Biophilic design can reduce stress, enhance creativity and clarity of thought, improve our well-being and expedite healing; as the world population continues to urbanize, these qualities are ever more important. Theorists, research scientists, and design practitioners have been working for decades to define aspects of nature that most impact our satisfaction with the built environment.

“14 Patterns of Biophilic Design” articulates the relationships between nature, human biology and the design of the built environment so that we may experience the human benefits of biophilia in our design applications. Looks at the evolution of biophilic design in architecture and planning and presents a framework for relating the human biological science and nature. Explores a sampling of factors (e.g., scale, climate, user demographics) that may influence biophilic design decisions to bring greater clarity to why some interventions are replicable and why others may not be. Lays out a series of tools for understanding design opportunities, including the roots of the science behind each pattern, then metrics, strategies and considerations for how to use each pattern. This paper moves from research on biophilic responses to design application as a way to effectively enhance health and well-being for individuals and society.

Abstract The thesis of this article is that multilevel interventions based on ecological models and targeting individuals, social environments, physical environments. Accurately modeling both the appearance and the behavior of dense urban spaces is a significant challenge. Research in computer graphics and in a number of applications in urban planning, emergency management, and visualization. A reader will be well versed in the key problems and current solution.

Table of Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. Acknowledgements This paper was supported by Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. We thank Alice Hartley for editorial assistance, Allison Bernett and Cas Smith for production assistance, the Review Committee and Contributors for their technical guidance and expertise, Georgy Olivieri for her relentless energy and dedication to spreading the word, Stefano Serafini and the International Society of Biourbanism for providing guidance and encouragement. Co-Authors William Browning, Hon. AIA, Terrapin Bright Green • Catherine Ryan, Terrapin Bright Green • Joseph Clancy, Pegasus Planning Group Ltd Review Committee Sally Augustin, PhD Design With Science; Research Design Connections • Judith Heerwagen, PhD J.H.

Heerwagen & Associates; University of Washington, Department of Architecture • Lance Hosey, FAIA RTKL Contributors Scott Andrews, Terrapin Bright Green • Gail Brager, PhD University of California at Berkeley, Center for the Built Environment • Zafir Buraei, PhD Pace University, Department of Biology and Health Sciences • Nancy Clanton, PE, FIES, IALD, Clanton & Associates, Inc. • Chris Garvin, AIA, Terrapin Bright Green • Namita Kallianpurkar, Terrapin Bright Green • Alan Laird Lewis, OD, The New England College of Optometry • Tanya Mejia, RTKL • Heather Nelson, RTKL • Susan Painter, PhD, FCPA AC, Martin • Nikos Salingaros, PhD, University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Mathematics • Chris Starkey, Terrapin Bright Green • Heidi Theunissen, COOKFOX Architects • Edward Vessel, PhD, New York University, Center for Brain Imaging • Jonce Walker, CSBA, Terrapin Bright Green.

Introduction “In every walk with nature one receives far more than one seeks.” - John Muir, 19 July 1877 Biophilic design can reduce stress, improve cognitive function and creativity, improve our well-being and expedite healing; as the world population continues to urbanize, these qualities are ever more important. Given how quickly an experience of nature can elicit a restorative response, and the fact that U.S. Businesses squander billions of dollars each year on lost productivity due to stress-related illnesses, design that reconnects us with nature – biophilic design – is essential for providing people opportunities to live and work in healthy places and spaces with less stress and greater overall health and well-being. Biophilia is the humankind’s innate biological connection with nature.

It helps explain why crackling fires and crashing waves captivate us; why a garden view can enhance our creativity; why shadows and heights instill fascination and fear; and why animal companionship and strolling through a park have restorative, healing effects. Biophilia may also help explain why some urban parks and buildings are preferred over others.

For decades, research scientists and design practitioners have been working to define aspects of nature that most impact our satisfaction with the built environment. But how do we move from research to application in a manner that effectively enhances health and well-being, and how should efficacy be judged? Building upon “The Economics of Biophilia” (), the intent of this paper is to articulate the relationships between nature, science, and the built environment so that we may experience the human benefits of biophilia in our design applications. The paper presents a framework for biophilic design that is reflective of the nature-health relationships most important in the built environment – those that are known to enhance our lives through a connection with nature. Image courtesy of COOKFOX Architects. New research supports measureable, positive impacts of biophilic design on health, strengthening the empirical evidence for the human-nature connection and raising its priority level within both design research and design practice; however, little guidance for implementation exists. This paper is intended to help close the gap between current research and implementation.

The intended audiences of this publication are interior designers, architects, landscape architects, urban designers, planners, health professionals, employers and developers, as well as anyone wanting to better understand the patterns of biophilia. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design • Nature in the Space Patterns • 1.

Visual Connection with Nature • 2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature • 3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli • 4.

Thermal & Airflow Variability • 5. Presence of Water • 6. Dynamic & Diffuse Light • 7.

Connection with Natural Systems • Natural Analogues Patterns • 8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns • 9. Material Connection with Nature • 10. Complexity & Order • Nature of the Space Patterns • 11. Prospect • 12.

Mystery • 14. Risk/Peril This paper puts biophilic design in context with architectural history, health sciences and current architectural practices, and briefly touches on key implementation considerations, then presents biophilic design patterns. The patterns have been developed through extensive interdisciplinary research and are supported by empirical evidence and the work of Christopher Alexander, Judith Heerwagen, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, Stephen Kellert, Roger Ulrich, and many others. Over 500 publications on biophilic responses have been mined to uncover patterns useful to designers of the built environment.

These 14 patterns have a wide range of applications for both interior and exterior environments, and are meant to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for project-appropriate implementation: Finally, this paper discusses these patterns in a general sense for the purpose of addressing universal issues of human health and well-being (e.g., stress, visual acuity, hormone balance, creativity) within the built environment, rather than program-based or sector-specific space types (e.g., health care facility waiting rooms, elementary school classrooms, or storefront pedestrian promenades). As such, the focus is on patterns in nature known, suggested or theorized to mitigate common stressors or enhance desirable qualities that can be applied across various sectors and scales. We hope this paper presents the foundation necessary for thinking more critically about the human connection with nature and how biophilic design patterns can be used as a tool for improving health and well-being in the built environment.

Image © Eric Hunt/Flickr. A Louis Comfort Tiffany Lamp with flower pattern design. The translation of biophilia as a hypothesis into design of the built environment was the topic of a 2004 conference and subsequent book on biophilic design () in which Stephen Kellert identified more than 70 different mechanisms for engendering a biophilic experience, and contributing authors William Browning and Jenifer Seal-Cramer outlined three classifications of user experience: Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space. The last decade has seen a steady growth in work around and the intersections of neuroscience and architecture, both in research and in practice; even green building standards have begun to incorporate biophilia, predominantly for its contribution to indoor environmental quality and connection to place. Popular texts, such as Last Child in the Woods (), Healing Spaces (), The Shape of Green (), Your Brain on Nature (), and “” (), are bringing the conversation mainstream, helping the public grapple with modern society’s dependency on technology and persistent disconnect with nature.

Most recently, biophilic design is being championed as a complementary strategy for addressing workplace stress, student performance, patient recovery, community cohesiveness and other familiar challenges to health and overall well-being. 2.2 Defining Nature Views of what constitutes natural, nature, wild, or beautiful greatly vary. While we have no intention of formalizing an explicit definition, some articulation of what we mean by ‘nature’ will help give context to practitioners of biophilic design. Simply put, there are two extreme connotations of nature.

One is that nature is only that which can be classified as a living organism unaffected by anthropogenic impacts on the environment – a narrow perspective of nature (reminiscent of conventional hands-off environmental preservation) that ultimately no longer exists because nearly everything on Earth has been and will continue to be impacted at least indirectly by humans. Additionally, this idea of nature essentially excludes everything from the sun and moon, your pet fish Nemo, home gardens and urban parks, to humans and the billions of living organisms that make up the biome of the human gut. Alternatively, it could be argued that everything, including all that humans design and make, is natural and a part of nature because they are each extensions of our phenotype.

This perspective inevitably includes everything from paperback books and plastic chairs, to chlorinated swimming pools and asphalt roadways. As a middle ground, for the purpose of understanding the context of Biophilic Design, we are defining nature as living organisms and non-living components of an ecosystem – inclusive of everything from the sun and moon and seasonal arroyos, to managed forests and urban raingardens, to Nemo’s fishbowl habitat. For added clarity, we are making the distinction that, in the context of health and well-being in the built environment, most nature in modern society is designed, whether deliberately (for function or aesthetic), haphazardly (for navigability or access to resources) or passively (through neglect or hands-off preservation); thus, we refer back to humankind’s proclivity for savanna landscapes. Humans create savanna analogues all the time. As designed ecosystems, some, such as the high canopy forests with floral undergrowth maintained by the annual burning practices of the Ojibwe people of North America, are biodiverse, vibrant and ecologically healthy.

Others, such as suburban lawns and golf courses, are chemical dependent monocultures; while beautiful, they are not biodiverse, ecologically healthy or resilient. The key issue is that some designed environments are well-adapted (supporting long term life) and some are not. So while golf courses and suburban lawns may be a savanna analogue, in many cases they require intense inputs of water and fertilizer and thus are unfortunately unsustainable design practices. 2.3 Nature-Design Relationships Biophilic design can be organized into three categories – Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space – providing a framework for understanding and enabling thoughtful incorporation of a rich diversity of strategies into the built environment. Nature in the Space. Image © Valentina A/Flickr. Canopy trees and water features of the Vatican City gardens.

Nature in the Space addresses the direct, physical and ephemeral presence of nature in a space or place. This includes plant life, water and animals, as well as breezes, sounds, scents and other natural elements.

Common examples include potted plants, flowerbeds, bird feeders, butterfly gardens, water features, fountains, aquariums, courtyard gardens and green walls or vegetated roofs. The strongest Nature in the Space experiences are achieved through the creation of meaningful, direct connections with these natural elements, particularly through diversity, movement and multi-sensory interactions. Nature in the Space encompasses seven biophilic design patterns: • Visual Connection with Nature. A view to elements of nature, living systems and natural processes. • Non-Visual Connection with Nature. Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural processes.

• Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli. Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

• Thermal & Airflow Variability. Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments. • Presence of Water. A condition that enhances the experience of a place through seeing, hearing or touching water. • Dynamic & Diffuse Light. Leverages varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature. • Connection with Natural Systems.

Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem. Natural Analogues. Image © JayRaz/Flickr. Stepping stones at the Fort Worth Water Garden, Fort Worth, Texas. Nature of the Space addresses spatial configurations in nature. This includes our innate and learned desire to be able to see beyond our immediate surroundings, our fascination with the slightly dangerous or unknown; obscured views and revelatory moments; and sometimes even phobia-inducing properties when they include a trusted element of safety. The strongest Nature of the Space experiences are achieved through the creation of deliberate and engaging spatial configurations commingled with patterns of Nature in the Space and Natural Analogues.

Nature of the Space encompasses four biophilic design patterns: • Prospect. An unimpeded view over a distance, for surveillance and planning. A place for withdrawal from environmental conditions or the main flow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead.

The promise of more information, achieved through partially obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environment. • Risk/Peril. An identifiable threat coupled with a reliable safeguard. Periodically throughout this paper, these patterns will be referred to in shorthand by their number 1 to 14 for quick reference. For instance, Presence of Water will appear as [] and Prospect will appear as []. 2.4 Nature-Health Relationships. Stress & Well-being For an overview on “well-being” – definitions, metrics, research –.

For a background on meanings of stress, see “Mazes and Labyrinths” in Healing Spaces (). For a more extensive non-technical discussion on the science of nature’s influence on health, happiness and vitality, see Your Brain on Nature (). For a more technical introduction to the hormones and neurotransmitters that govern our mind-body systems, see Principles of Neural Science (). Much of the evidence for biophilia can be linked to research in one or more of three overarching mind-body systems – cognitive, psychological and physiological – that have been explored and verified to varying degrees, in laboratory or field studies, to help explain how people’s health and well-being are impacted by their environment. To familiarize the reader with these nature-health relationships, these mind-body systems are discussed here in the briefest sense, and are supported with a table of familiar hormones and neurotransmitters, environmental stressors, and biophilic design strategies.

Cognitive Functionality and Performance Cognitive functioning encompasses our mental agility and memory, and our ability to think, learn and output either logically or creatively. For instance, directed attention is required for many repetitive tasks, such as routine paperwork, reading and performing calculations or analysis, as well as for operating in highly stimulating environments, as when crossing busy streets.

Directed attention is energy intensive, and over time can result in mental fatigue and depleted cognitive resources (e.g.,; ). Strong or routine connections with nature can provide opportunities for mental restoration, during which time our higher cognitive functions can sometimes take a break. As a result, our capacity for performing focused tasks is greater than someone with fatigued cognitive resources. Psychological Health and Well-being Psychological responses encompass our adaptability, alertness, attention, concentration, and emotion and mood. This includes responses to nature that impact restoration and stress management.

For instance, empirical studies have reported that experiences of natural environments provide greater emotional restoration, with lower instances of tension, anxiety, anger, fatigue, confusion and total mood disturbance than urban environments with limited characteristics of nature (e.g.,;;; ). Psychological responses can be learned or hereditary, with past experiences, cultural constructs and social norms playing a significant role in the psychological response mechanism. Physiological Health and Well-being Physiological responses encompass our aural, musculoskeletal, respiratory, circadian systems and overall physical comfort. Physiological responses triggered by connections with nature include relaxation of muscles, as well as lowering of diastolic blood pressure and stress hormone (i.e., cortisol) levels in the blood stream (e.g., ). Short term stress that increases heart rate and stress hormone levels, such as from encountering an unknown but complex and information-rich space, or looking over a banister to 8 stories below, is suggested to be beneficial to regulating physiological health ().

The physiological system needs to be tested regularly, but only enough for the body to remain resilient and adaptive. Physiological responses to environmental stressors can be buffered through design, allowing for the restoration of bodily resources before system damage occurs ().

Biophilic Design Patterns & Biological Responses The table illustrates the functions of each of the 14 Patterns in supporting stress reduction, cognitive performance, emotion and mood enhancement and the human body. Patterns that are supported by more rigorous empirical data are marked with up to three asterisks (***), indicating that the quantity and quality of available peer-reviewed evidence is robust and the potential for impact is great, and no asterisk indicates that there is minimal research to support the biological relationship between health and design, but the anecdotal information is compelling and adequate for hypothesizing its potential impact and importance as a unique pattern. Design Considerations “There is rarely a solution that is universal. Rather, the ‘correct’ solution, in our view, is one that is locally appropriate and responsive to the situation at hand.” - Rachel Kaplan, Stephen Kaplan & Robert L.

Ryan, 1998 With People in Mind 3.1 What is Good Biophilic Design? Biophilic design is the designing for people as a biological organism, respecting the mind-body systems as indicators of health and well-being in the context of what is locally appropriate and responsive.

Good biophilic design draws from influential perspectives – health conditions, socio-cultural norms and expectations, past experiences, frequency and duration of the user experience, the many speeds at which it may be encountered, and user perception and processing of the experience – to create spaces that are inspirational, restorative, and healthy, as well as integrative with the functionality of the place and the (urban) ecosystem to which it is applied. Above all, biophilic design must nurture a love of place.

3.2 Planning for Implementation Increasingly dense urban environments, coupled with rising land values, elevate the importance of biophilic design across a spatial continuum from new and existing buildings, to parks and streetscapes and to campus, urban and regional planning. Each context supports a platform for myriad opportunities for integrative biophilic design, and mainstreaming healthy building practices for people and society. Discussed here in brief are some key perspectives that may help focus the planning and design processes. Identifying desired responses and outcomes It is vital for a designer to understand a project’s design intent – what are the health or performance priorities of the intended users? To identify design strategies and interventions that restore or enhance well-being, project teams should understand the health baseline or performance needs of the target population. One approach is to ask: what is the most biophilic space we can conceivably design?

Another is to ask: how can biophilic design improve performance metrics already used by the client (e.g., company executives, school board, city officials), such as absenteeism, perceived comfort, health care claims, asthma, ticket sales, or test scores. As many biological responses to design occur together (e.g., reducing physiological indicators of stress and improving overall mood), and there are countless combinations of design patterns and interventions, understanding health related priorities will help focus the design process. Health outcomes associated with biophilic spaces are of interest to building and portfolio managers and human resources administrators, because they inform long term design and measurement best practices, and to planners, policy makers and others because they inform public health policy and urban planning. Design strategies and interventions Biophilic design patterns are flexible and replicable strategies for enhancing the user experience that can be implemented under a range of circumstances.

Just as lighting design for a classroom will be different than for a spa or home library, biophilic design interventions are based on the needs of a specific population in a particular space, and are likely to be developed from a series of evidence-based biophilic design patterns, ideally with a degree of monitoring and evaluation for efficacy. For example, a project team may embrace the Visual Connection with Nature pattern to enhance the workplace experience for a series of interior fit-outs for a portfolio of offices.

The strategy would be to improve views and bring plants into the space; the interventions may include installing a green wall, orienting desks to maximize views to outdoors, and initiating an employee stipend for desk plants. The detail, location, and the extent to which each of these interventions is implemented will differ for each of the offices in the portfolio. A project team charged with reducing stress among emergency room nurses at the local hospital may intervene by replacing the abstract art with landscape paintings on the walls of the staffroom and installing a small garden and seating area in the adjacent interior courtyard.

While this project also uses the Visual Connection with Nature pattern, the selected interventions specifically target stress reduction for emergency room nurses based on a shared space they utilize routinely. Diversity of design strategies Patterns in combination tend to increase the likelihood of health benefits of a space. Incorporating a diverse range of design strategies can accommodate the needs of various user groups from differing cultures and demographics and create an environment that is psycho-physiologically and cognitively restorative.

For instance, vegetated spaces can improve an individual’s self-esteem and mood, while the presence of water can have a relaxing effect. Adding multiple biophilic strategies for the sake of diversity may backfire unless they are integrative and supporting a unified design intent. Quantity of intervention When planning for implementation, common questions recur, such as how much is enough and what makes a good design great.

A high quality intervention may be defined by the richness of content, user accessibility and, as mentioned above, diversity of strategies. A single high quality intervention can be more effective and have greater restorative potential than several low quality interventions. Climate, cost and other variables may influence or limit feasibility of certain interventions, but should not be considered an obstacle to achieving a high quality application. For example, multiple instances of Prospect with a shallow to moderate depth of field and limited information in the viewshed may not be as effective (at prompting the desired response) as a single powerful instance of Prospect with a moderate to high depth of field and an information-rich viewshed. Duration of exposure and frequency of access Identifying the most appropriate duration of exposure to a pattern, or combination of patterns, can be difficult. The ideal exposure time is likely dependent upon the user and desired effect, but as a general guideline, empirical evidence shows that positive emotions, mental restoration and other benefits can occur in as little as 5 to 20 minutes of immersion in nature (;; ). When a long duration of exposure is not possible or desired, positioning biophilic design interventions along paths that channel high levels of foot traffic will help improve frequency of access.

Consider too that micro-restorative experiences – brief sensory interactions with nature that promote a sense of well-being – while often designed in response to space-restriction, are more readily implementable, replicable and often more accessible than larger interventions; frequent exposure to these small interventions may contribute to a compounded restoration response. Questions abound on matters of duration of exposure and frequency of access: How persistent is mental restoration over different terms of exposure to nature? Do the improvements continue incrementally with more exposure, or do they plateau? What combinations of design patterns can help optimize a biophilic experience? We hope these questions and others will be explored as research continues on the intersections of neuroscience and design (). 3.3 Locally Appropriate Design. Biophobia & Ecophobia Biophobia is a fear of or aversion to nature or living things ((Ulrich, 1993).

Similarly, ecophobia refers to an unreasonable but deeply conditioned disgust for or reaction against natural forms or places. While biophobia is arguably genetic, to a degree, both phobias are learnt response mechanisms through direct experience, culture and education which, according to Salingaros and Masden (2008), includes architectural education. The most common biophobic responses are to spiders, snakes, predators, blood, and heights – elements that either directly threaten or signal danger through humanity’s evolutionary path.

When tempered with an element of safety (e.g., railing or glass window), however, the experience can be transformed into one of curiosity, exhilaration and even a type of mind-body systems recalibration. Current evolutionary hypotheses and theories state that contemporary landscape preferences are influenced by human evolution, reflecting the innate landscape qualities that enhanced survival for humanity through time. These schools of thought include the biophilia hypothesis ( and ), the savanna hypothesis (), the habitat theory and prospect-refuge theory (), and the preference matrix (). While empirical research has shown that there is a degree of universality to landscape preferences among humans, preferences have been modified by cultural influences, experiences and socio-economic factors (). Variations in landscape preferences have thus emerged among immigrants, ethnic groups, subcultures, genders, and age groups. Cultural constructs, social inertia and ecological literacy suffuse differing perspectives on what constitutes natural, nature, wild, or beautiful (; ).

Environmental Generational Amnesia and the Ecological Aesthetic Theory help explain how some perspectives may have evolved, and these differences come to bear across countries and regions, as well as among neighborhoods within the same city. And while ethnicity can play a role in influencing an individual's landscape preferences, cultures and groups across the world utilize landscapes and space in different ways (). Frequency of use, nature of use, participation rates and purpose of visit all vary drastically between nationalities, cultures and sub-groups.

These factors do not mean that certain ethnic groups have a lower appreciation for landscape or a less significant connection with nature. These groups simply utilize and interact with nature in ways that are compatible with their culture and needs. Identifying early on what those needs may be will help define parameters for appropriate design strategies and interventions. The Ecological Aesthetic Theory The ecological aesthetic theory proclaims that knowledge about the ecological functions of a landscape will increase preference ratings for that landscape. This theory depends on knowledge as a key driver of landscape preference (). As a cultural theory, it can somewhat explain the variations in landscape preferences between social classes.

For instance, college students are reported to have more favorable attitudes towards wilderness than secondary school students (). Preferences for more tamed landscapes, typical of heavily urbanized environments, by lower income groups, is contrasted by the preference for wilder landscapes by higher income groups; it can be deduced that education, more accessible to those with higher socioeconomic status, plays a key role in developing the ecological aesthetic (). Given that landscapes and people’s needs are in a constant state of flux, it is challenging to ensure the desired health response is always experienced.

It is impossible to predict all future human-nature interactions or to ensure that the desired response recurs over a period of time for every user based on a particular strategy or intervention. Indeed, we can assume that efficacy of many biophilic patterns are likely to rise and decline with diurnal and seasonal cycles. For instance, the health benefits of a view to nature may be diminished during winter months or completely negated for night shift workers when the view is shrouded in darkness. However, secondary or seasonal strategies can help maintain balance, such as with indoor interventions, delivering the desired response throughout the year. User controls for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and even noise can either complement design efforts, or negate them when controls are mismanaged or underutilized – keeping the window blinds closed eliminates a Visual Connection with Nature, and high partitions in an open plan office eliminates opportunities for Prospect and a number of other patterns ().

Behavior change is not often in the purview of the architect, so designing for controllability versus automation or permanency may inform the intervention design process. Maintenance of implemented strategies is also a consideration – will there be someone responsible for cleaning the fish tank and watering the plants?

Having trainings and discussions with facility operators and a reference guide indicating appropriate maintenance requirements and parameters will help uphold the intended biophilic experience set forth in the design strategy. Tracking and measuring efficacy. Image © chaotic float/Flickr. Reflecting pool at the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts by Tadao Ando, St. Monitoring efficacy of implemented biophilic design patterns for the express purpose of improving health and well-being is a new branch of inquiry. Variability in the built environment, as discussed here, creates a challenging framework for verification; quantitative metrics are often desired but not always appropriate, and the highly invasive nature of some measurement techniques and tools (i.e., fMRI, EEG) adds a layer of complexity and cost. Many of the current techniques used require strict control of variables and cost which tends to limit the size of the test group.

There are, however, several new technologies, like wristband monitors, and very light weight headband EEG that may open up new rapid methods of testing; but until those technologies go mainstream, rapid testing can also be done in more rudimentary fashion and with a smaller budget. As no two interventions will be exactly the same, all results will differ to one degree or another. Culture, climate, age, gender, landscape character, immigrant status, mental health, and genetic predispositions, for example, create a challenging labyrinth of data for comparison. Nevertheless, tracking and monitoring of human biological responses and outcomes triggered by a biophilic pattern is vital in the progress and further development of biophilic design as a best practice. The science of biophilia is a rapidly evolving field. There is an increasing interest in biophilia research in psychology, neuroscience and endocrinology and our understanding of these patterns will be refined and strengthened as new evidence is gathered.

It is entirely possible that additional patterns will emerge over time. The Patterns “Biophilia is not a single instinct but a complex of learning rules that can be teased apart and analyzed individually. The feelings molded by the learning rules fall along several emotional spectra: from attraction to aversion, from awe to indifference, from peacefulness to fear-driven anxiety.” - Edward O. Wilson, 1993 Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic, The Biophilia Hypothesis Pattern as Precedent In the two decades since Wilson published The Biophilia Hypothesis, the body of evidence supporting biophilia has expanded considerably. The biophilic design patterns in this paper have, in the words of Wilson, been “teased apart and analyzed individually” to reveal emotional affiliations Wilson spoke of, as well as other psychophysiological and cognitive relationships with the built environment. The descriptive term 'pattern' is being used for three reasons: • to propose a clear and standardized terminology for biophilic design; • to avoid confusion with multiple terms (metric, attribute, condition, characteristic, typology, etc.) that have been used to explain biophilia and biophilic design; and • to maximize accessibility across disciplines by upholding a familiar language.

The use of spatial patterns is inspired by the precedents of A Pattern Language (), Designing with People in Mind () and Patterns of Home (), as well as lectures and compilations on form, language and complexity (; ). Christopher Alexander brings clarity to this intent with his explanation that patterns '.describe a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.' Alexander’s work built on the tradition of pattern books used by designers and builders from the eighteenth century onward, but his work focused on the psychological benefits of patterns and included descriptions of the three dimensional spatial experience, rather than the aesthetic focus of previous pattern books. These fourteen Patterns of Biophilic Design focus on psychological, physiological and cognitive benefits. Working with Biophilic Patterns While informed by science, biophilic design patterns are not formulas; they are meant to inform, guide and assist in the design process and should be thought of as another tool in the designer’s toolkit.

The purpose of defining these patterns is to articulate connections between aspects of the built and natural environments and how people react to and benefit from them. After each pattern is defined, it is then discussed in terms of the following: • The Experience briefly considers how the pattern might impact the way a space feels; • Roots of the Pattern highlights key scientific evidence that relates human biology to nature and the built environment; • Working with the Pattern highlights design attributes, examples, and considerations; and • Relation to Other Patterns briefly notes opportunities for integrative biophilic design strategies. Tanner Springs by Atelier Dreisetl demonstrates at least one pattern from each of the three categories of biophilic design. Image © Fred Jala/Flickr. Just as combinations of culture, demographics, health baselines, and characteristics of the built environment can impact the experience of space differently, so too can each design pattern. A suitable solution results from understanding local conditions and one space’s relationship to another, and responding appropriately with a combination of design interventions to suit the unique needs of a space and its intended user group and programs.

Finally, each pattern has been assessed for overall potential impact and the strength of the research on which a pattern is built. Unless otherwise noted, all examples reported are based on data published in a peer-reviewed journal.

We acknowledge that some studies are more rigorous than others and that some patterns have a greater body of research to support findings of significance. To help communicate this variability, up to three asterisks are following each pattern name, whereby three asterisks (***) indicates that the quantity and quality of available peer-reviewed evidence is robust and the potential for impact is great, and no asterisk indicates that there is minimal research to support the biological relationship between health and design, but the anecdotal information is adequate for hypothesizing its potential impact and importance as a unique pattern.

The field of biophilic design is constantly evolving, and as Salingaros (2000) explains, new disciplines such as biophilic design must “abstract its patterns as they appear building its own foundation and logical skeleton, upon which future growth can be supported.” As new evidence comes to bear, it is entirely possible that some patterns will be championed over others and that new patterns will emerge. By establishing these 14 basic patterns, we hope to encourage the widespread scientific study, language development, and design implementation of Biophilia. Nature in the Space • A view to elements of nature, living systems and natural processes.

• Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural processes. • Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. • Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments. • A condition that enhances the experience of a place through the seeing, hearing or touching of water.

• Leveraging varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature. • Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem. Examples Naturally Occurring: • Natural flow of a body of water • Vegetation, including food bearing plants • Animals, insects • Fossils • Terrain, soil, earth Simulated or Constructed: • Mechanical flow of a body of water • Koi pond, aquarium • Green wall • Artwork depicting nature scenes • Video depicting nature scenes • Highly designed landscapes The Visual Connection with Nature pattern has evolved from research on visual preference and responses to views to nature showing reduced stress, more positive emotional functioning, and improved concentration and recovery rates. Stress recovery from visual connections with nature have reportedly been realized through lowered blood pressure and heart rate; reduced attentional fatigue, sadness, anger, and aggression; improved mental engagement/attentiveness, attitude and overall happiness. There is also evidence for stress reduction related to both experiencing real nature and seeing images of nature.

Visual access to biodiversity is reportedly more beneficial to our psychological health than access to land area (i.e., quantity of land). [] Visual preference research indicates that the preferred view is looking down a slope to a scene that includes copses of shade trees, flowering plants, calm non-threatening animals, indications of human habitation, and bodies of clean water (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992). This is often difficult to achieve in the built environment, particularly in already dense urban settings, though the psychological benefits of nature are suggested to increase with higher levels of biodiversity and not with an increase in natural vegetative area (Fuller et al., 2007). Positive impact on mood and self-esteem has also been shown to occur most significantly in the first five minutes of experiencing nature, such as through exercise within a green space (Barton & Pretty, 2010). Viewing nature for ten minutes prior to experiencing a mental stressor has shown to stimulate heart rate variability and parasympathetic activity (i.e., regulation of internal organs and glands that support digestion and other activities that occur when the body is at rest) (Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013), while viewing a forest scene for 20 minutes after a mental stressor has shown to return cerebral blood flow and brain activity to a relaxed state (Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005).

Parallax Autumn wine vineyard near Blenheim, New Zealand. Image © Daniel Pietzsch/Flickr. Parallax arises with a change in viewpoint occurring due to motion of the observer, of the observed, or of both.

The human brain exploits the parallax to gain depth perception and estimate distances to objects. Viewing scenes of nature stimulates a larger portion of the visual cortex than non-nature scenes, which triggers more pleasure receptors in our brain, leading to prolonged interest and faster stress recovery. For example, heart rate recovery from low-level stress, such as from working in an office environment, has shown to occur 1.6 times faster when the space has a glass window with a nature view, rather than a high-quality simulation (i.e., plasma video) of the same nature view, or no view at all (Kahn et al., 2008). Additionally, repeated viewing of real nature, unlike non-nature, does not significantly diminish the viewer’s level of interest over time (Biederman & Vessel, 2006). Working with the Pattern The objective of the Visual Connection with Nature pattern is to provide an environment that helps the individual shift focus to relax the eye muscles and temper cognitive fatigue.

The effect of an intervention will improve as the quality of a view and the amount of visible biodiversity each increases. A view to nature through a glass window provides a benefit over a digital screen (e.g., video/plasma tv) of the same view, particularly because there is no parallax shift for people as they move toward or around a video screen (Kahn et al., 2008). This may change as three-dimensional videography advances.

Nevertheless, simulated or constructed nature is measurably better at engendering stress reduction than having no visual connection at all. Design considerations for establishing a strong visual connection with nature.

Relation to other Patterns Visual Connection with Nature is often paired with a number of other patterns. Common overlaps with the most significant potential impact: • [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli • [] Presence of Water • [] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns • [] Prospect • Prioritize real nature over simulated nature; and simulated nature over no nature. • Prioritize biodiversity over acreage, area or quantity. Spss 19 Keygen Download. • Prioritize or enable exercise opportunities that are in proximity to green space. • Design to support a visual connection that can be experienced for at least 5-20 minutes per day. • Design spatial layouts and furnishings to uphold desired view lines and avoid impeding the visual access when in a seated position. • Visual connections to even small instances of nature can be restorative, and particularly relevant for temporary interventions, or spaces where real estate (floor/ground area, wall space) is limited.

• The benefits of viewing real nature may be attenuated by a digital medium, which may be of greatest value to spaces that, due to the nature of its function (e.g., hospital radiation units), cannot easily incorporate real nature or views to the outdoors. An example of a designed environment with an excellent Visual Connection with Nature is the birch tree and moss garden in the New York Times Building in New York City – a carved out space in the middle of the building by which everyone passes as they enter or leave the building. Adjacent to a restaurant and the main conference rooms, the birch garden is an oasis of calm in the hustle and bustle of Times Square.

The New York Times Building moss and birch garden, by Renzo Piano, acts as an oasis of calm. Image © Hubert J. Morske Orgulje (sea organ), Zadar, Croatia. Image © Bohringer Friedrich.

[P2] NON-VISUAL CONNECTION WITH NATURE * Non-Visual Connection with Nature is the auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural processes. The Experience A space with a good Non-Visual Connection with Nature feels fresh and well balanced; the ambient conditions are perceived as complex and variable but at the same time familiar and comfortable, whereby sounds, aromas, and textures are reminiscent of being outdoors in nature. Roots of the Pattern The Non-Visual Connection with Nature pattern has evolved from research on reductions in systolic blood pressure and stress hormones; impact of sound and vibration on cognitive performance; and perceived improvements in mental health and tranquility as a result of non-visual sensory interactions with non-threatening nature []. Each sensory system has a vast body of research to support it; here we provide just a taste. Image © Dax Fernstrom/Flickr. A fountain and gardens in the Calat Alhambra in Granada, Spain provide a non-visual experience of nature.

Gustatory: Tasting is yet another way of experiencing nature and learning about our environment. While adults are often curious or fearful of edible plants and herbs, consider the familiar habit of infants and toddlers putting found objects in their mouths – they are seeking information. Working with the Pattern The objective of the Non-Visual Connection with Nature pattern is to provide an environment that uses sound, scent, touch and possibly even taste to engage the individual in a manner that helps reduce stress and improve perceived physical and mental health. These senses can be experienced separately, although the experience is intensified and the health effect is compounded if multiple senses are consistently engaged together. Design considerations for establishing a strong non-visual connection with nature: • Prioritize nature sounds over urban sounds. • Design for non-visual connections that can be easily accessed from one or multiple locations, and in such a way that allows daily engagement for 5 to 20 minutes at a time. • Integrate non-visual connections with other aspects of the design program.

• A single intervention that can be experienced in multiple ways can enhance the impacts. • Design for visual and non-visual connections to be experienced simultaneously to maximize potential positive health responses. Relation to other Patterns As experiences can be enhanced when paired with more than one sense, the application of a second pattern could help identify the stimuli or other qualities of the stimuli. Common strategy overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli • [] Thermal & Airflow Variability • [] Material Connection with Nature • [] Presence of Water • and sometimes also: [] Mystery Calat Alhambra in Granada, Spain, is an exquisite example of the 14 Patterns.

While some patterns are more evident in some spaces than others, Non-Visual Connections with Nature are experienced throughout. The integration of water and natural ventilation with the architecture is central to the non-visual experience, supporting a seamless connection between indoor and outdoor spaces, and between the building and the surrounding natural landscape. Solar heat penetrates at distinct locations, the whispering gallery resonates sounds of nature and people, and gardens of rosemary, myrtles, and other fragrant plants surround the premises.

The extensive use of water fountains creates a microclimate – the space both sounds and feels cooler – while stone floors and handrails with water channels cool the feet and hands through conductance. Kinetic membrane of the Brisbane Domestic Terminal Airport Carpark by Ned Kahn.

Image © Daniel Clifford. [P3] NON-RHYTHMIC SENSORY STIMULI * * Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli are stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. The Experience A space with good Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli feels as if one is momentarily privy to something special, something fresh, interesting, stimulating and energizing.

It is a brief but welcome distraction. Roots of the Pattern. Relation to other Patterns Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli differs from [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature in that it is inclusive of all sensory systems and is most commonly experienced at a subconscious level through momentary exposure that is not typically sought out or anticipated; whereas Non-Visual Connection may be deliberate, planned, and over longer, more predictable durations of time. Common strategy overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Thermal & Airflow Variability • [] Presence of Water • [] Complexity & Order • [] Mystery When immersed in nature, we continually experience instances of non-rhythmic stimuli: birds chirping, leaves rustling, the faint scent of eucalyptus in the air. The built environment has evolved into a deliberately predictable realm. Even some highly manicured gardens and certainly interior vegetation lack the qualities needed to support non-rhythmic sensory stimuli. Design considerations for establishing accessible and effective non-rhythmic stimuli: • As a general guideline, non-rhythmic sensory experiences should occur approximately every 20 minutes for about 20 seconds and, for visual stimuli, from a distance of more than 20 feet away.

• Many stimuli in nature are seasonal, so a strategy that is effective year-round, such as with multiple interventions that overlap with seasons, will help ensure that non-rhythmic sensory experiences can occur at any given time of the year. • In some cases, the intervention may be similar to that of [] Visual or [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature; what’s important here is the ephemeral and stochastic quality of the intervention.

• An intervention that leverages simulation of (rather than naturally occurring) natural stimuli will likely necessitate early collaboration with the mechanical engineer or facilities team. • A non-rhythmic stimuli strategy can be interwoven with almost any landscape or horticulture plan. For instance, selecting plant species for window boxes that will attract bees, butterflies and other pollinators may be a more practical application for some projects than maintaining a honeybee apiary or butterfly sanctuary. • Humans perceive movement in the peripheral view much quicker than straight ahead. The brain also processes the movement of living things in a different place than it does of mechanical objects (Beauchamp et al., 2003), whereby natural movement is generally perceived as positive, and mechanical movement as neutral or even negative.

As a result, the repeating rhythmic motion of a pendulum will only hold one’s attention briefly, the constant repetitive ticking of a clock may come to be ignored over time, and an ever-present scent may lose its mystique with long-term exposure; whereas, the stochastic movement of a butterfly will capture one’s attention each time for recurring physiological benefits. The Dockside Green community on Vancouver Island, Victoria, BC Canada, is a great example of non-rhythmic stimuli. The implementation of habitat restoration and rainwater management has led to ephemeral experiences of swaying grasses, falling water and the buzz of passing insects and animals that are visible from walkways, porches, and windows around the community.

The Dockside Green Community on Vancouver Island by Busby Perkins+Will immerses people in natural non-rhythmic stimuli. Image © Ellen Moorhouse, Toronto Star. Examples Naturally Occurring: • Solar heat gain • Shadow and shade • Radiant surface materials • Space/place orientation • Vegetation with seasonal densification Simulated or Constructed: • HVAC delivery strategy • Systems controls • Window glazing and window treatment • Window operability and cross ventilation Working with the Pattern The objective of the Thermal & Airflow Variability pattern is to provide an environment that allows users to experience the sensory elements of airflow variability and thermal variability. The intent is also for the user to be able to control thermal conditions, either by using individual controls, or allowing occupants access to variable ambient conditions within a space. In contrast, conventional thermal design tries to achieve a narrow target area of temperature, humidity and airflow, while minimizing variability – the goal being to maintain conditions within the “ASHRAE comfort envelope”.

When the entire space meets this goal, laboratory-based predictive models assert that 80% of the occupants would be satisfied at any given time – traditionally an acceptable outcome industry-wide. An alternative approach is to provide combinations of ambient and surface temperatures, humidity and airflow, similar to those experienced outdoors, while also providing some form of personal control (e.g., manual, digital, or physical relocation) over those conditions.

Providing variable conductance materials, seating options with differing levels of solar heat gain (indoors and outdoors) or proximity to operable windows – as welcome as catching a cooling breeze on a sunny day or leaning one’s back on a warm rock on a cool day – could improve the overall satisfaction of a space. Image © Jui-Yong Sim/Flickr. The Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore by RMJM Architects uses fresh air and sunlight to increase thermal comfort. Since thermal comfort is inherently subjective, and strongly varies between people, it is important to give a degree of control to individuals, which can manifest architecturally (e.g., access to operable windows or shades) or mechanically (e.g., access to localized and energy-efficient fans or heaters, and thermostat controls). When an individual experiences thermal discomfort, he or she will likely take action to adapt (e.g., put on a sweater; move to a different seat; submit a complaint). Sometimes these adaptive actions are simply in response to dynamic changes in personal preference. In order to create an enhanced thermal experience, conditions do not have to reach the point of discomfort for these opportunities for changing the thermal conditions to create a positive experience (Brager, 2014).

Design considerations: • Incorporation of airflow and thermal conditions into materials, daylighting, mechanical ventilation and/or fenestration will help distribute variability over space and time. • Thermal comfort is a vital bridging component between biophilic design and sustainable design, especially in the face of climate change and rising energy costs. When Thermal & Airflow Variability is implemented in a way that broadens people’s perception of thermal comfort, it may also help reduce energy demands for air conditioning and heating.

• Designing in features that allow users to easily adapt and modify their perceived thermal conditions of their environment will increase the range of acceptable temperatures by two degrees Celsius above and below the conventional parameters for thermal comfort (Nicol & Humphreys, 2002). • Coordination of design strategies among a project team (e.g., architect, lighting designer and MEP engineers) as early as the schematic design process will be particularly important for achieving design intent. Examples Naturally Occurring: • River, stream, ocean, pond, wetland • Visual access to rainfall and flows • Seasonal arroyos Simulated or Constructed: • Water wall • Constructed water fall • Aquarium • Fountain • Constructed stream • Reflections of water (real or simulated) on another surface • Imagery with water in the composition A space with a good Presence of Water condition feels compelling and captivating. Fluidity, sound, lighting, proximity and accessibility each contribute to whether a space is stimulating, calming, or both.

Roots of the Pattern The Presence of Water pattern has evolved from research on visual preference for and positive emotional responses to environments containing water elements; reduced stress, increased feelings of tranquility, and lower heart rate and blood pressure from exposure to water features; improved concentration and memory restoration induced by complex, naturally fluctuating visual stimuli; and enhanced perception and psychological and physiological responsiveness when multiple senses are stimulated simultaneously. [] Visual preference research indicates that a preferred view contains bodies of clean (i.e., unpolluted) water (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993). Research has also shown that landscapes with water elicit a higher restorative response and generally have a greater preference among populations in comparison to landscapes without water.

Supporting evidence has suggested that natural scenes without water and urban scenes with water elements follow with primarily equal benefits (Jahncke et al., 2011; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008; White et al., 2010). Research on response to activities conducted in green spaces has shown that the presence of water prompts greater improvements in both self-esteem and mood than activities conducted in green environments without the presence of water (Barton & Pretty, 2010). Auditory access and perceived or potential tactile access to water also reportedly reduces stress (Alvarsson et al., 2010; Pheasant et al., 2010). Image © Tim Evanson/Flickr. The Robert and Arlene Kogod Courtyard in the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, D.C., by Foster + Partners and landscape designer Kathryn Gustafson of Seattle–based Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd. Has seamless water sheets running across the floor, reflecting weather and lighting conditions.

Working with the Pattern The objective of the Presence of Water pattern is to capitalize on the multi-sensory attributes of water to enhance the experience of a place in a manner that is soothing, prompts contemplation, enhances mood, and provides restoration from cognitive fatigue. Repeated experiences of water do not significantly diminish our level of interest over time (Biederman & Vessel, 2006), so one small water feature may be adequate. Taking advantage of the sounds created by small-scale running water, and our capacity to touch it, will amplify the desired health response with a multi-sensory experience. Vistas to large bodies of water or physical access to natural or designed water bodies can also have the health response so long as they are perceived as ‘clean’ or unpolluted. Images of nature that include aquatic elements are more likely to help reduce blood pressure and heart rate than similar imagery without aquatic elements. Design considerations for optimizing the impacts of a presence of water: • Prioritize a multi-sensory water experience to achieve the most beneficial outcome.

• Prioritize naturally fluctuating water movement over predictable movement or stagnancy. • High volume, high turbulence water features could create discomfort, impact humidity levels or decrease acoustic quality, so proximity may influence appropriateness. • Water features can be water and energy intensive and as such should be used sparingly, particularly in climates with little access to water. Shading the water, using high albedo surfaces, and minimizing the exposed water surface area will minimize water loss through evaporation, and possibly contribute to the biophilic experience.

Relation to other Patterns Commonly enhanced patterns: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature • [] Connection with Natural Systems • [] Prospect • [] Risk/Peril The Robert and Arlene Kogod Courtyard at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. Is a great example of Presence of Water with its physically expansive water feature doubling as an event space. The former outdoor space has been enclosed with an undulating canopy design by Foster + Partners, bearing resemblance to water or clouds. On several portions of the gently sloping floors are slits from which a sheet of water emerges, it flows across the textured stone and then disappears into a series of slots toward the center of the courtyard. Designed by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd., the thin sheet of water reflects light and weather conditions from above and invites passersby to touch.

During events the system is drained and seamlessly becomes part of the floor plane. The Yale Center for British Art in New Haven, CT, by Louis Kahn utilizes natural lighting to sofly illuminate art and create dramatic experiences. The human eye and the processing of light and images within the brain are adaptable over a broad range of conditions, although there are limitations. For example, when the lighting difference between adjoining sources or surfaces has a brightness or luminance ratio of greater than forty-to-one, glare may occur, which diminishes visual comfort (Clanton, 2014). For work areas, luminance ratios between task and immediate surroundings should not exceed 10 to one. So while dramatic lighting differences may be great for some religious, socialization and circulation spaces, they are not a good idea on work surfaces. Diffuse lighting on vertical and ceiling surfaces provides a calm backdrop to the visual scene.

Accent lighting and other layering of light sources creates interest and depth, while task or personalized lighting provides localized flexibility in intensity and direction. These layers help create a pleasing visual environment (Clanton, 2014).

Movement of light and shadows along a surface can attract our attention. For example, the dappled light under the canopy of an aspen tree, or the reflections of rippling water on a wall. These patterns tend to be fractals, and the brain is attuned to moving fractals (see [] Complexity & Order). Just as variations in lighted surfaces are important for interpreting surfaces, conducting a variety of tasks, and safe navigation, circadian lighting is important for supporting biological health.

Leveraging opportunities for illuminance fluctuation, light distribution and light color variability that stimulate the human eye without causing discomfort will improve the quality of the user experience. Design considerations for establishing a balance between dynamic and diffused lighting conditions. Bruce Silver Bpmn Method And Style Pdf Download on this page. Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli • [] Thermal & Airflow Variability • [] Mystery • and sometimes also: [] Presence of Water • [] Connection with Natural Systems • [] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns • Dynamic lighting conditions can help transition between indoor and outdoor spaces. • Drastically dynamic lighting conditions, such as with sustained movement, changing colors, direct sunlight penetration and high contrasts, may not be appropriate for spaces where directed attention activities are performed. • Circadian lighting will be especially important in spaces the people occupy for extended periods of time. A prime example of a Dynamic & Diffuse Light condition is at the Yale Center for British Art, designed by Louis Kahn. Despite the building’s stark exterior, the diversity of interior spaces and differing orientations of windows, clerestories, skylights and a large central atrium allows for light to penetrate at variable levels of diffusion to create an enhanced visitor experience, while upholding indoor environmental conditions necessary for displaying fine art.

Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli • [] Presence of Water • and sometimes also: [] Thermal & Airflow Variability • [] Dynamic & Diffuse Light • [] Mystery Outside the New York penthouse office of COOKFOX Architects, sits a 3,000 square foot extensive green roof that changes color and vibrancy from season to season. Witnessing a hawk killing a small bird shifted employee perception of their green roof as an ecosystem and not just a decorative garden. This perception was reinforced when employees noticed changes in bee colony behavior during times of extreme heat and humidity, when the honeybee apiary was invaded by robber bees, and again when the summer honey harvest looked and tasted different than the autumn harvest. Image © Eloise Moorhead. The organic and curvaceous stairs, mosaics, railings, light fixtures, window details and other decorative elements of the Hotel Tassel in Brussels, by Victor Horta are a classic example of Biomorphic Forms & Patterns.

Humans have been decorating living spaces with representations of nature since time immemorial, and architects have long created spaces using elements inspired by trees, bones, wings and seashells. Many classic building ornaments are derived from natural forms, and countless fabric patterns are based on leaves, flowers, and animal skins. Contemporary architecture and design have introduced more organic building forms with softer edges or even biomimetic qualities. There are essentially two approaches to applying Biomorphic Forms & Patterns, as either a cosmetic decorative component of a larger design, or as integral to the structural or functional design. Both approaches can be utilized in tandem to enhance the biophilic experience. Design considerations that may help create a quality biomorphic condition: • Apply on 2 or 3 planes or dimensions (e.g., floor plane and wall; furniture windows and soffits) for greater diversity and frequency of exposure.

• Avoid the overuse of forms and patterns that may lead to visual toxicity. • More comprehensive interventions will be more cost effective when they are introduced early in the design process. Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Complexity & Order The Art Nouveau Hotel Tassel in Brussels (Victor Horta, architect, 1893) is a favorite example of Biomorphic Forms & Patterns. The interior space in particular is rife with natural analogues, with graphic vine-like tendrils painted on the wall and designed into the banisters and railings, floor mosaics, window details, furniture, and columns. The curvaceous tiered steps seem to make distant reference to shells or flower petals. Bamboo pavilion by WOHA architects. Image courtesy of WOHA Architects.

[P9] MATERIAL CONNECTION WITH NATURE A Material Connection with Nature is material and elements from nature that, through minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or geology to create a distinct sense of place. The Experience A space with a good Material Connection with Nature feels rich, warm and authentic, and sometimes stimulating to the touch. Roots of the Pattern While scientific documentation on the health impact of natural materials is limited, available research is beginning to shed light on opportunities for informed design. As such, the Material Connection with Nature pattern has evolved from a limited body of scientific research on physiological responses to variable quantities of natural materials, and the impact of natural color palette, particularly the color green, has on cognitive performance. Image © Bilyana Dimitrova.

Leather clad elevator lobby of the Bank of America Tower in New York by CookFox Architects visually warms the space. The objective of the Material Connection with Nature pattern is to explore the characteristics and quantities of natural materials optimal for engendering positive cognitive or physiological responses. In some cases, there may be several layers of information in materials that enhance the connection, such as learned knowledge about the material, familiar textures, or nested fractals that occur within a stone or wood grain pattern. Natural materials can be decorative or functional, and are typically processed or extensively altered (e.g., wood plank, granite countertop) from their original ‘natural’ state, and while they may be extracted from nature, they are only analogous of the items in their ‘natural’ state. Design considerations that may help create a quality material connection: • Quantities of a (natural) material and color should be specified based on intended function of the space (e.g., to restore versus stimulate). In the same vein, a degree of variability of materials and applications is recommended over high ratios of any one material or color.

• Real materials are preferred over synthetic variations because human receptors can tell the difference between real and synthetic, so minimally processed materials from real nature are preferred whenever possible. • Incorporating instances of the color green may help enhance creative environments; however, scientific studies on the impact of the color green have mostly been conducted in controlled lab environments, so dependence on color to engender creativity should be considered experimental. Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature • [] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns • [] Complexity & Order The lobby of the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park in New York (COOKFOX Architects, 2009) is a good example of a diverse application of Material Connections with Nature. One enters the glass skyscraper by grasping a thin wooden door handle. The interior lobby walls are clad with Jerusalem Stone – the tiles with the highest fossil content were intentionally placed at the corner where they would be most encountered and even touched by passersby. Leather paneling in the elevator lobby is warm in color, providing a sense of calm for people as they wait for their ride, and soft to the touch, from which the patina has begun to show.

Summer Palace, Beijing, China. Image courtesy of Bill Browning. [P10] COMPLEXITY & ORDER * * Complexity & Order is rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature. The Experience A space with good Complexity & Order feels engaging and information-rich, as an intriguing balance between boring and overwhelming.

Roots of the Pattern The Complexity & Order pattern has evolved from research on fractal geometries and preferred views; the perceptual and physiological responses to the complexity of fractals in nature, art and architecture; and the predictability of the occurrence of design flows and patterns in nature. [] Research has repeatedly confirmed correlations between fractal geometries in nature and those in art and architecture (e.g., Joye, 2007; Taylor, 2006), but there are opposing opinions about which fractal dimension is optimal for engendering a positive health response, whether an optimal ratio exists, or if such a ratio is even important to identify as a design metric or guideline. Nikos Salingaros (2012) has examined a series of these perspectives with great clarity, noting that the range of preferred fractal dimensions is potentially quite broad (D=1.3-1.8) depending on the application. Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature • [] Biomorphic Forms & Patterns • [] Material Connection with Nature Tucked in between buildings of downtown Toronto, Ontario, is the Allen Lambert Galleria and Atrium at Brookfield Place. The cathedral-like in structure designed by Santiago Calatrava (1992) is information rich, yet protecting, with its orderly columns that rise up into a canopy of complex tree-like forms, showers diffuse light and shadow onto the courtyard, and keeps visitors awestruck and engaged.

Examples Decor: • Focal lengths ≥ 20 feet (6 meters) • Partition heights ≤ 42 inches (hedges; opaque workplace partitions) Form / Function: • Transparent materials • Balconies, catwalks, staircase landings • Open floor plans • Elevated planes • Views including shade trees, bodies of water or evidence of human habitation Distant prospect (>100 feet, >30 meters) is preferred over shorter focal lengths (. Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, CO. Image © Terry Feuerborn/Flickr. [P12] REFUGE * * * Refuge is a place for withdrawal, from environmental conditions or the main flow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead. The Experience A space with a good Refuge condition feels safe, providing a sense of retreat and withdrawal – for work, protection, rest or healing – whether alone or in small groups. A good refuge space feels separate or unique from its surrounding environment; its spatial characteristics can feel contemplative, embracing and protective, without unnecessarily disengaging.

Roots of the Pattern The Refuge pattern has evolved from research on visual preference research and spatial habitat responses, and its relationship to [] Prospect conditions. Refuge conditions are important for restoration experiences and stress reduction, which can be realized through lowered blood pressure and heart rate. Other benefits of Refuge are suggested to include reduced irritation, fatigue and perceived vulnerability, as well as improved concentration, attention and perception of safety (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; Wang & Taylor, 2006; Petherick, 2000; Ulrich et al., 1993). Jay Appleton’s writing (1975, 1996) is focused on theory and is a good overall reference for both Prospect and Refuge, whereas Grant Hildebrand (1991) has written the most intelligently about Prospect and Refuge in the built environment and is a good reference for applications. In Grant Hildebrand’s words, “The edge of a wood is one of the most prevalent of natural prospect-refuge conjunctions” for it provides protection from weather and predators, but allows for outward surveillance. Nonetheless, the health response to Refuge is reportedly stronger than the response to Prospect, and the compounded response is enhanced when the two spatial conditions converge (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). Image © Reggie Wan/Flickr.

Protected seating alcoves along the Henderson Bridge, Singapore provide a sense of refuge. Refuge spaces take many forms, so understanding the context and defining the intended user experience will certainly influence design decisions. There are endless combinations of design elements that can create a quality refuge space that offers shade or protection from natural or man-made environmental conditions. Design considerations: • Indoor refuge spaces are usually characterized by lowered ceiling conditions.

For spaces with standard ceiling heights, this may equate to approximately 18-24 inches below the main ceiling, and is often achieved through treatments like a soffit, a drop-ceiling or acoustical paneling, or suspended fabric. • For outdoor or indoor spaces with particularly high ceilings (>14 feet), a more drastic differential may be necessary to achieve the desired outcome; freestanding or vegetative alcoves and mezzanine-like structures are often effective. • When designing for larger populations or multiple activity types, providing more than one kind of refuge space can address varying needs, which can often be met through differing spatial dimensions, lighting conditions, and degree of concealment.

• Light levels in refuge spaces should differ from adjacent spaces and user lighting controls will broaden functionality as a refuge space. Relation to other Patterns Complementary patterns: • [] Thermal & Airflow Variability • [] Dynamic & Diffuse Light • [] Prospect • [] Mystery Sitting with one's back against the trunk of a big shade tree is a classic refuge space, as is high backed booth seating in a restaurant, a reading nook in a library or school, a covered bus stop, or a wraparound porch. Treehouses are a timeless example of Refuge; and Cliff Palace in Mesa Verde, Colorado (constructed pre-A.D.1200s) is one of the best historic examples. While the settlement provides a feeling of containment and protection from the arid climate and potential predators or enemies, the refuge experience is enhanced with characteristics of Prospect through its elevated position and views over the canyon. Lan Su Chinese Garden, Portland, OR. Image courtesy of Catie Ryan. [P13] MYSTERY * * Mystery is the promise of more information achieved through partially obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environment.

The Experience A space with a good Mystery condition has a palpable sense of anticipation, or of being teased, offering the senses a kind of denial and reward that compels one to further investigate the space. Roots of the Pattern The Mystery pattern is largely based on the idea that people have two basic needs in environments: to understand and to explore (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and that these ‘basic needs’ should occur “from one’s current position” in order to engender a sense of mystery (Herzog and Bryce, 2007). The Mystery pattern has evolved from research on visual preference and perceived danger, as well as pleasure responses to anticipatory situations. Mystery engenders a strong pleasure response within the brain that may be a similar mechanism to that of anticipation, which is hypothesized to be an explanation for why listening to music is so pleasurable – in that we are guessing what may be around the corner. [] The benefits of mystery conditions are suggested to include improved preference for a space; heightened curiosity; increased interest in gaining more information and greater likelihood of encountering other biophilic conditions. A quality mystery condition does not engender a fear response; the conditions that differentiate between surprise (i.e., fear) and pleasure center around the visual depth of field.

An obscured view with a shallow depth of field has shown to lead to unpleasant surprises, whereas greater visual access, with a medium (≥20 ft) to high (≥100 ft) depth of field is preferred (Herzog and Bryce, 2007). A good mystery condition could also be expressed through the obscuring of the boundaries and a portion of the focal subject (i.e., room, building, outdoor space, or other information source), thereby enticing the user to anticipate the full extent of the subject and explore the space further (Ikemi, 2005). Working with the Pattern. Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Visual Connection with Nature • [] Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli • [] Dynamic & Diffuse Light • and sometimes also: [] Connection with Natural Systems • [] Complexity & Order • [] Prospect • [] Refuge This process of denial and reward, obscure and reveal is evident in Japanese garden design and various mazes and labyrinths throughout the world.

The gardens at Katsura Imperial Villa, in Kyoto, Japan, make strong use of Mystery to draw visitors through the space and instill a sense of fascination. The strategic placement of buildings within the garden allows them to be hidden and slowly revealed at various points along the garden path, encouraging the user to explore further. Prospect Park, in Brooklyn, New York, is an excellent example of Mystery. In classic Olmsted style, many views throughout the park are obscured through the use of topography and vegetation. Key focal points in the landscape are revealed from stationary prospect points within the park. The focal points within the park (trees, buildings, lake and meadows) give the space a degree of legibility, but obscured views entice occupants to explore the space further, in order to understand it, which cannot be achieved in a single visit. Obscured views in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York, by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux create a sense of mystery and enticement.

Image © Ed Yourdon/Flickr. Image © Kate Dollarhyde/Flickr. The Levitated Mass at Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Michael Heizer, artist.

Relation to other Patterns Common overlaps: • [] Visual Connection with Nature • [] Presence of Water • [] Prospect • Risk/Peril design interventions are usually quite deliberate and as such will not be appropriate for all user groups or places. • Design strategies that rely on spatial conditions will be easier to implement when incorporated as early as concept design and schematic phases of the design process. • The element of safety must protect the user from harm while still permitting the experience of risk.

At Frank Lloyd Wright’s home, Taliesin, in Spring Green, Wisconsin, The Birdwalk is a thrilling narrow balcony that cantilevers out over the hillside. The Levitated Mass at Los Angeles County Museum of Art is an enormous boulder that spans over a pedestrian ramp, and under which visitors pass. The balancing act is seems improbable, but the bracing provides some reassurance of safety, and visitors flock en masse to be photographed below the rock. Lower-level risk, like getting one’s feet wet, may be a more appropriate strategy for some settings. A great example would the stepping stone path through the water feature designed by Herbert Dreiseitl at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, Germany. Final Thoughts “A new discipline needs to abstract its patterns as they appear. It is building its own foundation and logical skeleton, upon which future growth can be supported.

Knowing its basic patterns early on will speed up the language’s development, and guide it in the right direction.” - Nikos A. Salingaros, 2000 “The Structure of Pattern Languages” The science supporting biophilic design is still emerging. In many ways, it could be argued that the research is really just corroborating the rediscovery of the intuitively obvious. Unfortunately, too much of our modern design is oblivious to this profound knowledge.

Deep down, we know that the connection to nature is important. When asking people to think about their favorite places for vacation, the majority will describe some place outdoors; we use the term ‘recreation’ and forget that recreation is about recreating, restoring ourselves. So while empirical evidence is accumulating, we ought to go about restoring the human-nature connection in the built environment.

Just to remind ourselves why biophilic design is so important, consider that in the 12,000 years since humans began farming and other activities that transformed the natural landscape (Smithsonian, 2014), only in the last 250 years have modern cities become common. Within the last few years we became urban dwellers, with more people living in cities than in the countryside. In coming decades, it is projected that 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities. With this shift, the need for our designs to (re)connect people to an experience of nature becomes ever more important.

Biophilic design is not a luxury, it’s a necessity for our health and well-being. We hope '14 Patterns of Biophilic Design' helps shed light both on the importance of the human connection with nature that are supported by biophilic design. We encourage people to challenge convention by bringing biophilic design patterns into a vision for healthy homes, workplaces and cities.

Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright, Bear Run, PA. Image © Brandon Sargent/Flickr.

Stress recovery from visual connections with nature have reportedly been realized through lowered blood pressure and heart rate (Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013; van den Berg, Hartig, & Staats, 2007; Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005); reduced attentional fatigue, sadness, anger, and aggression; improved mental engagement/attentiveness (Biederman & Vessel, 2006), attitude and overall happiness (Barton & Pretty, 2010). There is also evidence for stress reduction related to both experiencing real nature and seeing images of nature (e.g., Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; Leather et al., 1998; Bloomer, 2008; Kahn, Friedman, Gill et al., 2008; Hartig et al., 2003), that natural environments are generally preferred over built environments (e.g., van den Berg, Koole & van der Wulp, 2003; Hartig, 1993; R.

Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Knopf, 1987; Ulrich, 1983). Visual access to biodiversity is reportedly more beneficial to our psychological health than access to land area (i.e., quantity of land) (Fuller, Irvine, Devine-Wright et al., 2007). Early research showed that productivity is higher in well daylighted work places, and sales are higher in daylit stores (e.g., Browning & Romm, 1994), and that children performed better in daylighted classrooms with views (e.g., Heschong Mahone, 2003; 1999) – the research focus was on lighting strategy and task performance and less on human biology. Recent research has focused more heavily on illuminance fluctuation and visual comfort (Elyezadi, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2007), human factors and perception of light (e.g., Leslie & Conway, 2007; Nicklas & Bailey, 1996), and impacts of lighting on the circadian system functioning (e.g., Kandal et al., 2013; Figueiro, Brons, Plitnick, et al., 2011; Beckett & Roden, 2009). The Prospect pattern is derived from visual preference research and spatial habitat responses, as well as cultural anthropology, evolutionary psychology (e.g., Heerwagen & Orians, 1993) and architectural analysis (e.g., Dosen & Ostwald, 2013; Hildebrand, 1991; Appleton, 1996). Health benefits are suggested to include reduced stress (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010); reduced boredom, irritation, fatigue, (Clearwater & Coss, 1991), and perceived vulnerability (Petherick, 2000; Wang & Taylor, 2006); as well as improved comfort (Herzog & Bryce, 2007).

The characteristics of the Mystery pattern are derived from visual preference and perceived danger (Herzog & Bryce, 2007; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004; Nasar, & Fisher, 1993), and supported by research on pleasure responses to anticipatory situations (Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher et al., 2011; Ikemi, 2005; Blood & Zatorre, 2001). Mystery engenders a strong pleasure response within the brain that may be a similar mechanism to that of anticipation (Biederman, 2011), which is hypothesized to be an explanation for why listening to music is so pleasurable – in that we are guessing what may be around the corner (Blood & Zatorre, 2001; Salimpoor et al., 2011).

'I am very happy to provide this feedback, words are way too less to explain the impeccable experience I just had. Despite the inhumanly hour that I had called - everything was just simply fantastic, be it the tone, the pitch, the empathy, the niceties, trust me - everything was just way too good to be put down and broken down into words. The arrangements were very good.

The airport pick-up, drop, hotel transfers and city tour were excellently planned and managed very professionally by Mr. PAL and for this I will give 10 out of 10. If given an opportunity, I would personally like to thank Manish, Pal, Chitra and Agustin for the assistance. My trip was made on a fabulous note, just hope the good will carries on.!!!.'