Lloyd Wright’s house in Talie-

sin, Wisconsin, Hildebrand notes the following:

“Deep overhanging eaves, alcoves and recesses,

the withdrawal of the house in the dense foliage,

311ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

and the cave-like masses of stone anchoring the

house to the hill all convey that this is a haven

within which one can withdraw secure. Exten-

sive bands of window and the balcony reaching

out over the falling landscape, moreover, indi-

cate that the advantages of generous prospect

are likely to be available within” (p. 28). It is

clear that feelings of prospect and refuge can be

evoked by speciﬁc architectural interventions.

Strategies for evoking concealment are reduc-

ing lighting conditions, lowering ceilings, and

making small windowless spaces enclosed by

thick walls. The prospect dimension depends on

opposite characteristics: larger space dimen-

sions, raised ceilings, thin transparent walls,

wide views on surrounding spaces, building on

an elevated site, increased lighting conditions,

balconies, and so on.

Prospect and refuge can be linked to the

predictors complexity and coherence, central to

the Kaplans’ preference matrix (e.g., R. Kaplan

& Kaplan, 1989). Only a setting that contains

enough prominent landscape features (e.g.,

trees, rocks) can provide opportunities for ref-

uge. On the other hand, if a setting contains too

many elements, this makes it difﬁcult to have a

clear view over the landscape. Although com-

plexity and coherence have primarily been ap-

plied to landscapes, there is empirical evidence

that a balanced presence of both properties con-

tributes to the aesthetic qualities of built settings

(e.g., Herzog, Kaplan, & Kaplan, 1982). How-

ever, how can a complex set of architectural

elements be ordered? Again, take a look at the

architectural tradition associated with Frank

Lloyd Wright, namely organic architecture. In

essence, organic architecture is not restricted by

stylistic conventions but is characterized by an

inherent form freedom. Although not necessary,

this often translates in buildings that are quite

irregular and complex both in plan and eleva-

tion. Yet organic architects often use a geomet-

ric module (e.g., a triangle) as main composi-

tional element (Mead, 1991). In this way, dif-

ferent parts of the building are given a similar

form, which results in an overall coherence

(Eaton, 1998).

It could be noted that merely repeating sim-

ilar elements does not guarantee an ordered

complexity. On the contrary: It can even lead to

random structures, as in deconstructivism. A

possible solution is to organize these (similar)

elements through patterns. These are often the

result of only a few simple mathematical oper-

ations, such as reﬂectional, rotational, transla-

tional, and glide symmetries. More complex

patterns are obtained when these symmetries are

repeated or when they are nested (Salingaros,

2003; Figure 1A–D). Traditionally, patterns

take in a prominent place within the organic

tradition. Historically, they can also be found in,

for example, tiling, ornaments, mosaics, stained

glass windows, and (oriental) carpets.

Another structural feature that positively cor-

relates with landscape selection is mystery.

Some claim that this property can be conveyed

by speciﬁc design elements: “When appearing

around corners, attached to walls, and hung

from ceilings, interesting objects, architectural

details or motifs, graphics, video displays and

artifacts can create a little mystery and surprise

in the workplace” (Hase & Heerwagen, 2000, p.

30). However, the most straightforward way to

apply mystery to an architectural setting is by

deﬂected vista. This can be realized by letting

the architectural trail (e.g., corridor) bend away,

which can lead to curiosity of what might lie

beyond the bend, thereby encouraging explor-

ative behavior. Another mode of mystery is

called “enticement.” Essentially, this notion re-

fers to the situation in which a person is in the

dark, from where it can see a partially visible

Figure 1. Patterns can be obtained by some simple mathematical transformations (Salinga-

ros, 2003): (A) randomness; (B) translational symmetries; (C) reﬂectional symmetries; (D)

312 JOYE

and enlightened area or setting. Such enlight-

ened regions draw attention and trigger explor-

ative behavior. Although mysterious settings

can be aesthetically appealing, too much irreg-

ularity or surprise can have the result that the

layout of the building becomes confusing and

nontransparent, ultimately leading to orientation

and way-ﬁnding problems. Legibility can be

enhanced by integrating signalizations and dis-

tinctive markings, by offering views on the out-

side, and by making the building shape more

regular (Evans & McCoy, 1998).

Imitating Natural Contents in Architecture

How could natural contents be integrated into

the built environment? Evidently, this can be

done by providing views on the outside envi-

ronment, by integrating vegetation in built set-

tings, by hanging nature pictures on the wall, by

nature-oriented screensavers, and so on. These

interventions are what Stephen Kellert (2005)

called indirect experiences of nature, and they

come quite close to the design interventions

from the ﬁeld of evidence-based design (Ulrich

& Zimring, 2004; Van den Berg & Van Winsum-

Westra, 2006). It is in this sense that the modern

built environment sometimes imports some of the

icons of habitability that are typical of ancestral

habitats. The result is that even architecture that is

characterized by nonnatural forms can be consis-

tent with the current argument. For example, some

modernist architecture (e.g., Mies’s Farnsworth

House) is characterized by large expanses of glass,

by which the building opens up to the surrounding

natural landscape, potentially causing biophilic re-

sponses in the inhabitants.

Implanting a building in a natural landscape

does not necessarily tell us something about the

architectural form and whether it in some sense

displays key features of our ancestral habitats.

Because we factually inhabit contexts in which

buildings are often more dominant than nature,

it also becomes relevant to come to biophilic

interventions that pertain to the architectural

form. But how should such interventions be

conceived? A ﬁrst strategy is to architecturally

imitate preferred natural entities, such as vege-

tative elements. Such imitations can take on

different levels of abstraction. A ﬁrst option is

to literally copy these elements in architectural

design. As already noted, there is an age-old

tradition to copy nature, especially ﬂoral and

vegetal patterns, in traditional ornament. Ad-

mittedly, it could be possible that such imita-

tions will not be very successful, because the

associated emotional states could quickly be

followed and suppressed by higher order or

cultural beliefs. For example, the architectural

community could consider such imitations as

kitsch. Nevertheless, it should be noted that

there is often a discrepancy between what is

found appealing by experts and laypersons. The

primary goal of this study is not to argue for

what is supposedly fashionable or to defend

high art but to indicate what could be psycho-

logically appealing for the broad public.

An alternative to literal imitations is to create

architectural designs based on schematic imita-

tions of natural elements. These would no

longer be exact copies but artistic interpreta-

tions that still contain some global visual simi-

larities with regard to the original natural object.

One of the central claims of the current study is

that such constructions will be accompanied by

affective states that are similar to those evoked

by real natural contents. Orians and Heerwagen

(1992, p. 572) expressed it as follows: “An

evolutionary-ecological approach to aesthetics

suggests that the incorporation of trees and tree

forms, actual or symbolic, into the built envi-

ronment should have a strong positive impact

on people. . .We predict that the presence of

these ‘symbolic trees’ is associated with posi-

tive response to built environments.”

Although the occurrence of biophilic re-

sponses to symbolic representations of nature

could be prima facie plausible, it is problematic

that it is often taken for granted in the literature

on biophilic architecture. Although research

that has directly tested this prediction is lacking,

some indirect arguments can be presented that

support the conclusion. First, it is evident that

domain-speciﬁc mechanisms in the brain will

be activated by the objects in which they are

specialized. For example, a face detection

mechanism will be activated by its proper input:

actual human faces. Yet it seems that such do-

main-speciﬁc mechanisms do not care about

whether the objects it analyzes are in any sense

real or symbolic. More speciﬁcally, these neural

areas also tend to become activated by elements

that share some central geometric features with

the proper input of the domain-speciﬁc systems.

This is one reason why a symbolic representa-

tion of a face, such as, for example, a smiley

313ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

face ( ) or the front of a car, can be perceived

as having facelike features (Pinker, 1997; Sper-

ber & Hirschfeld, 2004) and can lead to the

onset of similar emotions as real eyes or faces

(e.g., Aiken, 1998a). Similarly, it is probable

that the neural mechanisms specialized in pro-

cessing natural elements will also be activated

by stimuli that share essential geometric fea-

tures with natural elements, such as symbolic or

imitative representations of nature in architec-

ture. Because of the importance of quickly dis-

playing adaptive behavior to natural stimuli

(e.g., exploration, escape, ﬁghting), it is proba-

ble that at the early stages of processing some

affective processing or priming will already

take place, before any conscious recognition of

the imitated natural elements occurs (Ulrich,

1983).

Further reasons why architectural imitations

of nature could trigger biophilic responses are

more empirical in nature. First, it can be pointed

out that research on environmental preferences

often uses simulations of nature (e.g., photos,

posters, videos, and even paintings). The results

that are obtained with these stimuli are close to

the responses associated with real nature, which

suggests that realness does not play a decisive

role. (Yet it should be noted that in such con-

texts nature is mostly depicted very realistically,

and when only realistic representations of na-

ture can be used in architecture, this restricts the

range of possible architectural interventions al-

most exclusively to ornamentation). Second,

symbolic representations of nature have been

used throughout the history of art for aesthetic

enhancements, which suggests that these can

trigger biophilic responses. Third, research in-

dicates that preferences for natural settings can

be statistically predicted by underlying geomet-

ric characteristics, which lends plausibility to

the claim that geometric abstractions from na-

ture can cause the associated affective effects

(Ha¨gerha¨ll, Purcell, & Taylor, 2004; see also

Fractals and Biophilic Reactions: A Critical

Evaluation section).

There is a further important reason why sym-

bolic or schematic interpretations of naturalness

can lead to aesthetic reactions. This conclusion

is based on the ﬁnding that formal abstractions

or simpliﬁcations of certain conspicuous traits

of (survival-relevant) stimuli lead to similar,

or even stronger, emotional responses as the

original (natural) stimulus. Within the ﬁeld

of ethology, such stimuli are labeled “supernor-

mal stimuli” (Tinbergen & Perdeck, 1950).

Ramachandran and Hirstein (1999) argue how

this phenomenon is one of the central laws that

artists (unconsciously) deploy in art. They clarify

this principle by referring to a phenomenon ob-

served in the ﬁeld of animal discrimination,

namely the peak shift effect. A rat that is taught to

discriminate between a square and a rectangle and

is rewarded for discriminating the rectangle will

respond more frequently to the rectangle. How-

ever, when the original rectangle is elongated, the

rat will respond even stronger to this new rectan-

gle than to the rectangle that it was taught to

discriminate. According to Ramachandran and

Hirstein (1999), artwork often taps a similar ef-

fect: “What the artist tries to do (either con-

sciously or unconsciously) is to not only capture

the essence of something but also to amplify it in

order to more powerfully activate the same neural

mechanisms that would be activated by the orig-

inal object” (p. 17). According to Ramachandran

and Hirstein, such ampliﬁcations can occur along

different dimensions of the artistic work: for ex-

ample, form, color, and movement (see also

Aiken, 1998b). It is clear that, in the present dis-

cussion, main interest goes to ampliﬁcation of the

architectural form, which can cause a peak shift

effect with regard to real natural forms.

Maybe the most well-known examples of ar-

chitecture in which schematic interpretations of

natural forms are present have been created by

Antonı´ Gaudı´. For example, the interior col-

umns of the Sagrada Familia are quite similar to

treelike and ﬂowering structures (Figure 2A–B).

Indeed, one can clearly differentiate a stem,

which bifurcates into further branches and sub-

branches. The canopy of these treelike struc-

tures consists of ﬂowering forms, which further

strengthens the impression of symbolic vegeta-

tion. A more modern architect whose work also

contains schematic interpretations of natural ob-

jects is Santiago Calatrava. Like in Gaudı´’s

work, structural forces are an important deter-

minant of the shape of Calatrava’s architecture.

Yet he also seems to be directly inspired by the

shapes of nature. According to Von Moos, “His

architecture relates to the morphologies of plant

and animal life— on land, in the depth of the

sea, or in imagination” (Tischhauser & Von

Moos, 1998, p. 338). Particularly relevant for

the present discussion is that several building

elements resemble vegetative structures. For in-

314 JOYE

stance, both Calatrava’s Orient Station (Lisbon)

and his BCE Place (Toronto) could be interpreted

as “‘forests’ of structural ‘trees’” (Tzonis, 1999, p.

82; Figure 3).

Applying Nature’s Fractal Geometry to

Architecture

What is a fractal? Are there any good rea-

sons to go beyond the imitation of natural con-

tents? Is there something about the outlook of

nature that can be abstracted away and applied

to architecture while still giving rise to biophilic

reactions? We hinted at this already and specu-

lated that the underlying (fractal) geometry of

natural scenes is perhaps a contributing factor to

aesthetic and stress-reducing responses. Some

scholars adhere to similar ideas. Katcher and

Wilkins (1993) note that it would be valuable to

“search for general characteristics of the pat-

terns in nature that produce relaxation. Explor-

ing the ability of computer-generated fractal

structures to entrain subjects’ attention and in-

duce calm could be a promising approach, as

well, since waves, ﬂames, and clouds can be

duplicated by fractals. Fractal structures could

also relate the physiological and cognitive ef-

fects of both natural phenomena such as waves

and cultural artifacts like music” (pp. 177–178).

Similarly, Purcell, Peron, and Berto (2001)

speculate that the high restorativeness of natural

scenes could be due to their fractal characteris-

tics, whereas built environments are low in re-

storativeness because of their underlying eu-

clidean geometry.

Fractal geometry has been described and ex-

plored since the 1970s (Mandelbrot, 1977). The

term fractal is derived from the Latin word

fractus, meaning broken or fractured. One of the

deﬁning features of a fractal is that this rough-

ness recurs on different scales of magnitude

(Figure 4). When zooming in on a fractal, at

each magniﬁcation a structure appears that is

more or less similar to the global form of the

fractal, a property labeled “self-similarity.” An-

other feature that plays an important role within

the ﬁeld of fractal geometry is the concept of

dimension. In euclidean geometry, lines have a

dimension of one, whereas geometric objects,

such as squares and triangles, have a dimension

of two, and volumes in space are three dimen-

sional. In contrast, the dimension of a fractal, or

the fractal dimension, is not an integer value.

For fractals in the plane, the fractal dimension

lies between the ﬁrst and the second dimension,

which gives a value between 1 and 2

(e.g., 1.46). For fractals in space, the fractal

dimension lies between 2 and 3 (Voss, 1988).

Essentially, these noninteger values are due to

the fact that fractal patterns have a very wrin-

Figure 2. The interior of Gaudı´’s Sagrada Familia contains schematic interpretations of

natural contents. Left: columns as treelike structures. Right: ﬂowerlike canopies. (From

Guillaume Paumier. Used with permission).

315ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

kled character and, therefore, occupy more

space than a simple line (ﬁrst dimension) but do

not ﬁll the entire plane (second dimension). In

essence, the fractal dimension should be inter-

preted as a measure of the degree in which

(similar) detail recurs on different scales of

magnitude. Hence, the concept could be under-

stood as a measure of complexity.

Fractals, naturalness, and liking responses.

Is there any evidence for the claim that fractal

characteristics could as well be associated with

biophilic responses to typical natural contents,

such as vegetation? In other words, why could

fractal geometry be an important beneﬁcial in-

gredient of natural scenes? First, there is a pro-

found link between the shape of many natural

structures and fractals. In essence, the former

are fractal-like in that they often display the

self-similarity that is so typical of fractals. Ev-

ident examples are trees, mountains, lightning,

clouds, coastlines, and so on. A second link

between fractals and nature is the observation

that natural elements can be elegantly mimicked

with fractal geometry. For example, plants and

trees can be straightforwardly generated by

fractal procedures, such as L-systems (Prusink-

iewicz & Lindenmayer, 1990). Perhaps the

most well-known fractal model of vegetative

elements is the Barnsley Fern (Peitgen, Ju¨rgens,

& Saupe, 1992), which was discovered by

Michael Barnsley. A third way in which fractals

and nature can be related is more psychological

in nature. Apparently, fractal patterns evoke

associations of naturalness in human subjects

(Geake, 1992). Closely related is the ﬁnding

that contact with fractals improves the ability to

perceptually differentiate between highly simi-

lar natural patterns (Geake, 1992).

Not only are fractals perceptually related to

naturalness, but their aesthetic value is also ob-

vious to many. These rich and sometimes col-

orful images often provoke awe and fascination

in viewers. It should, therefore, be no wonder

that some artists (e.g., Jackson Pollock) have

(unconsciously) deployed fractal principles in

their work to reach an aesthetic effect (Mureika,

2005; Taylor, 2002). Still, these connections

between aesthetics and fractals are only anec-

dotal and intuitive. In search for a stronger

foundation for fractal aesthetics, reference can

be made to preliminary empirical research by

Richard Taylor (1998). Taylor mentions that

Figure 3. The “forest of trees” in Calatrava’s Orient Station. (From Inge Kanakaris-Wirtl;

www.structurae.de. Used with permission.)

316 JOYE

more than 90% of a group of 120 students

preferred fractal patterns over nonfractals. Yet it

should also be noted that Arthur Stamps (2002)

has tested this conclusion more rigorously and

did not ﬁnd that fractal patterns were aestheti-

cally preferred over nonfractals. Nevertheless, it

should be pointed out that Stamps used fractal

contours, and the self-similarity was not readily

perceivable in the representations.

Other research into fractal aesthetics has

mainly focused on the relation between fractal

dimension and aesthetic preference. One of the

ﬁrst empirical studies of this relation has been

carried out by Aks and Sprott (1996). The ex-

periment revealed that 24 study participants

preferred fractal patterns with a fractal dimen-

sion of between 1.17 and 1.38. The average

fractal dimension of the most preferred attrac-

tors was 1.26 ⫾0.06. Spehar, Clifford, Newell,

and Taylor (2003) used three different catego-

ries of fractal patterns (mathematical fractals,

natural fractals, and fragments of Pollock paint-

ings) and found that patterns with a fractal di-

mension of between 1.3 and 1.5 were preferred

most, as opposed to patterns with dimension

values between 1.1 and 1.2 and between 1.6

and 1.9. Abraham et al.’s (2003) study revealed

a nonmonotonous relation between aesthetic

preference and fractal dimension. Patterns with

the highest and lowest fractal dimension were

least preferred, whereas those with a midrange

fractal dimension were liked most. More spe-

ciﬁcally, attractors with a fractal dimension

ranging from 1.4 to 1.6 (mean fractal dimension

of 1.54) received the highest preference ratings.

Although these results need further replica-

tion and are to be treated with caution, there is

a tendency to prefer patterns with an interme-

diate fractal dimension, ranging from about 1.3

to 1.5. Note that there are some further hints for

the special status of this range of values. For,

example Rogowitz and Voss (1990) found that

recognizing and ﬁnding new shapes in fractal

patterns is best for those patterns with a fractal

dimension ranging from 1.2 to 1.4. Geake and

Landini (1997) found that the variance in study

participants’ judgments of the complexity of

Figure 4. A typical fractal pattern. This is a detail of the Mandelbrot set.

317ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

fractal patterns exploded when pictures had di-

mension values greater than 1.3.

Fractals and stress reduction. If fractals

can be meaningfully related to aesthetic reac-

tions, then is there any way in which these

patterns can be linked to the capacity of natural

contents to reduce stress (e.g., Ulrich et al.,

1991)? To answer this, it must ﬁrst be noted that

there are reasons to assume that restorativeness

is the underlying factor for aesthetic reactions

toward natural settings. Van den Berg, Koole,

and van der Wulp (2003) have experimentally

conﬁrmed this hypothesis by performing

[m]ediational analyses. . .[which reveal] that af-

fective restoration accounted for a substantial

proportion of, the preference for the natural

over the built environments (p. 135).. How can

this ﬁnding be related to the ﬁeld of fractal

aesthetics? A plausible answer is that if fractal

characteristics underlie aesthetic responses to

natural settings to a certain extent, and if these

responses are maximal for an intermediate frac-

tal dimension, then it could well be that this

range of values will also have the highest re-

storative potential.

Wise and Taylor (2002; see also Taylor et al.,

2005) have carried out a preliminary study to

test the relation between fractal geometry and

stress reduction. They reexamined a study per-

formed by Wise and Rosenberg (1986) involv-

ing 24 individuals who were continuously ex-

posed to four different patterns: a photograph of

a forest setting, a simpliﬁed representation (i.e.,

painting) of a savanna landscape, a picture with

squares, and a white plane, which functioned as

a control picture. While being exposed to the

images, participants had to undergo three stress-

ful mental tasks: an arithmetic task, solving

logical problems, and creative thinking. Be-

tween every task there was a 1-min recovery

period. Physiological stress was determined by

skin conductance, because research indicates

that increased conductance correlates with

higher levels of stress.

It was found that the degree of physiological

stress was dependent on the type of pattern that

was presented to the participants. Because nat-

uralness is found to be a predictor of aesthetic

and restorative responses, one would expect that

the picture of the forest setting was most effec-

tive in reducing stress (indeed, it looked the

most like real nature). Contrary to this expecta-

tion, this effect was most effectively produced

by the unrealistic painting of the savanna land-

scape. The change in conductance between

work and rest periods was 3% lower for the

forest photograph and 44% lower for the sa-

vanna representation than for the control pic-

ture. This means that these pictures dampened

(physiological) stress associated with the tasks.

Because the researchers did not expect this

outcome, they decided to determine the fractal

dimension of each of the pictures. Only the

forest and savanna pictures had fractal charac-

teristics. It was found that the pattern that was

most effective in stress reduction, the savanna

picture, had a fractal dimension that fell within

the range of dimension values that was earlier

found to correlate with highest aesthetic prefer-

ence (Spehar et al., 2003). Because this picture

is only a rough and simpliﬁed representation of

a savanna, the authors speculate that the depic-

tion of natural contents alone cannot be a suf-

ﬁcient condition for a restorative effect. If this

were the case, then highest restorativeness

should be expected to come from the more

realistic and naturally looking forest setting.

Instead, it seems that, besides depicting natural

elements, the scene should also have a speciﬁc

fractal dimension in order to maximize stress

reduction. Speciﬁcally, from this experiment, it

can be tentatively concluded that its dimension

value should fall within the range of 1.3 to 1.5.

Despite these remarkable results, some ques-

tions still remain. First, of course, is the prelim-

inary character of these experimental outcomes,

which necessitates replication. Second, the lit-

erature on habitat theory (e.g., Orians, 1980)

claims that humans are innately predisposed to

prefer savannas because it is the biome in which

they thrived for a substantial part of evolution-

ary history. Consequently, it could be argued

that it is quite natural that the savanna picture

leads to the highest restorative responses. Thus,

it remains unclear whether it is the fractal di-

mension that underlies these responses or the

speciﬁc contents depicted in this image. Perhaps

the same experiment should be replicated with

fractal patterns, devoid of meaningful represen-

tative contents. Again, however, note that

Ha¨gerha¨ll et al. (2004) found that preferences

for settings could be predicted by the fractal

dimension. This adds support to Taylor’s claim

that it is the fractal component that underlies the

restorative responses, not only the depicted con-

tents. Yet it could also be pointed out that

318 JOYE

features such as bodies of water are highly

preferred contents (Ulrich, 1983) that cannot be

straightforwardly analyzed in terms of fractal

geometry. Perhaps something similar applies to

the savanna painting. For example, the typical

shape of savanna trees (low trunk, broad

canopy) could be a highly preferred icon in

landscapes. Perhaps it is a basic “preferendum”

(Ulrich, 1983), which is irreducible to fractal

characteristics. It can also be argued that the

stress-reducing character of fractals is already

established. The reason is that certain fractals

are sometimes very difﬁcult to distinguish from

real natural elements (e.g., the Barnsley Fern). It

is, therefore, very probable that such naturalistic

fractals will lead to biophilic responses. A lot of

natural entities are fractal, and the main differ-

ence with mathematical fractals is that their

self-similarity does not extend to inﬁnity.

The affective value of fractals. The affec-

tive value of fractal patterns can be explained by

the ﬁnding that naturalness is a predictor of

biophilic responses and by the fact that fractal

geometry eminently captures this quality.

Sometimes it is even claimed that the aesthetic

effect of fractals is due to the fact that such

patterns lead to a peak shift effect (Ramachan-

dran & Hirstein, 1999), because they imply an

exaggeration of the dimension of recursiveness,

which is a characteristic quality of natural form

(Joye, 2007; Mureika, 2005). However, what

could be the explanation for the preference for

fractal patterns with low to intermediate dimen-

sion values and for their restorative potential?

Because Cutting and Garvin (1987) have dis-

covered a correlation between the fractal dimen-

sion and complexity of fractal patterns, a pos-

sible answer is that the fractal dimension offers

a quick cue of the complexity of a scene. Com-

plexity is a predictor of habitat quality (S.

Kaplan, 1987, 1988), and the preference for a

low to intermediate fractal dimension could be

rooted in the fact that habitats of a low to

intermediate complexity (e.g., savannas) of-

fered the best chances for survival (Wise &

Taylor, 2002). Indeed, in such settings, infor-

mation can be quite easily grasped and pro-

cessed, as opposed to more complex environ-

ments (e.g., tropical forests). This reduces the

possibility that crucial information (e.g., preda-

tors) will be missed or ignored. On the other

hand, the complexity is high enough to keep one

interested, to awake further explorative behav-

ior, and to provide opportunities for refuge. It is

quite probable that the presence of these prop-

erties facilitated restoration, hence the restor-

ative responses associated with patterns of an

intermediate fractal dimension (Taylor et al.,

2005). For example, resting from stressful or

demanding events seems more likely to occur in

settings that offer retreats but that also contain

enough openness, which reduces the probability

that one will be attacked by a predator by sur-

prise (Ulrich, 1993). If specialized neural mech-

anisms exist that assess the quality of a habitat,

then it is not too difﬁcult to suppose that these

compute the fractal dimension in order to have

a rapid cue of habitability.

It should be noted that sometimes the aes-

thetic appeal of fractal-like patterns is also ex-

plained by the fact that the nervous system is

governed by fractal-like processes. In particu-

lar, Anderson and Mandell (1996, p. 114) argue

that human evolution in a fractal world has

required “the incorporation of fractal structures

as well as fractal processes, and these in turn

would be integrated into sensory systems, rec-

ognition, memory, and adaptive behaviors.”

More speciﬁcally, the authors describe how hu-

man functioning is characterized by a fractal

noise signal—1/f noise—from the microscopic

level of neural functioning to the macroscopic

level of human behavior. For the present dis-

cussion, the presence of this type of noise in the

human mind and brain seems especially rele-

vant: “In neurobiology in general, and neuro-

physiology in particular, 1/f patterns in time are

profound in their recurrent appearance across

many levels of organization in the nervous sys-

tem, from the underlying cellular dynamics of

ion channels and intermittent ﬁring patterns of

neurons to developmental phenomena occurring

during the organization of breathing to global

dynamics in the nervous system such as subcor-

tical, transcortical and scalp EEG deﬁning be-

havioral states of consciousness” (Anderson &

Mandell, 1996, p. 77). Some authors propose

that, because of its fractal nature, the brain is

optimized to process the statistical characteris-

tics of natural scenes, which are also found to be

governed by 1/f spectra (e.g., Knill, Field, &

Kersten, 1990). For instance, Gilden, Schmuck-

ler, and Clayton (1993) found that discriminat-

ing fractal contours was best for those sharing

(statistical) properties with natural scenes. Con-

sistent with this is the ﬁnding that neurons in the

319ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

V1 area of the brain show a preference for 1/f

signals (Yu, Romero, & Lee, 2005).

Some authors hypothesize that the proposed

fractal nature of the human mind/brain can il-

luminate the creation of fractal artwork. Essen-

tially, such art should be understood as an ex-

teriorization of the fractal aspects of brain func-

tioning (Goldberger, 1996). However, what

does such an account have to say about the

aesthetic value of fractals? Different authors

have described the perception of such fractal-

like patterns in terms of a resonance between

the fractal character of basic perceptual pro-

cesses and the characteristics of the perceived

pattern, or as Goldberger (1996) put it, “The

artwork externalizes and maps the internal

brain-work. . .Conversely, the interaction of the

viewer with the artform may be taken as an act

of self-recognition” (p. 102). Yet it is difﬁcult to

see how a resonance between the perceiver and

the perceived can explain the aesthetic experi-

ence that is often associated with these images.

What can an objective description in terms of

noise signals tell us about subjective aesthetic

experiences? Another critical point is that the

explanation of biophilic responses toward frac-

tals in terms of noise signals emitted by the

nervous system must be situated on a different

level than the evolutionary account presented

here. The former explanation refers to the work-

ings of the nervous system, but it does not

explain why it is characterized by 1/f noise in

the ﬁrst place. Although it is true that some

researchers believe it is the result of evolution in

a natural world with similar fractal properties

(Anderson & Mandell, 1996), it remains unclear

how a connection with our evolutionary frame-

work should be conceived precisely. In fact, 1/f

noise occurs on all levels of human functioning,

from human gait dynamics to neural function-

ing, whereas in our account it is proposed that

the afﬁliation with natural form has its correlate

in more discrete brain mechanisms.

Fractals and biophilic reactions: a critical

evaluation. The previous review shows that

there is convincing evidence that fractals cap-

ture some of the core geometric qualities of

natural structures. Furthermore, there is also

some support, both intuitively and empirically,

that biophilic responses are associated with

some typical fractal qualities (i.e., their degree

of recursiveness). Still, this does not necessarily

entail that it is the naturalness associated with

fractals that is the underlying cause of these

responses. Notwithstanding that this is perhaps

the most obvious explanation, it could be

equally hypothesized that fractals are quite

complex patterns that give us the necessary

degree of arousal that our visual apparatus de-

sires. Such an explanation does not rule out the

fact that fractals look natural, but it makes no

recourse to naturalness to explain our emotional

relation with such patterns.

It is clear that further research is needed on

the topic of fractal aesthetics and the possible

relations to biophilia. In this regard, it is inter-

esting to note that some empirical research be-

gins to unravel these issues. For example,

Ha¨gerha¨ll et al. (2004) have performed a more

systematic inquiry into the relation between

aesthetic preference and fractals. In the ﬁrst

stage of the study, 119 participants indicated

which silhouette outlines of 80 nature scenes

they preferred most. In a next stage, the fractal

dimension of all these silhouettes was calcu-

lated. It is worthwhile to note that the photos of

settings with water features and hills were left

out of the total pool of pictures. The reason is

that these elements have a strong inﬂuence on

the visual inspection and aesthetic judgment of

landscapes (e.g., Ulrich, 1981), which could

distract participants from concentrating on the

silhouette outlines. For the remaining 52 pic-

tures, analyses showed a modest but signiﬁcant

correlation between mean preference and the

fractal dimension of the silhouettes. Although

further research is needed, this ﬁnding lends

support to the claim that fractal characteristics

play a signiﬁcant role in our biophilic responses

toward vegetated/natural landscapes.

Fractal architecture. The previous discus-

sion tentatively suggests that the beneﬁcial ef-

fects associated with certain natural objects

(positive affect, liking reactions, stress-

reduction) could be tapped with fractal charac-

teristics but without the presence of actual rep-

resentations or imitations of nature. Indeed,

fractal structures seem to capture some essential

features of naturalness, such as the recurrence

of (similar) detail on subsequent scales of mag-

nitude. However, the architecture of many mod-

ern environments is becoming predominantly

euclidean. This trend is orthogonal to our (hy-

pothesized) predilection for fractal structure,

which could have subtle but deﬁnite psycholog-

ical and physiological costs. This problematic

320 JOYE

situation can be countered (to a certain extent)

by architectural work that implements some es-

sential fractal characteristics. Our preference for

a speciﬁc fractal dimension further indicates

that the aesthetic effects of such buildings can

be maximized for intermediate levels of com-

plexity. Perhaps this reﬂects our preference for

intermediately complex environments, such as

savannas.

If true, the previous ﬁndings underscore the

value of integrating fractal characteristics in

architectural design. In essence, fractal architec-

ture can be realized by repeating similar details

on multiple hierarchical scales of an architec-

tural design. Despite the growing attention for

fractal aesthetics, which can be witnessed today,

we am not aware of actual instances of fractal

architecture explicitly rooted in the current the-

oretical framework. This, however, does not

preclude that, historically, instances of fractal

architecture have been constructed, albeit for other

theoretical or ideological reasons. According to

Michael Ostwald (2001), the ﬁrst examples of

architecture, referring to fractal theory, began to

appear shortly after Benoit Mandelbrot’s seminal

book Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension.

Although there has been a rise in fractal architec-

ture from 1978 to 1988, this trend did not persist

during the 1990s. Yet, in recent years there is a

renewed interest in integrating the complexity sci-

ences and fractals in architecture. To a certain

extent, this is due to the publication of Carl

Bovill’s Fractals in Architecture and Design

(1996), in which fractal geometry is advanced

as a useful design instrument. With his books

The New Paradigm in Architecture (2002) and

The Architecture of the Jumping Universe

(1995), architectural theorist Charles Jencks has

undoubtedly an important share in bringing the

issue of fractal architecture to the attention of

the architectural community. Nevertheless,

some have argued that Jencks gives a skewed

account of fractal architecture because he essen-

tially misrepresents what a fractal actually is

(Joye, 2006; Salingaros, 2004). This has led

some to conclude that his use of the notion

fractal in architecture mainly serves rhetorical

purposes (Joye, 2007).

Fractals have been implemented in architec-

ture in many ways, albeit consciously or intu-

itively (for a review, see Joye, 2007). Probably

the most striking examples of fractal architec-

ture have been intuitively constructed, before

the systematic description of fractal geometry.

For example, Leonard Eaton (1998) argues how

Frank Lloyd Wright (unconsciously) emulated a

fractal-like geometry in his Palmer House. Nev-

ertheless, it should be noted that the fractality of

this building is predominantly situated in

ground plan, and this approach has been criti-

cized by Joye (2007). Perhaps more convincing

examples of three-dimensional fractal architec-

ture can be found in Gothic architecture (Figure

5). In this regard, Goldberger (1996, p. 101)

notes that “fractals capture several key features

of Gothic architecture: its porous ‘holeyness’ or

carved-out appearance, its wrinkled crenelated

surfaces, and its overall self-similarity. . .From

a distance, the sharp spires are the dominant

feature. Closer proximity reveals that these

spires are not smooth, but have spiny out-

growths. Yet closer inspection reveals even

more pointed detail superimposed on these or-

naments. The repetition of different shapes

(arches, windows, spires) on different scales

yields a combination of complexity and order.”

In agreement with the Gothic, the shape of

certain Hindu temples also has conspicuous

fractal characteristics (Figure 6). The makeup of

these buildings cannot be viewed separately

from the Hindu worldview. In particular, Hindu

cosmology is in a sense holographic in that all

parts of the cosmological whole are the whole

itself and contain all the information about the

whole. Some schools of Hindu thought advance

the (related) view that the macrocosm is encap-

sulated in the microcosm: “The entire cosmos

can be visualized to be contained in a micro-

cosmic capsule, with the help of the concept of

subtle elements called ‘tanmatras.’ The whole

cosmic principle replicates itself again and

again in ever smaller scales. The human being is

said to contain within itself the entire cosmos”

(Trivedi, 1989, pp. 245–246). Both these cos-

mological conceptions can be straightforwardly

related to fractal self-similarity, where the

global formal structure recurs, on ever ﬁner

subscales, in the microstructure.

A potential problem for the argument pre-

sented here is that not much architecture dis-

plays the very profound fractality of Hindu or

Gothic architecture, which could cast doubts on

the hypothesized universal preference for frac-

tal-like patterns. However, some claim that, his-

torically, architecture has always had an impor-

tant fractal component (Salingaros, 2006), in

321ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

that many buildings display architectural detail

on different scales of magnitude, without hav-

ing a more exact sense of self-similarity. In-

deed, a consideration of some of the high points

of Western architecture, ranging from, for ex-

ample, the Gothic to Baroque and Organic Ar-

chitecture, quickly reveals a remarkable ten-

dency for a cascade of detail, going from the

largest building structure to the smallest deco-

rative element. This view is also empirically

supported for divergent building styles (e.g.,

Bovill, 1996; Burkle-Elizondo & Valde´z-

Cepeda, 2006; Capo, 2004; Crompton, 2002).

Still, when observing modern urban settings,

it is also a matter of fact that not all architecture

of all times contains references to natural form,

which suggests that tastes are not exclusively

dictated by biological predispositions. How can

this be reconciled with the hypothesis that we

are in a sense genetically predisposed to afﬁliate

Figure 5. Gothic architecture often has an important fractal component because it contains

Yannick Joye.)

322 JOYE

with natural forms and to express this afﬁliation

artistically? An answer is that inborn mecha-

nisms do not imply genetic determinism but

instead are in a sense open in that they can

interact with cultural or experiential parameters.

Although in this study we mainly focused

on immediate affective responses to nature,

Ulrich’s (1983) psychoevolutionary model also

leaves room for more cultural modes of aes-

thetic appreciation, which interact (in a complex

way) with immediate affective responses. Con-

sistent with this is that discussions on innateness

are sometimes framed in terms of biologically

prepared learning rules, where experiential,

and hence cultural, inﬂuences are attributed a

signiﬁcant role (Cummins & Cummins, 1999;

Ulrich, 1993).

Although it is plausible that changes can oc-

cur in artistic taste,

this does not in any sense

invalidate the argument that the outlook of cer-

tain habitats is more attuned to a set of speciﬁc

hardwired afﬁliations, which were discussed

here. Again, it is unproblematic that people hold

speciﬁc tastes by which they also become sur-

rounded by nonnatural architectural forms.

Problems could arise when the artistic expres-

sions of these (more culturally colored) tastes

gain dominance, with the result that chances for

experiencing natural forms, and the associated

biophilic responses, are signiﬁcantly reduced.

Of course, prevailing cultural tastes could clash

with basic-level biological tastes, which could

indicate that there is a complex interplay be-

tween the two modes of appreciation. Probably,

architects are sensitive to what is culturally

fashionable and are thus in a good position for

coherently fusing biological and cultural tastes

into a successful architectural expression.

Discussion

In this article, different research disciplines

were drawn together, ranging from environmen-

tal psychology to architecture. This speculative

and interdisciplinary study can, therefore, be

understood as a contribution to the integration

of (subﬁelds of) the scientiﬁc and cultural

worlds. The argument began with a survey of

ﬁndings from the ﬁeld of environmental psy-

chology, which revealed that humans are affec-

tively related to speciﬁc natural elements and

settings, being the result of human evolution in

a natural environment. Today, however, modern

habitats contain increasingly less actual nature

or artistic references to natural form or to the

structural organization of preferred natural set-

tings. Although such a trend undoubtedly has

However, a question that immediately springs to mind

is, who holds these tastes? Is it the general public or is it the

artists themselves? If the artists, then it nevertheless remains

an open question whether these changes in taste are also

appreciated by the broad public, which is the audience for

whom biophilic architecture is intended. In this regard, it

can be noted that there is often a discrepancy between the

aesthetic tastes of laypersons and those of experts (e.g.,

artists). For example, in a playful experiment, Russian art-

ists Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid found that people

from different cultures preferred kitschy landscape paint-

ings over nonrepresentational abstract art (see: www.di-

acenter.org/km/). Although it is premature to deduce deﬁ-

nite conclusions from these observations, it nevertheless

shows a more complex view than the adagio that tastes are

essentially variable.

Figure 6. Three-dimensional generation of the central spire of a Hindu temple. One

architectural element is repeated on subsequent scales, which results in a complex aesthetic

323ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

artistic and epistemological consequences, the

more profound implication is that it can nega-

tively inﬂuence psychological and physiologi-

cal functioning. According to the argument of

the current study, biophilic architecture can help

in overcoming the discrepancy between ances-

tral and current habitats. More speciﬁcally, the

architectural imitation of natural elements and

habitats that promoted ﬁtness (e.g., vegetative

structures) can lead to the autonomous and

quick onset of positive affective reactions,

which can lead to positively toned feelings and

stress reduction. It was argued how such imita-

tions can be realized according to different lev-

els of abstraction, ranging from literal imita-

tions to the application of more abstract geo-

metric features of natural objects (e.g., fractal

geometry) and structural features of ancestral

habitats. Applying fractal geometry to architec-

ture could be a particularly successful creative

strategy, because it is not directly restricted by

stylistic conventions and thus does not exclude

the expression of cultural or local tastes.

Nature-based architecture implies that the

building enters into a dialogue with a speciﬁc

set of human inborn afﬁliations. However, ad-

herents of biophilic architecture should become

aware that their work also has to relate to or

become embedded in a social, historical, eco-

logical, and individual context (Kellert, 2005).

Indeed, the notions “should” and “has” are at

their place here. It would be contradictory that,

in a social–psychological project like the one

presented here, attention is paid to a basic level

of well-being while other factors that also con-

tribute to it are totally neglected. The result is

that an exclusive focus on biophilic interven-

tions is not an automatic guarantee for a higher

level of well-being. For example, it would be

unthinkable for biophilic architecture to be in-

terested in the short-term or immediate impact

of architecture on well-being, while it remains

apathetic for ecological issues, which are rele-

vant for the well-being of our future selves and

future generations. Some could claim that this

line of thought weakens our argument for bio-

philic architecture. We believe the contrary and

are convinced that a careful consideration of

these factors can maximize the biophilic re-

sponses to architecture, because other interfer-

ing factors are controlled for.

A growing number of academics are involved

in nature-based or biophilic design. In addition

to providing a detailed account of this research

topic, this study hopes to awaken further inter-

est in biophilic design. This is necessary be-

cause the arguments presented here remain

quite tentative. For example, on a theoretical

level, it would be insightful to come to a ﬁner

grained account of how fractal forms are pro-

cessed by the brain. Another more practical

issue is the question of how to create successful

biophilic architecture. It could be true that many

architects have an intuitive feel for the impor-

tance of nature as a source of inspiration. How-

ever, looking at the modern built environment,

it is also a fact that this intuition is not often put

into practice. This report, therefore, tried to

provide some practical guidelines. It should be

noted, however, that it only has scratched the

surface. In a sense, only a few grammatical

rules were presented, and it is up to creative

minds to work out a formal language with these

elemental rules. Such a project can only succeed

by a transdisciplinary approach, in which both

architects and psychologists take knowledge of

this new ﬁeld of research.

References

Abraham, F. D., Sprott, J. C., Mitina, O., Osorio, M.,

Dequito, E. A., & Pinili, J. M. (2003). Judgments of

time, aesthetics, and complexity as a function of the

fractal dimension of images formed by chaotic at-

tractors. Retrieved August 16, 2007, from http://

www.blueberry-brain.org/silliman/JEM%20ms2.htm

Aiken, N. E. (1998a). Human cardiovascular re-

sponse to the eye spot threat stimulus. Evolution

and Cognition, 4, 51– 62.

Aiken, N. E. (1998b). The biological origins of art.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Aks, D. J., & Sprott, J. C. (1996). Quantifying aes-

thetic preference for chaotic patterns. Empirical

Studies of the Arts, 14, 1–16.

Anderson, C. M., & Mandell, A. J. (1996). Fractal

time and the foundations of consciousness: Verti-

cal convergence of 1/f phenomena from ion chan-

nels to behavioral states. In E. MacCormac & M. I.

Stamenov (Eds.), Fractals of brain, fractals of

mind (pp. 75–128). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:

John Benjamins.

Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape.

New York: Wiley.

Atran, S. (1995). Causal constraints on categories and

categorical constraints on biological reasoning

across cultures. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & J.

Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition. A multidisci-

324 JOYE

plinary debate (pp. 205–233). Oxford, England:

Clarendon Press.

Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of

visual preference for natural environments. Envi-

ronment and Behavior, 14, 5–28.

Bovill, C. (1996). Fractal geometry in architecture

and design. Boston: Birkha¨user.

Burkle-Elizondo, G., & Valde´z-Cepeda, R. D.

(2006). Fractal analysis of Mesoamerican pyra-

mids. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life

Sciences, 10, 105–122.

Capo, D. (2004). The fractal nature of the architec-

tural orders. Nexus Network Journal, 6, 30 – 40.

Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-

speciﬁc knowledge systems in the brain: The ani-

mate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 10, 1–34.

Coss, R. G. (2003). The role of evolved perceptual

biases in art and design. In E. Voland & K. Gram-

mer (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics. Berlin:

Springer-Verlag.

Crompton, A. (2002). Fractals and the picturesque.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and De-

sign, 29, 451– 459.

Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2003). The se-

lective impairment of fruit and vegetable knowl-

edge: A multiple processing channels account of

ﬁne-grain category speciﬁcity. Cognitive Neuro-

psychology, 20, 355–372.

Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. (1999). Biological

preparedness and evolutionary explanation. Cog-

nition, 73, 37–53.

Custers, M. (2006). Stressreductie in de volkstuin?!

Experimenteel onderzoek naar het stressreducer-

ende effect van tuinieren [Stress reduction in the

garden?! Experimental inquiry into the stress re-

ducing effects of gardening). Leiden, the Nether-

lands: University of Leiden.

Cutting, J. E., & Garvin, J. J. (1987). Fractal curves

and complexity. Perception and Psychophys-

ics, 42, 365–370.

Eaton, L. (1998). Fractal geometry in the late work of

Frank Lloyd Wright. In K. Williams (Ed.), Nexus

II: Architecture and mathematics 1998 (pp. 23–

38). Florence, Italy: Edizioni Dell’Erba.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When build-

ings don’t work: The role of architecture in human

health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18,

85–94.

Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. (1991). A computa-

tional model of semantic memory impairment:

Modality speciﬁcity and emergent category speci-

ﬁcity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 120,

339 –357.

Feuerstein, G. (2002). Biomorphic architecture: Hu-

man and animal forms in architecture. Stuttgart,

Germany: Axel Menges.

Geake, J. G. (1992). Fractal computer graphics as a

stimulus for the enhancement of perceptual sensi-

tivity to the natural environment. Australian Jour-

nal of Environmental Education, 8, 1–16.

Geake, J. G., & Landini, G. (1997). Individual dif-

ferences in the perception of fractal curves. Frac-

tals, 5, 129 –143.

Gilden, D. L., Schmuckler, M. A., & Clayton, K.

(1993). The perception of natural contour. Psycho-

logical Review, 100, 460 – 478.

Goldberger, A. L. (1996). Fractals and the birth of

Gothic: Reﬂections on the biologic basis of cre-

ativity. Molecular Psychiatry, 1, 99 –104.

Ha¨gerha¨ll, C. M., Purcell, T., & Taylor, R. (2004).

Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines

as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 24, 247–255.

Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S.,

&Ga¨rling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in nat-

ural and urban ﬁeld settings. Journal of Environ-

mental Psychology, 23, 109 –123.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Re-

storative effects of natural environment experi-

ences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3–26.

Hase, B., & Heerwagen, J. H. (2000). Phylogenetic

design: A new approach for workplace environ-

ments. Journal for Quality and Participation, 23,

27–31.

Haviland-Jones, J., Rosario, H. H., Wilson, P., &

McGuire, T. R. (2005). An environmental ap-

proach to positive emotion: Flowers. Evolutionary

Psychology, 3, 104 –132.

Heerwagen, J. H. (2003). Bio-inspired design: What

can we learn from nature? Unpublished manu-

script.

Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1986). Adapta-

tions to windowlessness: A study of the use of

visual decor in windowed and windowless ofﬁces.

Environment and Behavior, 18, 623– 639.

Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans,

habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O.

Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138 –

172). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The

prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban

places. Population and Environment, 5, 43–59.

Hietanen, J. K., & Korpela, K. M. (2004). Do both

negative and positive environmental scenes elicit

rapid affective processing? Environment and Be-

havior, 36, 558 –577.

Hildebrand, G. (1999). Origins of architectural plea-

sure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jencks, C. (1995). The architecture of the jumping

universe. London: Academy/Wiley.

325ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

Jencks, C. (2002). The new paradigm in architecture.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Johnson, S. C., & Carey, S. (1998). Knowledge en-

richment and conceptual change in folkbiology:

Evidence from Williams syndrome. Cognitive Psy-

chology, 37, 156 –200.

Joye, Y. (2006). An interdisciplinary argument for

natural morphologies in architectural design. En-

vironment and Planning B: Planning and De-

sign, 33, 239 –252.

Joye, Y. (2007). A tentative argument for the inclu-

sion of nature-based forms in architecture. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, Ghent University, Gh-

ent, Belgium.

Kahn, P. H., Jr. (1999). The human relationship with

nature: Development and culture. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999).

Emotional afﬁnity toward nature as a motivational

basis to protect nature. Environment and Behav-

ior, 31, 178 –202.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of

nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cognition.

Environment and Behavior, 19, 3–32.

Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: Con-

ceptions and misconceptions. In J. Nasar (Ed.),

Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and

applications (pp. 45–55). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Katcher, A., & Wilkins, G. (1993). Dialogue with

animals: Its nature and culture. In S. R. Kellert &

E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp.

173–197). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in

human evolution and development. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S. (2005). Building for life: Understanding

and designing the human-nature connection.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The

biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island

Press.

Knill, D. C., Field, D., & Kersten, D. (1990). Human

discrimination of fractal images. Journal of the

Optical Society of America, 7, 1113–1123.

Korpela, K. M., Klemettila¨, T., & Hietanen, J. K.

(2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of

environmental scenes. Environment and Behav-

ior, 34, 634 – 650.

Lynn, G. (1998). Folds, bodies and blobs. Brussels,

Belgium: La Lettre Vole´e.

Lynn, G. (1999). Animate form. New York: Princeton

Architectural Press.

Mandelbrot, B. (1977). The fractal geometry of na-

ture. New York: Freeman.

Mead, C. (1991). Houses by Bart Prince. An Amer-

ican architecture for the continuous present. Al-

buquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Mineka, S., & O

¨hman, A. (2002). Phobias and pre-

paredness: The selective, automatic, and encapsu-

lated nature of fear. Biological Psychiatry, 52,

927–937.

Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind. Lon-

don: Thames & Hudson.

Mureika, J. (2005). Fractal theory of aesthetic pref-

erence in abstract expressionism: A connection to

the eight laws of artistic experience? Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General the-

ory and applications to human behaviour. In J. S.

Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social be-

havior (pp. 49 –77). New York: Elsevier.

Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved

responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cos-

mides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind. Evolu-

tionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp.

555–579). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ostwald, M. J. (2001). “Fractal architecture”: Late

twentieth century connections between architec-

ture and fractal geometry. Nexus Network Journal,

Architecture and Mathematics, 3, 73– 84.

Parsons, R. (1991). The potential inﬂuences of envi-

ronmental perception on human health. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 11, 1–23.

Parsons, R., Tassinary, L. G., Ulrich, R. S., Hebl,

M. R., & Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The

view from the road: Implications for stress recov-

ery and immunization. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 18, 113–139.

Peitgen, H. O., Ju¨rgens, H., & Saupe, D. (1992).

Chaos and fractals. New frontiers of science. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. The new

science of language and mind. London: Penguin

Press.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. London:

Norton.

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial

of human nature. London: Penguin Press.

Potts, R. B. (1998). Environmental hypotheses of

hominin evolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthro-

pology, 41, 93–136.

Prusinkiewicz, P., & Lindenmayer, A. (1990). The

algorithmic beauty of plants. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do

preferences differ between scene types? Environ-

ment and Behavior, 33, 93–106.

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The

science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic

experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6,

15–51.

326 JOYE

Rogowitz, B. E., & Voss, R. F. (1990). Shape per-

ception and low-dimension fractal boundary con-

tours. In B. E. Rogowitz & J. Allenbach (Eds.),

Proceedings of the Conference on Human Vision:

Methods, models and applications (Vol. 1249, pp.

387–394), Santa Clara, CA: Symposium on Elec-

tronic Imaging.

Salingaros, N. A. (2003). The sensory value of orna-

ment. Communication & Cognition, 36, 331–351.

Salingaros, N. A. (2004). Anti-architecture and de-

construction. Solingen, Germany: Umbau-Verlag.

Salingaros, N. A. (2006). A theory of architecture.

Solingen: Umbau-Verlag.

Smardon, R. C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the

urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 85–106.

Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory

study of preferred tree form. Environment and

Behavior, 27, 540 –557.

Spehar, B., Clifford, C. W. G., Newell, B., & Taylor,

R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Com-

puters & Graphics, 27, 813– 820.

Sperber, D., & Hirschfeld, L. A. (2004). The cogni-

tive foundations of cultural stability and diversity.

Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 40 – 46.

Stamps, A. E. (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and

beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 163–

184.

Steiner, R. (1999). Architecture as a synthesis of the

arts. London: Rudolf Steiner Press.

Summit, J., & Sommer, R. (1999). Further studies of

preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behav-

ior, 31, 550 –576.

Sweeney, J. J., & Sert, J. L. (1960). Antoni Gaudı´.

London: The Architectural Press.

Synek, E., & Grammer, K. (1998). Evolutionary aes-

thetics: Visual complexity and the development of

human landscape preferences. Manuscript. Re-

trieved from http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/

institutes/urbanethology/projects/urbanisation/

landscapes/indexland.html

Taylor, R. P. (1998). Splashdown. New Scientist,

2144, 30 –31.

Taylor, R. P. (2002). The construction of fractal drip

paintings. Leonardo, 35, 203–207.

Taylor, R. P., Spehar, B., Wise, J. A., Clifford,

C. W. G., Newell, B. R., & Martin, T. P. (2005).

Perceptual and physiological responses to the vi-

sual complexity of Pollock’s fractal dripped pat-

terns. Journal of Non-linear Dynamics, Psychol-

ogy and Life Sciences, 9, 89 –114.

Thayer, R. L., Jr., & Atwood, B. G. (1978). Plants,

complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban

environments. Environmental Psychology and

Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 67–76.

Tinbergen, N., & Perdeck, A. C. (1950). On the

stimulus situation releasing the begging response

in the newly hatched herring gull chick (Larus

argentatus argentatus Pont). Behaviour,3,1–39.

Tischhauser, A., & Von Moos, S. (1998). Cala-

trava—Public buildings. Basel, Switzerland:

Birkhauser.

Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., & Aikoh, T. (2004).

Preferences for and attitudes towards street ﬂowers

and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 69, 403– 416.

Trivedi, K. (1989). Hindu temples: Models of a frac-

tal universe. The Visual Computer, 5, 243–258.

Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a

distributed account of conceptual knowledge.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244 –252.

Tzonis, A. (1999). Santiago Calatrava. The poetics

of movement. London: Thames & Hudson.

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes—

Some psychophysiological effects. Environment

and Behavior, 13, 523–556.

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response

to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohl-

will (Eds.), Human behavior and the environment:

Volume 6 (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may

inﬂuence recovery from surgery. Science, 224,

420 – 421.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Effects of hospital environments on

patient well-being (Research rep. 9[55]). Trondheim,

Norway: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural

Medicine, University of Trondheim.

Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natu-

ral landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson

(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137).

Washington, DC: Island Press.

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 environ-

ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11,

201–230.

Ulrich, R. S., & Zimring, C. (2004). The role of the

physical environment in the hospital of the 21st cen-

tury: A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Retrieved Au-

gust 18, 2007, from http://www.healthdesign.org/

research/reports/pdfs/role_physical_env.pdf

Van den Berg, A. E. (2004, April). De charme van de

savanne: Onderzoek naar landschapsvoorkeuren

[The charm of the savanna: Inquiry into landscape

preferences]. Topos, 10 –12.

Van den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007).

Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress,

restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Jour-

nal of Social Issues, 63, 79 –96.

Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp,

N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and res-

toration: (How) are they related? Journal of Envi-

ronmental Psychology, 23, 135–146.

Van den Berg, A. E., & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear

versus fascination: Emotional responses to natural

327ARCHITECTURAL LESSONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,

261–272.

Van den Berg, A. E., & Van Winsum-Westra, M.

(2006). Ontwerpen met groen voor gezondheid:

Richtlijnen voor de toepassing van groen in ‘healing

environments’ [Designing with green for health:

Guidelines for the application of green in “healing

environments”]. (Report 1371, reeks belevingsonder-

zoek nr. 15). Wageningen, Germany: Alterra.

Voss, R. F. (1988). Fractals in nature: From charac-

terization to simulation. In H. O. Peitgen & D.

Saupe (Eds.), The science of fractal images (pp.

21–70). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation

ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The

biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31– 41). Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Wise, J. A., & Rosenberg, E. (1986). The effects of

interior treatments on performance stress in three

types of mental tasks (Tech. rep., Space Human Fac-

tors Ofﬁce). Sunnyvale, CA: NASA-ARC.

Wise, J. A., & Taylor, R. (2002). Fractal design

strategies for enhancement of knowledge work en-

vironments. In Proceedings of the 46th Meeting of

the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp.

854 –859).Baltimore, MD: Human Factors and Er-

gonomics Society.

Wolff, P., Medin, D. L., & Pankratz, C. (1999).

Evolution and devolution of folkbiological knowl-

edge. Cognition, 73, 177–204.

Yu, Y., Romero, R., & Lee, T. W. (2005). Preference

of sensory neural coding for 1/fsignals. Physical

Review Letters, 94, 108103(1)–108103(4).

Received September 19, 2006

Accepted July 19, 2007 䡲

Acknowledgment of Ad Hoc Reviewers

The Editor and Editorial Review Board take this opportunity to thank the following

persons who reviewed submissions for volume 11, 2007.

Owen Anderson

John Archer

Paul Bain

Austin Baldwin

William Becker

Mathew Belmonte

Camilla Benbow

Geoff Bird

Simon Boag

George Bonanno

Becky Burch

Natalie Ciarocco

Lee Cronk

Paul Davidson

Valerian Derlega

Yvonne Delevoye

Kathryn Dindia

Carol Dolan

Michael Dougher

Valentina D’Urso

Carol Dweck

Aleksander Ellis

Bruce Ellis

Richard Fleming

Melanie Green

Gary Hardcastle

Christine Harris

William Hirst

George Holden

Harry Hunt

Yuhong Jiang

Peter Judge

Patrik Juslin

Kalman Kaplan

John Kihlstrom

Alan Kazdin

Debra Lieberman

Scott Lilienfeld

Darrin McMahon

Jeanne Marecek

David Milne

Stephen Morillo

Warren Morrill

Shane Lopez

Robert Lynd-Stevenson

David Miall

Susan Mineka

Jeanne Marecek

Irene Pepperberg

Steven Platek

J. T. Ptacek

Devaki Rau

Justin Rentfrow

Matt Rossano

Gad Saad

Catherine Salmon

John Sloboda

Aaron Sloman

David Livingston Smith

Susan Sprecher

Graham Staines

Gary Steiner

Douglas Sturm

Dan Wegner

Michael Wertheimer

Sarah White

328 JOYE

A Bibliometric Analysis of Emotion at the Intersection of the Concepts of Biophilic and Design

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2023

Emotion is the research subject of many disciplines. Among these studies, emotion emerges as a concept related to biophilic design. The present investigation used bibliometric analysis, which included documents from the Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection stores of data to the science mapping approach in the VOSviewer. Considering the analysis' findings, it can be said that the examination of emotion at the intersection of biophilic and design under the heading the concept of architecture is a field of study that is new, open to examination, and open to association with different concepts.

The Aesthetic Experience of Interior Spaces With Curvilinear Boundaries and Various Space Properties in Immersive and Desktop-Based Virtual Environments

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

The study aims to investigate participants’ aesthetic experience in response to environments with curvilinear boundaries that are presented in two different virtual environments (VEs), namely immersive (IVE) and desktop-based virtual environments (DTVE). To this end, 60 participants were presented with 360° 32 VE visualizations that had either horizontal or vertical curvilinear boundaries and possessed various architectural properties (size/light/texture/color) using a head-mounted display and a desktop computer. The aesthetic experience in response to these visualizations was measured in terms of the three key dimensions identified in a previous study (Elver Boz et al., 2022): familiarity, excitement, and fascination. In addition, participants’ sense of presence in the two different environments was measured. The results show that familiarity and excitement dimensions were significantly higher in IVE than in DTVE, whereas the two environments did not significantly differ from each other in terms of the fascination dimension. As for the boundary types, the familiarity dimension was significantly higher in horizontal curvilinear boundaries than in vertical ones. In contrast, excitement and fascination dimensions were significantly higher in vertical curvilinear boundaries than in horizontal ones. The only dimension that showed an interaction between boundary types and the type of VE was excitement. Finally, IVE induced a higher presence feeling than DTVE. Overall, results suggest that people’s aesthetic experiences toward built environments change as a function of the boundary types and the medium they are presented with these environments and that different dimensions of the aesthetic experience are affected differently by these variables.

Move(d) outdoors: Exploring the role of social relational emotions in human-nature relationships (PhD thesis)

Thesis

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Evi Petersen

Across cultures, the relationship between humans and nature affects both the well-being of humans and the natural environment. While the concept of nature connectedness is recognized as an important topic in this regard, little is known about the psychological processes that establish and foster it. Positioned at the intersection of environmental psychology and outdoor studies, this article-based thesis adopts a critical realism perspective to explore how social relational emotions, such as kama muta (≈ being moved) and awe, are specifically significant to the process of connecting in and to nature.

Enhancing Cognitive Performance and Physiological Benefit in Workspaces Through Patterns of Biophilic Design: A Restorative Approach

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Contact with nature is believed to enhance mental health through the process of human psychological restoration. However, prolonged indoor living limits individuals’ exposure to nature, potentially hindering the timely alleviation of stress and fatigue induced by work. While biophilic design is recognized as a potential solution, its impact on the restoration process has not been extensively studied, particularly in relation to its various design patterns. Therefore, it is important to determine the restorative effects of different patterns of biophilic design and their combination in order to guide the practical application of biophilic design. In this study, the effects of two typical biophilic design patterns and their combination on attention restoration were measured using subjective scales, cognitive tasks, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in a simulated real workspace. The results suggest a significant enhancement in the restorative impact on cognitive performance and physiological benefits when combining two biophilic design patterns, while a single design pattern does not yield the same effect. These findings contribute to a better understanding and improvement of workspaces, enhancing users’ experience and well-being.

Advances and prospect in natural beauty evaluation: insights for the World Heritage karst

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Natural beauty evaluation is an important branch of geography and landscape studies and has profound impact on the protection and sustainable development of World Heritage sites (WHs). However, systematic literature reviews in this field are insufficient. In this study, we comprehensively analyzed 262 relevant studies in the Web of Science and CNKI databases published since 1982, systematically reviewed the research progress in the field of natural beauty evaluation, analyzed the current main research methods, theoretical frameworks, and application practices, and explored their specific implications for the World Heritage karst sites (WHKs). The following observations were made. (1) The number of publications has been increasing year by year, reaching its peak in 2019, indicating increasing research interest in this field. (2) The research content covers five aspects: theory, evaluation indicators, methods, technology, and World Heritage value. The proportion of research on technology integration (33.94%) and evaluation methods (28.05%) is the highest, accounting for 61.99% of the total, and indicating a positive inclination toward innovation and development of research methods. (3) Methodology tends toward interdisciplinary collaboration, and evaluation methods have gradually shifted from a single qualitative description to quantitative, diversified, and interdisciplinary comprehensive evaluation. The combination of traditional and emerging technologies such as SD method, SBE method, AHP method, neuroscience, and UGC data has increased, breaking through time and space constraints and expanding data sources. (4) In future studies, the assessment of natural beauty should concentrate on aesthetic preferences across diverse cultural contexts, develop a concept of global localization, and enhance evaluators' aesthetic perception through multisensory integration. Simultaneously utilizing UGC data to balance the authority of evaluation standards and the inclusiveness of evaluation systems, developing quantifiable indicators, and improving quantitative research in analogy methods; Finally, a karst landscape aesthetic evaluation model is constructed from both global and local perspectives, providing scientific reference for the formation of a unified evaluation system.

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN APPROACH IN CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURAL GOALS

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Dr. Agboola Oluwagbemiga Paul

This study investigates the role of biophilic design in addressing environmental issues within the built environment and its contribution to the goals of sustainable architecture. A mixed-method approach comprised a literature review to identify key elements of biophilic design, an online survey with 378 participants from academia and professional fields and focus group interviews with 13 experts. The Relative Importance Index (RII) and thematic analysis were utilized to evaluate the significance of the identified biophilic factors. The study revealed six principal objectives of sustainable architecture and elucidated how biophilic design contributes to these goals through five direct and three indirect benefits. The findings underscore the potential of biophilic design to enhance sustainability in the built environment, particularly in Nigeria. Biophilic design emerges as a valuable strategy in sustainable architecture, promoting human-nature connections and offering tangible benefits. The study highlights the importance of integrating biophilic principles into architectural planning to address environmental challenges effectively.

It looks like nature - a phenomenological study of the built environment in psychotherapy from psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ perspective

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Introduction The study aims to examine psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ experiences of built environments, indoors and outdoors, in providing psychotherapy. The research explores how the environment matters in clinical practice from the perspective of psychologists and psychiatrists and seeks to comprehend the significance of the facilities where psychotherapy takes place. Methods This study design is explorative and qualitative. Data is generated by eight in-depth interviews with six clinical psychologists and two psychiatrists and was analyzed using an interpretative phenomenological approach. Results Our findings revealed that the built environment matters in clinical practice as it appears to be closely linked to fostering a more comprehensive approach and facilitating various associations and themes in psychotherapy. Three superordinate themes emerged from the data: Design as therapeutic tool, Nature as a co-therapist, and lastly, Expanding the therapeutic space, highlights the participants’ perspective on the transformative potential of the built environment to become therapeutic. Conclusion The findings reveal how built environments can be actively utilized as tools in psychotherapy. Environments are not to be considered merely as neutral and passive spaces for conducting and receiving psychotherapy rather than experienced as places that may regulate and impact both therapists and patients, the relationship between them.

Biophilic Architecture: A Sustainable Healing Strategy in Rehabilitation Centers in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria

Article

Sep 2024

This research analyzes the potential of Biophilic design as a sustainable healing technique in rehabilitation centers situated in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Drawing from the rich biodiversity and cultural past of the region, Biophilic design concepts are investigated as a technique to boost the physical and mental well-being of patients undergoing rehabilitation. By integrating natural components and patterns into the constructed environment, rehabilitation institutions can provide therapeutic places favorable to healing and recovery. In the context of rehabilitation institutions, adopting Biophilic design concepts can provide several benefits to patients, including stress reduction, enhanced mood, and speedier recovery. This paper presents strategies for applying Biophilic design in the Niger Delta’s rehabilitation centers and examines the socio-environmental benefits of such an approach.

Investigating Decision-Making Frameworks for Early-Stage Performance-Based Building Envelope Design

Chapter

Dec 2024

This chapter explores the critical role of early-stage design in the architectural process, emphasizing the importance of managing the building envelope to enhance overall building value and occupant well-being. It introduces a generalized graph database designed to assist in decision-making by mapping and navigating the complex relationships between various design factors and performance domains. The chapter demonstrates how a graph database can serve as a valuable tool for structuring search queries, ranking design variables, and providing a comprehensive overview of interdependencies. Future research directions include integrating this data with parametric software systems and exploring web-based solutions for enhanced accessibility. Ultimately, this approach aims to support the development of effective design strategies throughout the design process, enabling the extraction of generalized outlooks of complex design relationships and fostering a holistic view of building design.

Environmental preferences in architecture based on personality types

Article

Nov 2024

Purpose Individuals show different environmental preferences, often influenced by their personality types. However, instances arise where the alignment of an individual’s personality and the architectural environment disappears, resulting in a mismatch. Consequently, the purpose of this study considers the urgent need to acknowledge and understand the complex interplay between architecture and individual personality traits. Design/methodology/approach The research method is based on the correlation between the variables, which is calculated by the significant assessment of the sample population and with SmartPLS. Finally, the findings and results of the research in relation to personality components and architectural aspects indicate the existence of a relationship. In the end, this study establishes correlations among variables and conclusions are drawn through systematic logical deductions. Findings The research findings underscore a compelling relationship between distinct personality components and various architectural facets. Furthermore, psychological cohesiveness within distinct social cohorts emerges as a pivotal factor influencing the relationship between individuals and architecture. In this regard, the main aspects of environmental preferences (surprise, cryptic, etc.) and personality types (neuroticism, extroversion, etc.) based on their significance and the factors affecting it in sub-components, create direct or indirect relationships. Additionally, the determination of the relationships created in each of these components is specified based on Image 12, and the path of creating architectural patterns can be considered according to that. Originality/value The results of the research show that the correlation between personality and physical components in different social groups is an effective issue in the relationship between human and the environment. It can also be considered as a factor for improving the quality of architectural design and creating a favorable cultural atmosphere in the environment. This issue has caused a connection between architecture and human personality, which creates the ground for improving the relationship between them. Also, architecture is placed by adapting to the personality and psychological needs of people and has an effective role in the quality of their relationships in organizing and expanding the environment.

The Perception of Natural Contour

Article

Full-text available

Jul 1993

The observation that natural curves and surfaces are often fractal suggests that people may be sensitive to their statistical properties. The perceptual protocols that underlie discrimination between fractals and between other types of random contour and fractals are examined. Discrimination algorithms that have precisely the same sensitivities as human observers are constructed. These algorithms do not recognize the integrated scale hierarchy intrinsic to fractal form and operate by imposing a metatheory of structure that is based on a signal–noise distinction. The success of the algorithms implies that (a) self-affinity in random fractals is not perceptually recovered and (b) people have a natural disposition to view contour in terms of signal and noise. The authors propose that this disposition be understood as a principle of perceptual organization.

Origins of Architectural Pleasure

Book

Nov 2023

Grant Hildebrand

Biophilia

Book

Dec 1984

Edward O. WILSON

Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions

Chapter

May 1988

Stephen Kaplan

How do people react to the visual character of their surroundings? What can planners do to improve the aesthetic quality of these surroundings? Too often in environmental design is misunderstood as only a minor concern, dependent on volatile taste and thus undefinable. Yet a substantial body of research indicates the importance of visual quality in the environment to the public and has uncovered systematic patterns of human response to visual attributes of the built environment. With information on the subject normally scattered between disciplines, this book provides a vital service in bringing together classic and new contributions by distinguished workers in the field.

The Fractal Geometry of Nature.

Article

Nov 1984

The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture

Book

Jun 1999

Peter H. Kahn

Kahn's empirical and theoretical findings draw on current work in psychology, biology, environmental behavior, education, policy, and moral development. Urgent environmental problems call for vigorous research and theory on how humans develop a relationship with nature. In a series of original research projects, Peter Kahn answers this call. For the past eight years, Kahn has studied children, young adults, and parents in diverse geographical locations, ranging from an economically impoverished black community in Houston to a remote village in the Brazilian Amazon. In these studies Kahn seeks answers to the following questions: How do people value nature, and how do they reason morally about environmental degradation? Do children have a deep connection to the natural world that gets severed by modern society? Or do such connections emerge, if at all, later in life, with increased cognitive and moral maturity? How does culture affect environmental commitments and sensibilities? Are there universal features in the human relationship with nature? Kahn's empirical and theoretical findings draw on current work in psychology, biology, environmental behavior, education, policy, and moral development. This scholarly yet accessible book will be of value to practitioners in the social science and environmental fields, as well as to informed generalists interested in environmental issues and children.

Causal Constraints on Categories and Categorical Constraints on Biological Reasoning across Cultures

Chapter

Jul 1996

Scott Atran

Biophilia and the conservation ethic

Article

Jan 1993

E.O. Wilson

The Role of Evolved Perceptual Biases in Art and Design

Chapter

Jan 2003

Richard Gerrit Coss

The seminal ideas about the relationship of aesthetic appreciation and evolutionary theory emerged initially with the Darwinian construct of sexual selection that emphasized the importance of mate choice and physical attractiveness (Darwin 1885). Anthropomorphic linkage of processes of human intelligence and those of other species (Romanes 1886), coupled with emphasis on the role of natural selection in adjusting human intelligence (Spencer 1888), set the stage for describing behavior in terms of evolutionary history. The idea that innate knowledge accumulated over successive generations and influenced current behavior pervaded nineteenthcentury tomes that characterized behavioral relics as atavistic (Nietzsche 1909), especially the fearful behavior of children (Hall 1897). Jung (1916, 1972) continued the development of these ideas with his construct of the archetype as a species-typical pattern of thought that might account for cross-cultural similarities in mythology and graphical symbolism.

Fractal time and the founda-tions of consciousness," in Fractals of Brain, Fractals of Mind

Article