Biophilic Design, Restorative Environments and Well-Being

Abstract

Well-being in cities can be addressed from the perspective of multiple disciplines. urban design can contribute to creating built environments within nature with tangible elements to provide psychological restoration that releases stress and mental fatigue. to do so, many design approaches, such as biophilic design, biomimicry, and eco-cities can make a contribution to this topic. this paper is focused on biophilic design as an urban design approach aimed at understanding connections between natural and built environments in relation to psychological restoration. important inputs from environmental psychology and public health are also considered to understand people' s responses to different natural and built environments. this paper consists of an extensive literature review of these disciplines and approaches in order to provide designers with elements to be considered for the design of restorative environments. these elements may include natural water features, natural light and colors, vegetation, and well-designed buildings to improve people' s well-being.

Full text

535
Salamanca, J., Desmet, P., Burbano, A., Ludden, G., Maya, J. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Colors of Care: The 9th International Conference on Design & Emotion.
Bogotá, October 6-10, 2014. Ediciones Uniandes, Bogotá, 2014. ISBN: 978-958-774-070-7
WELLBEING AND SUSTAINABILITY
BIOPHILIC DESIGN, RESTORATIVE
ENVIRONMENTS AND WELLBEING
Ana Karinna Hidalo
PhD student, Faculty of Environmental Desin, University of Calary
 akhidal@ucalary.ca
ABSTRACT
Well-bein in cities can be addressed from the perspective of multiple disciplines. Urban
desin can contribute to creatin built environments within nature with tanible elements to
provide psycholoical restoration that releases stress and mental fatiue. To do so, many de-
sin approaches, such as biophilic desin, biomimicry, and eco-cities can make a contribution
to this topic. This paper is focused on biophilic desin as an urban desin approach aimed at
understandin connections between natural and built environments in relation to psycholoi-
cal restoration. Important inputs from environmental psycholoy and public health are also
considered to understand people’s responses to dierent natural and built environments. This
paper consists of an extensive literature review of these disciplines and approaches in order to
provide desiners with elements to be considered for the desin of restorative environments.
These elements may include natural water features, natural liht and colors, veetation, and
well-desined buildins to improve people’s well-bein.
KEYWORDS: well-being, psychological restoration, biophilic design, environmental psychology,
restorative environments
INTRODUCTION
Biophilic environments in urban spaces can provide people
with psychological restorative experiences by releasing men-
tal fatigue and decreasing their levels of stress. This restora-
tion process in turn improves people’s well-being. Public urban
spaces should be considered as restorative places where more
people could benefit from biophilic elements.
Urban spaces are constantly changing over time. The uses of
urban spaces depend not only on their function but also on
the historical, cultural, social, and economic aspects of a city.
Nowadays, urban researchers are focusing on the social and
cultural aspects of cities and the interconnections of people
within urban places (Gehl, 2010; Madanipour, 2010). However,
this is not the only direction that urban theories are taking.
For instance, UN-Habitat (2013a) is challenging city leaders to
design good cities and to consider the streets as public spaces
and drivers of well-being where all users can be engaged in
different ways (UN-Habitat, 2013b).
Well-being has been studied from different perspectives. Ur-
ban design historically relates the concept of well-being to
comfort status that people obtain in public places. This does
not imply that this objective was always achieved, but that this
field is in the search for promoting well-being and the under-
standing of the urban components of it. Most of the theories
related to well-being in public spaces refer to the way people
understand, experience, and perceive a space because of its
legibility (Lynch, 1960; Appleyard, 1976), or the way people
enjoy outdoor activities (Jacobs, 1961; Madanipour, 2010;
Gehl, 2011).
How people experience the environment and how they are re-
lated to it is twofold. On one hand, the built environment is a
result of its physical characteristics, whereas, on the other, the
quality of the urban space, as a result of the wealth, culture,
social issues, and age of the city, also takes part in people’s
perceptions (Steg et al, 2013). All these variables identify a city
and influence its residents, who in turn are able to change the
environment both positively and negatively. The environment
influences each individual differently; what is common ground
is the set of elements suggested by environmental psychology
based on experiments and evidence from this field.
Kopec (2006), Gifford (2007) and Steg et al. (2013) offer a
wide range of evidence from several research studies on natu-
ral and built environments. From these results, and in order
to promote people’s well-being, environmental psychologists
suggest the use of natural features within urban spaces that
can provide positive outcomes at different stages and for dif-
ferent purposes, such as forest-like playgrounds, green roofs,
edible gardens, and tree lined boulevards. These features are
developed by approaches different from urban design theory,

536 DESIGN & EMOTION 2014 | SOCIAL INNOVATION | COLOMBIA
for instance, ecological cities (Register, 2010), biomimicry
(Benyus, 2002), and biophilic design (Wilson, 1984; Kellert et
al., 2008).
One of the main benefits of nature is the psychological restor-
ative effect that will be addressed in this paper. Firstly, this
paper presents the definition of well-being and restoration
as outcomes to be achieved by design, and the definition of
stress in order to understand one of the factors that is threat-
ening people’s well-being. Secondly, the concept of biophilia
and biophilic urban design spaces will be provided. This sec-
tion presents the state of the art of this approach based on the
work by prominent researchers in the field. The third section
addresses the relationship between psychological restoration
and biophilic design, and discusses the positive outcomes
from natural environments based on relevant evidence. Final-
ly, some suggestions about further research are proposed, as
well as the need of an interdisciplinary approach to offer more
appropriate responses to urban stressors.
WELLBEING, STRESS AND RESTORATION
For the purpose of this paper, it is important to define some
interdisciplinary keywords in order to maintain a common lan-
guage. Well-being, stress and restoration will be considered
from a psychological perspective with insights from public
health, which will be later understood in the context of the
urban design field.
The pursuit of well-being is a goal for people around the world.
The lack of well-being is an impediment not only for individual
development but also for the development of an equal society.
One of the factors that negatively impacts well-being is stress.
For the purpose of this paper, and based on the definitions
from other fields, well-being is understood as the condition of
being healthy from a psychological perspective (NWIA, 2011),
and having social interactions of good quality (HRSDC, 2013).
Subjective well-being (SWB), widely employed in psychology
and economics, refers to people’s mood and emotions that re-
sult from being exposed to events or stimuli of different nature
(Diener, 2000). Subjective well-being is defined as good men-
tal states that include positive and negative self evaluations
reported by people about their lives and the affective reac-
tions to their experiences (OECD, 2013).
Cities aim to provide people with environments that improve
their quality of life. However, cities, and specifically streets,
produce urban stressors that threaten the ability of people
to restore themselves from stress and mental fatigue (Ko-
pec, 2006; Gifford, 2007). In this context, stress is a state of
mental or emotional chaos that results from adverse or chal-
lenging circumstances that affects people’s mental and even
physical health. Psychological stress occurs when a person’s
perception of the environment is above or below her capacity
of adaptation, which challenges or threatens well-being (Ul-
rich, 1986; Cohen et al., 2007). Psychological restoration is, in
general, the ability of a person to overcome stress and mental
fatigue, and experience mental rejuvenation.
Stress establishes links to health by affecting the immune
system and provoking psychological problems (Bilotta & Ev-
ans, 2013). The ability to balance all aspects of life such as
social, physical, spiritual, economic, and mental domains,
can reduce the level of stress (CMHA). From an environmen-
tal perspective, stress is a human response to the imbalance
between environment demands and the capability of human
response (Steg et al., 2013). A continuous exposure to stress
may influence and also affect physical health because of the
biological processes or behavioral patterns that influence
disease risk. Stress is a process where the person responds
psychologically, physiologically and even behaviorally to a
specific situation that challenges or threatens well-being (Ul-
rich, 1986).
From a psychological perspective, a person can be restored
from stress by being exposed to nature. Restoration (from
Latin recreation, recreationis = restoration, refreshment, and
recovery), refers to the experience of both psychological and
physiological recovery that is activated in specific environ-
ments (Joye & van den Berg, 2013). The capacity of people to
recover their health status from illness or stress in urban envi-
ronments is related to a successful achievement of well-being
and the main concern of urban design.
Virtual and direct relation to nature and other features such as
water, music, and colorful surfaces can be beneficial for psy-
chological and physical health because of the reduction of the
stress they promote. Robert Ulrich (1984; 1986) shows, for ex-
ample, that even if healthcare facilities are stressful by them-
selves, patients and visitors get benefits from the presence of
vegetation and green landscapes. He finds that patients recov-
er more rapidly from a surgery if the window of their healing
rooms shows green landscape compared to those that have a
wall instead. His findings are acknowledged and used as a ba-
sis for stress restoration theories (Kopec, 2006; Gifford, 2007;
Joye & van der Berg, 2013).
Psychologists define two main theories about restorative en-
vironments that, despite focusing on different aspects of
restoration, are related to each other because restoration is
a multi-faceted process (Roe & Aspinall, 2011; Gifford, 2007;
Kopec, 2006). Therefore both theories, attention restoration
theory (ART), and stress recovery theory (SRT), are considered
here in order to have inputs for the development of a theoreti-
cal framework from an environmental perspective.
The ART focuses on the fatigue provoked by the active atten-
tion that people need during most of a workday. According
to Rachel Kaplan & Steven Kaplan (1989), people need to go
through four phases to overcome mental fatigue: fascination,
directed attention to the fascinating environment, contempla-
tion, and deeper restoration experience. Ulrich et al. (1991)
propose the SRT by focusing on stress reduction from an affec-
tive and aesthetic response to the environment. People’s pref-
erences for natural landscapes, shown by their choices about
where they live and recover, constitute the scientific evidence
for this theory (Ulrich et al., 1991). SRT considers that resto-
ration from stress occurs when it positively impacts people’s
well-being (Joye & van den Berg, 2013).
http://de2014.uniandes.edu.co | October, 2014. ISBN 978-958-774-070-7. pp. 535-544

WELL-BEING AND SUSTAINABILITY
537
BIOPHILIC DESIGN, RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND WELL-BEING | A. Hidalgo
Restoration and well-being are concepts related to each other.
From an urban design perspective, restorative spaces are ideal
to provide people with stress recovery and mental fatigue re-
lease. Specific urban places such as parks, museums, spiritual
temples, and healing buildings usually provide restorative ex-
periences. Most of the elements that constitute these spaces
include nature and the possibility to personalize the environ-
ment.
BIOPHILIA AND DESIGN
Edward O. Wilson, a well-known biologist, coined the term
biophilia in his book Biophilia (1984). He defines biophilia as
the innate urge of humans to affiliate with nature and other
forms of life and life-like processes. The desire of having more
livable habitats obeys this urge and is called aesthetic criteria
(Wilson, 1984). Biophilia, ‘the innately emotional affiliation of
human beings to other living organisms’ (Wilson, 1993, p .31),
is an integral part of the human development process and of
the physical and mental growth. As a consequence individuals
look for opportunities to enjoy nature outside cities because
these are places that are usually not offering this type of ref-
uges, such as tropical forests, the savannah of human ances-
tors (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993).
Even if biophilia has its origin in biological science, Wilson
(2008) is aware that this term unites disciplines as a cause-
and-effect explanation, for instance among biology, social
sciences, and design. The inclusion of social aspects can be
grounded on biophilia complexity by considering also cultural
and ethnic differences among individuals and communities
(Soulé, 1993).
Historically the built environment has been integrated with
the natural environment, and traditionally local materials and
processes constitute the local aesthetics and heritage of so-
ciety. Nowadays, neither local materials nor local vegetation
that protects endemic flora and fauna, which is vital to the
biophilic approach, are used as they were before. Kellert et
al. (2008) argue that biophilic design takes advantage of an
intrinsic human affinity to incorporate natural and local sys-
tems and processes into the design of the built environment.
People have given different values to nature according to its
functions, for instance physical sustenance, experience and
curiosity of people in contact with nature, the understanding
of its systems and structures, communication and expression,
mimicking its mechanics, and spiritual reverence and affilia-
tion ties (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Kellert, 2008).
Different biological perspectives of design have been devel-
oped in the last two decades inspired by the Brundtland Report
(United Nations, 1987) that challenges future development to
grow sustainably. Initiatives on closed-loop industrial cycles,
for example by considering buildings as living organisms (‘Cra-
dle-to-Cradle’, McDonough & Braungart, 2002), or biological
inspiration for mimicking natural structures and processes to
develop efficient and aesthetic innovative designed objects
(‘Biomimicry’, Benyus, 2002), are just a few examples of these
revolutionary approaches. These perspectives are aimed at
searching for energy efficiency, clean industrial production,
product innovation and design methodology based on biologi-
cal mechanisms and interactions of living things. However, the
environment itself is not the topic of study of these approach-
es. As part of the same biological design approach, biophilic
design is focused on environmental issues and psychological
effects of nature on human’s well-being with special interest
on how biophilic environments can provide people with res-
toration.
According to Beatley (2011) biophilia shows that the evolution-
ary and biological contact with nature cannot be avoided, even
if people believe that life without nature is feasible. Janine
Benyus (2008), the lead author of the biomimicry approach,
points out that there is wisdom in bringing nature back into the
building process by incorporating elements inspired by bio-
philia into the built environment. These elements include or-
ganic forms and structures, daylighting, natural ventilation, an
environment quiet enough to enjoy natural sounds, a changing
palette of colors, bringing working ecosystems indoors, and
bio-inspiration gardens.
Biophilic Urban Spaces
An urban space is where the interactions between people and
the urban environment occur producing a variety of different
experiences (Jacobs, 1961; Gehl, 2010). The concept of urban
place goes beyond the physical characteristics of the built en-
vironment. According to Macdonald (2011) the urban place is
the public realm that needs to shift its direction in public val-
ues in order to take advantage of ecological opportunities that
each particular environment may have. The concept of mean-
ing is incorporated into the concept of urban space where
thoughts, behaviors, activities, and life emerge and occur. The
experience with the natural environment consists of views of
nature and landscapes, whereas attitudes and emotions to-
wards wildlife constitute part of this meaning (Gifford & Mc-
Cunn, 2013), which in turn is related to the concepts of sense
of place and place attachment.
Gifford (2007) suggests that it is important to define the city,
the specific group, and tools to be used in order to study a
place. The peculiarities of the natural and built environments
make a huge difference in the outcomes expected from a spe-
cific site. One of the issues that urban environmental research-
ers are looking at is how natural environment and its complexity
influence people’s well-being. An approach that takes advan-
tage of these concepts in a positive fashion is therefore biophil-
ic design (Wilson, 1984; Kellert et al., 2008). Biophilic design in
urban places can help promote protect and strengthen favor-
able climate and microclimate conditions in cities (Beatley &
Newman, 2013). A biophilic environment is about understand-
ing the spirit and sensibilities of a built environment.
In the quest for principles of biophilic design, Benyus (2008)
suggests a set of biophilic design elements inspired in nature:
organic form and structure, daylighting, natural ventilation,
natural sounds, a dynamic palette of colors, mimicking and

538 DESIGN & EMOTION 2014 | SOCIAL INNOVATION | COLOMBIA
restorative landscapes, and bio-inspired gardens. Benyus
(2008) proposes physical elements and processes from na-
ture that can be applied to design products and artificial pro-
cesses. The way in which animals and plants behave and adapt
in wild environments are examples she uses to describe the
considered restorative elements (Figure 1).
Kellert (2008) defines six elements and attributes that go
from natural features to social relationships in cities. These
elements consist of environmental features, natural shapes
and forms, natural patterns and processes, light and space,
place-based relationships, and evolved human-nature rela-
tionships (Figure 2). His proposal also incorporates a com-
prehensive study of the context that includes historical,
geographical, and cultural components that affect individu-
al’s perceptions of the space and therefore the relationship of
people with their affiliation to nature. Not all of these biophilic
design elements however constitute restorative compo-
nents, but as they are part of the urban space, they affect to
some extent mental restoration.
Using similar physical elements of nature to build the urban
space, Bentley (2011) focuses on strategies for the integration
of nature into the built environment. To do so, he proposes
the following levels for the elements of biophilic design in the
urban environment: building, block, street, neighborhood,
community, and region. He argues that both political and so-
cial decision-makers should take part in the process of imple-
mentation of biophilic cities. This regional scale focuses on
green elements and green urban spaces as components of a
biophilic environment (Figure 3). Other biophilic components
that provide restorative experiences such as diversity of color,
daylight, natural water features, and organic structures, are
not included in Bentley’s proposal.
Figure 1. Biophilic design elements inspired in Biomimicry (Benyus, 2008)
http://de2014.uniandes.edu.co | October, 2014. ISBN 978-958-774-070-7. pp. 535-544

WELL-BEING AND SUSTAINABILITY
539
BIOPHILIC DESIGN, RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND WELL-BEING | A. Hidalgo
Figure 2. Biophilic design elements and attributes (Modified from Kellert, 2008)

540 DESIGN & EMOTION 2014 | SOCIAL INNOVATION | COLOMBIA
Biophilia focuses on natural elements to be incorporated into
urban environments. From a psychological perspective, na-
ture provides people with restorative experiences to overcome
stress and mental fatigue that improve their health status.
From an urban design perspective, nature provides aesthetics,
shelter, and a sense of place (Jacobs, 1961; Register, 2010).
The richness of biophilic design therefore stems from the com-
bination of nature and urban design.
RESTORATION AND WELLBEING AS
A RESULT OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN
How nature helps improve health and well-being is in fact
a historical topic of interest. A Greek text ‘Airs, waters and
places’ by Hippocrates establishes the relationship among
climate, geography, sun and heat, water quality, and a sce-
nic environment that can be perceived by an individual and
the way in which these characteristics affect people’s health
(Hippocrates, n/d; Steg et al., 2013). Weather conditions and
their effects on people’s behavior are currently widely studied
by social and environmental psychologists who suggest that
the relationship between natural conditions and human well-
being remains vital for people. It is important to mention that
wildness and nature of the cities are not only related to green
space. According to Beatley (2011), the use of trees on streets,
courtyards, rooftops, creeks, and hydrological features should
be considered and showed in cities rather than hiding them
as is usual. The presence of nature also includes microorgan-
isms, aquatic species, vegetation, and animals (Beatley, 2011,
Register, 2010).
Even if a consensus about the effects of nature on people’s
health exist, Gifford & McCunn (2013) argue that the effect of
having nature indoors can be negative in terms of the produc-
tivity of workers. Although having plants in the office could in-
crease people’s psychological health, these authors found that
Figure 3. Biophilic green urban design elements in cities (Adapted from Beatley, 2011)
http://de2014.uniandes.edu.co | October, 2014. ISBN 978-958-774-070-7. pp. 535-544

WELL-BEING AND SUSTAINABILITY
541
BIOPHILIC DESIGN, RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND WELL-BEING | A. Hidalgo
having many plants could decrease people’s labor productiv-
ity. Even though this paper is not focused in indoor spaces,
it is clear however that other studies can provide insights
about possible outcomes in different environments that need
to be taken into account. The impact of nature on people’s
well-being, emotions, and health depends on the distance
between the location of nature and people, and how biologi-
cally impoverished a particular environment is. However, an
indirect contact of people with nature could be enough to
have a restorative experience (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993).
The use of windows with a green landscape view or even pic-
tures of a preferred natural forest can improve human psy-
chological conditions.
Restorative environmental design can be considered as a new
design paradigm where a low-environmental impact strategy
could avoid damage to the natural environment, and where
a positive environmental impact, or biophilic design, brings
benefits to human health (Kellert, 2008). There are two di-
mensions in this paradigm, an organic or naturalistic dimen-
sion, that includes shapes and forms in the built environment
reflecting the intrinsic human affinity for nature (Wilson 1984;
Kellert, 2008); and, a place-based or vernacular dimension
that considers the culture and ecology of a specific geographi-
cal location that constitutes the social and ecological dimen-
sion of design (Papanek, 1984; Register, 2010).
The conditions of modern life decrease people’s ability to keep
focused on daily activities. However, the built environment can
promote psychological health and well-being by also increas-
ing social ties that facilitate recovery from mental fatigue.
Mental fatigue can affect anxiety and depression, which in
turn contribute to aggression and violence (Sullivan & Chang,
2011). The proximity to open green spaces in urban areas is as-
sociated with the reduction of stress levels. The way in which
environmental settings are designed can produce positive or
negative outcomes as suggested below (Table 1).
FAVORABLE SETTINGS TO MENTAL HEALTH
- legible places
- attractive, well-maintained, safe places
- contact with green space
- with privacy
- appropriate contact with other people
Can produce
- well-being
- life satisfaction
- quality of life
- social support
- ability to concentrate
- creative play in children
- less mental fatigue
UNFAVORABLE SETTINGS
- crowded places
- noisy places
- dangerous places Can produce
- social withdrawal
- reduced social ties among neighbors
- smaller social networks
- diminished social and motor skills in children
- distress
- anxiety
- irritability
Table 1. Favorable and unfavorable settings to mental health
Source: Modified from Sullivan & Chang, 2011.
Social support and sense of community need to be addressed
by design. Designers can promote social interaction within
urban spaces and protect people from crowding that may
cause stress and depression. They can do so by consider-
ing, for example, that living near heavy traffic is not a desired
condition for commuters nor by neighbors, that high rise and
multifamily housing may cause anxiety and depression, es-
pecially among children, or that the daylight is important to
avoid seasonal affective disorder (Sullivan & Chang, 2011).
Other facts include the following: the lack of quality in urban
design can produce distress; drivers can experience road
rage because of stress, as well as difficulties associated to
the increasing length of the commutes. Cities need to reduce
automobile commutes, prioritize walking and biking, and im-
prove their quality of design that can be measured by the ex-
tent at which a city is legible. A legible city provides residents
with a sense of emotional security as well as an invitation to
explore it (Lynch, 1960; Kopec, 2006; Gifford, 2007; Sullivan
& Chang, 2011).
Since the use of nature, that includes flora and fauna, im-
proves people’s health status and social aspects of life, the
biophilic approach considers these natural elements in both
the indoor and outdoor built environment in order to recon-
nect humans to nature. A restorative environment, as shown
in several urban case studies and psychological experiments,
can be provided with natural elements (see Table 1 above)
such as vegetation and forest-like landscapes (Ulrich et al.,
1991; Hartig et al., 2003; Groenewegen et al., 2006), natural
water features such as wetlands, stormwater ponds, and riv-
ers (Korpela et al., 2008; White et al., 2010; Faggi et al., 2013),
natural light and its relation to color and shadows (Kaplan,
2001; Kopec, 2006), and built environments that include well
designed buildings (Gifford & McCunn, 2013), the use of local
materials, community identity, and edible gardens and parks
(Beatley, 2011; Beatley & Newman, 2013).

542 DESIGN & EMOTION 2014 | SOCIAL INNOVATION | COLOMBIA
Psychological restoration can also be a result of the benefits
of recreation. Cole & Hall (2010) study the restorative ef-
fects of wilderness on people’s well-being that is negatively
impacted by urban stressors such as crowding, human den-
sity, and congestion. Their experiment in wilderness envi-
ronments shows that the exposure of participants to nature
results in restorative experiences, mental fatigue release,
and mental rejuvenation. Moreover, Mayer et al. (2009) ar-
gue that brief exposures to nature can help people improve
their ability to reflect on minor problems. The participants in
this experiment were asked to think about minor issues to be
solved and then reflect about them while walking in contact
with nature during ten minutes. They point out that further
research on the impact of different lengths of exposure to
nature is needed in order to understand what people require
to solve major issues.
According to Ulrich (1993; 2008), the understanding of the link
between biophilic design and restorative effects needs more
research. However, Gifford (2008) argues that the extensive
evidence from environmental psychology, based on field and
lab experiments, can constantly inform environmental design
to provide spaces that address people’s needs. Duffy & Verges
(2010) also suggest that further research is required to explore
people’s connection to nature and the role of seasonal chang-
es in nature for people’s behavior. According to their study,
people have a stronger identification with objects that provide
shelter during winter, while they show a positive association
with nature during spring and autumn. Moreover, prevalent
activities in different seasons are associated with seasonal
animals’ behavior. For Duffy and Verges (2010), these stud-
ies cast doubt on the implicit and innate connection of people
with nature or the ‘biophilia hypothesis’. Gifford (2008) argues
that natural hazards and other natural forces do not provide
people with restorative effects; on the contrary, they produce
biophobia at different levels, from phobia to bugs, to constant
insecurity about natural disasters in vulnerable places. These
arguments do not imply that restorative impacts of nature are
wrong or inexistent, but that there exist positive and negative
outcomes to be considered when working with nature, and
that historical evidence on city development and the continu-
ous search of people to be protected from extreme conditions
of weather make sense.
Much of the organization of a society depends on the function-
ing of cities and even on how streets function in a daily basis
(Jacobs, 1961). Economic, social, and individual outcomes are
the result of well-designed urban spaces that include natu-
ral and built features (Gifford, 2007). At the personal level,
material realizations, health status, social life, leisure time,
security, and environmental quality constitute components
of well-being. Urban residents become users of city ameni-
ties on a daily basis and, therefore, their levels of well-being
depend to a large extent on what the city has to offer. Com-
muting time, walkability, and the scenic beauty of streets are
just a few contributors to well-being. Whether city amenities
increase or reduce the level of people’s well-being should be
the main concern of urban design.
CONCLUSION
People need to preserve nature and the health of ecosystems
to maintain and improve their emotional health and well-be-
ing. It is ironic that urban designers seek to incorporate nature
into built environments, because it is the built environment
that was incorporated into nature in the first place, losing the
well-known benefits of natural settings. On the other hand,
however, the built environment provides urban residents with
a more comfortable life by protecting them from environmen-
tal conditions and natural hazards. Urban spaces, in particu-
lar streets, should provide city residents with refuges and be
designed by considering both the positive and negative out-
comes from nature.
In order to improve people’s mental health, environmental
psychology and public health have provided enough evidence
on the link between nature and well-being. The challenge for
designers is to incorporate these theories and evidence into
spaces where people live. Since the achievement of well-be-
ing is a public goal, the design of public spaces as restorative
places should be urgently addressed by urban designers.
The components of the natural and built environment that
provide psychological restoration are studied by environmen-
tal psychology. Restoration theories mentioned in this paper
consider nature as a main element to improve people’s mental
health. The attention restoration theory requires fascination as
a process to help release mental fatigue, whereas the stress
recovery theory suggests that people can recover from stress
because of an affective and aesthetic response to the environ-
ment. This paper highlights the strong relationship between
the benefits of the natural environment, the required process-
es and responses of restorative theories, and the principles of
biophilic design.
Biophilic design consists mainly of providing not only strate-
gies but also a set of principles to design built environments.
As shown throughout this paper, biophilic researchers have
proposed elements and components, favorable settings, and
space attributes to create better places for people’s health.
Further research on how these elements can help the restora-
tion process, as well as the quality and quantity, and possible
combinations of them in different public landscapes is need-
ed. The effect of weather, seasonal characteristics, and envi-
ronmental conditions on people’s perception and experience
of the environment in relation to restoration and well-being
remains also an open question for future research.
The social dimension of people’s behavior, mainly studied
by environmental psychology, should be considered in bio-
philic strategies. Moreover, a comprehensive understanding
on how the environment and people relate to each other may
make the difference between a single solution with a blind
angle, and a complex solution where interdisciplinary ap-
proaches can reduce risks in the proposal and implementa-
tion of urban design.
The results of research from different disciplines related to ur-
ban design are still not connected to each other. This is the
http://de2014.uniandes.edu.co | October, 2014. ISBN 978-958-774-070-7. pp. 535-544

WELL-BEING AND SUSTAINABILITY
543
BIOPHILIC DESIGN, RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND WELL-BEING | A. Hidalgo
case, for instance, with the evidence on people’s psychologi-
cal health in urban spaces from environmental psychology
and public health that has not been necessarily used by urban
designers. The design of cities can take advantage of the re-
search undertaken in disciplines other than urban design to
incorporate, for example, biophilic design into the planning
process at every stage. Biophilic design constitutes a prom-
ising field aimed at improving the design of cities to make a
contribution to urban residents’ well-being around the world.
REFERENCES
Appleyard, D. (1976) Planning a Pluralist City: Conflicting Realities in
Ciudad Guayana. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Beatley, T. (2011) Biophilic Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press/Cen-
ter for Resource Economics.
Beatley, T., and Newman, P. (2013) ‘Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable,
Resilient Cities’, Sustainability, 5, (8), pp.3328–3345.
Benyus, J. (2002) Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Benyus, J. (2008) A Good Place to Settle: Biomimicry, Biophilia, and
the Return of Nature’s Inspiration to Architecture’, in Kellert et al.
(eds.) Biophilic Design. The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringin
Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Bilotta, E. and Evans, G.W. (2013) Environmental Stress, in Steg, L.,
van den Berg, A., and De Groot, J. (eds.) Environmental Psychology.
An Introduction. UK: BPS Blackwell.
CMHA, Canadian Mental Health Association, Mental Health, Available
from
http://www.cmha.ca/mental-health/
. [December, 2013].
Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., and Miller, G. E. (2007) ‘Psychological
Stress and Disease’, The Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion, 298, (14), pp.1685–1687.
Cole, D. N., and Hall, T. E. (2010) ‘Experiencing the Restorative Com-
ponents of Wilderness Environments: Does Congestion Interfere and
Does Length of Exposure Matter?’, Environment and Behavior, 42, (6),
pp.806–823.
Diener, E. (2000) ‘Subjective well-being: The science of happiness
and a proposal for a national index’, American Psychologist, 55, (1),
pp.34–43.
Duffy, S., and Verges, M. (2010) ‘Forces of Nature Affect Implicit Con-
nections With Nature’, Environment and Behavior, 42, (6), pp.723–739.
Faggi, A., Breuste, J., Madanes, N., Gropper, C., and Perelman, P.
(2013) ‘Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: a compari-
son of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 60, pp.182–187.
Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People. Washington, Covelo and London:
Island Press.
Gehl, J. (2011) Life Between Buildings. Using Public Space. Washing-
ton, Covelo and London: Island Press.
Gifford, R. (2007) Environmental Psychology. Principles and Practice.
4th ed., Victoria, BC: Optimal Books.
Gifford, R. and McCunn, L. (2013) ‘Appraisals of built environment and
approaches to building design that promote well-being’, in Steg, L.,
van den Berg, A., and De Groot, J. (eds.), Environmental Psychology.
An Introduction. UK: BPS Blackwell.
Groenewegen, P. P., van den Berg, A. E., de Vries, S., and Verheij, R. A.
(2006) ‘Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well-being, and
social safety’, BMC public health, 6, p.149.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., and Gärling, T.
(2003) ‘Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings’, Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 23, (2), pp.109–123.
Heerwagen, J. and Orians, G. (1993) ‘Humans, Habitats, and Aes-
thetics’, in Kellert, S. and Wilson, E. (eds.),The Biophilia Hypothesis.
Washington: Island Press.
Hippocrates (n/d) ‘On Airs, Waters, and Places’, Available from:
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.mb.txt, The Internet
Classics Archive: MIT.
HRSDC, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2013) In-
dicators of well-being in Canada, Available from:
http://www4.hrsdc.
gc.ca/h.4m.2@-eng.jsp. [December 2013].
Jacobs, J. (1961) ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’, New
York, 71, p 458.
Joye, Y., and van den Berg, A.(2013) ‘Restorative environments’, in
Steg, L., van den Berg, A., and De Groot, J. (eds. Environmental Psy-
chology. An Introduction. UK: BPS Blackwell.
Kaplan, R. (2001) ‘The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological
Benefits’, Environment and Behavior, 33, (4), pp.507–542.
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989) The experience of nature: A psycho-
logical perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelelrt, S. (2008) ‘The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature’, in
Kellert, S., and Wilson, E.O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Wash-
ington DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S., Heerwagen, J., and Mador, M. (2008) Biophilic Design.
The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Kellert, S., and Wilson, E.O. (eds.) (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Kopec, D. (2006) Environmental Psychology for Design. New York:
Fairchild Publications
Korpela, K. M., Ylén, M., Tyrväinen, L., and Silvennoinen, H. (2008)
‘Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places’,
Health & place, 14, (4), pp.636–52.
Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Macdonald, E. (2011) ‘Streets and the Public Realm: Emerging De-
signs’, in T. Banerjee and A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.), Companion to
Urban Design. New York: Routledge, pp.419–431.
Madanipour, A. (ed.) (2010) Whose public space? International case
studies in urban design and development. London and New York:
Routledge.
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., and Dolliver, K.
(2009) ‘Why Is Nature Beneficial?: The Role of Connectedness to Na-
ture’, Environment and Behavior, 41, (5), pp.607–643.
McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remak-
ing the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.

544 DESIGN & EMOTION 2014 | SOCIAL INNOVATION | COLOMBIA
NWIA, National Wellness Institute of Australia (2011) Definitions of
Wellbeing, Quality of life and Wellness, Available from:
http://nwia.
idwellness.org/2011/02/28/definitions-of-wellbeing-quality-of-life-
and-wellness/
. [Dec. 2013].
OECD (2013) OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being.
European Union: OECD Publishing.
Suggessted publication: OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring
SubjectiveWell-being, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en
Papanek, V. (1984) Design for the Real World. Human Ecology and
Social Change. 2nd ed., Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers.
Register, R. (2010) Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Na-
ture. Canada: New Society Publishers.
Roe, J., and Aspinall, P. (2011) ‘The restorative benefits of walking in
urban and rural settings in adults with good and poor mental health’,
Health & place, 17, (1), pp.103–13.
Soulé, M. (1993) ‘Biophilia: Unanswered Questions’, in Kellert, S.,
and Wilson, E.O. (eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington DC:
Island Press.
Steg, L., Van Den Berg, A., and De Groot, J. I. M. (eds.) (2007) Envi-
ronmental Psychology. An Introduction. UK: BPS Blackwell.
Sullivan, W., and Chang, C. (2011) ‘Mental Health and the Built Envi-
ronment’, in Dannenberg, A. L., Frumkin, H., and Jackson, R. (2011),
Making Healthy Places. Designing and Building for Health, Well-be-
ing, and Sustainability. Washington: Island Press.
UN Habitat (2013a) Report: Urban Planning for City Leaders. Kenya:
Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2013b) Report: The relevance of street patterns and pub-
lic space in urban areas. Working paper.
United Nations (1987) Our Common Future. Report of the World Com-
mission on Environment and Development. Oslo.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984) ‘View through a window may influence recovery
from surgery’, Science (New York, N.Y.), 224, pp.420–421.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986) ‘Human responses to vegetation and landscapes’,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, pp.29–44.
Ulrich, R. S. (1993) ‘Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes’, in
Kellert, S., and Wilson, E.O. (eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Wash-
ington DC: Island Press.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. a., and
Zelson, M. (1991) ‘Stress recovery during exposure to natural and
urban environments’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, (3),
pp.201–230.
Ulrich, R. S. (2008), ‘Biophilic Theory and Research for Healthcare
Design’, in Kellert et al. (eds.), Biophilic Design. The Theory, Sci-
ence, and Practice of Bringin Buildings to Life. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, E. O. (1984) Biophillia: The human bond with other species.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1993) ‘Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic’, in Kellert,
S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington:
Island Press.
Wilson, E. O. (2008) ‘The Nature of Human Nature’, in Kellert, S.,
and Wilson, E.O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington DC:
Island Press.
White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., and De-
pledge, M. (2010), ‘Blue space: The importance of water for prefer-
ence, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scene’,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, (4), pp.482–493.
http://de2014.uniandes.edu.co | October, 2014. ISBN 978-958-774-070-7. pp. 535-544