Student Guide 2—How to Develop a Biophilic Design Framework

Abstract

A biophilic design (BD) framework is a crucial component for using BD principles within an environmentally sustainable design (ESD) approach. One key challenge in developing a BD framework compatible with an ESD approach is the lack of systematic techniques with clear instructions to generate the criteria. To address this need, the process-bridging technique—a systematic method for developing biophilic criteria—is outlined in this chapter. The proposed system uses natural processes to bridge between biophilic and building performance criteria. The five elements—earth, air, water, energy and habitat—proposed in previous chapter are used to categorise the criteria. The process-bridging technique supports you in systematically generating biophilic criteria compatible with ESD approach We illustrate how a place criteria for BD and a performance criteria for ESD are generated using current BD and ESD frameworks respectively. These biophilic criteria can be used as a basis to develop and elaborate strategies for the architectural concept, geometrical model and building components and systems to be employed in the design. These, in turn, can then be integrated into your ESD framework, which we have termed as the ‘success matrix’. There are two ways to integrate: (i) you can include them as a specific category in the matrix, hence your BD framework will become a sub-section of the overarching ESD framework, or (ii) they become the leading design targets in the matrix. We will give you some examples of each. Either way, you can synthesise the generated biophilic criteria, design strategies and building components into a self-assessment tool.

4.1 Introduction

This guide outlines a systematic method for developing a BD framework that you can use to enhance your biophilic response within an ESD project. To describe the development process, we use a number of specialised terms that we summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Definition of process-bridging technique terms

Figure 4.1 shows the structure of a typical BD framework. It is based on our pilot of BD framework development (Wijesooriya et al., 2021) and an extensive literature review of academic and industry references (Wijesooriya et al., 2022).

Fig. 4.1

Structure of a typical biophilic design framework

As illustrated in Fig. 4.1, categories are at highest level. Under each category is a list of biophilic criteria. Each criterion can be further detailed in terms of design strategies, which can each be achieved in the building through building components. Elaborating the biophilic criteria with design strategies and building components is an optional activity that improves the applicability of the BD framework. By investigating this structure and analysing current frameworks, we can identify the stages involved in developing a BD framework:

• Stage I: deriving categories (Sects. 4.2 and 4.3)

• Stage II: generating biophilic criteria compatible with the ESD approach (Sects. 4.2 and 4.3)

• Stage III: identifying design strategies (Sect. 4.4)

• Stage IV: proposing building components (Sect. 4.4)

• Stage V: integrating the biophilic criteria, design strategies and building components into the success matrix (Sect. 4.5)

• Stage VI: synthesising the BD framework into a self-assessment tool (Sect. 4.5).

The most challenging of these stages is generating biophilic criteria that are compatible with the ESD approach. We propose the Process Bridging Technique (PBT) for this purpose, which is more specifically detailed in Sect. 4.2. We have included an example of BD framework analysis (Wijesooriya et al., 2022) in Sect. 4.3, which may assist you understanding the process and generate your own framework.

We used the term ‘success matrix’ to identify the design framework in a studio setting. These generated biophilic criteria, design strategies and building components alone will not guide your design; instead, you need to integrate them into your success matrix. Instructions on how to integrate the BD criteria into your success matrix and further synthesise the framework as a self-assessment tool are given in Sect. 4.6.

Once the BD framework has been developed, it is necessary to validate its compatibility with the ESD approach. This step can be undertaken following the methodology used by Xue et al. (2019), presented in Sect. 4.5.

4.2 Stage 2–4: Process-Bridging Technique

The use of natural processes in building performance and ESD approaches is becoming increasingly popular. Identifying natural elements that support the sensory experience while contributing towards building performance is a strategic bridging point between ESD and BD. The PBT presented in this chapter is based on this concept. The PBT we outline here to generate the BD criteria comprises a few steps, as shown in Fig. 4.2.

Fig. 4.2

Process-bridging technique steps

As illustrated in Fig. 4.2, PBT requires additional steps expanding on the previously identified stage II:

• Stage I: deriving categories

• Stage II: generating biophilic criteria compatible with the ESD approach

  • II(a) develop the place criteria and performance criteria

  • II(b) develop a natural process inventory (NPI), meant as a list of natural processes that can be used for achieving building performance

  • II(c) bridge between the place and performance criteria lists using the items from the NPI and develop the biophilic criteria.

• Stage III: identifying design strategies

• Stage IV: proposing building components

PBT has several stages, and, depending on the need and the scope of the project, this may differ. The figure provides the technique for development in between the steps and how these techniques are identified by analysing the exiting BD frameworks is reported in Sect. 4.2.1, while Sect. 4.3 provides a step-by-step guide to apply the PBT.

4.2.1 Techniques Used in the Stages of Biophilic Design Framework Development

To develop a systematic method for deriving BD frameworks it is important to refer to previous examples and applications. In literature, there are only a limited amount of BD frameworks that can be used at building level. All of them are outlined in following Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Currently available biophilic design frameworks

If we analyse each of these BD frameworks, we can notice that there are several common stages of BD. These stages include deriving categories, generating criteria, identifying design strategies, proposing building components and outlining implementation steps. Not all BD frameworks include all these stages, as these frameworks vary in terms on their aims, targets and expected outputs. However, it is possible to define four techniques common to BD frameworks at each stage: (1) literature synthesis, (2) framework synthesis, (3) interdisciplinary ideation and (4) expert knowledge. These are useful techniques that you may want to explore to develop your own framework.

Literature synthesis refers to the review of current literature to develop themes for a particular stage. Similarly, framework synthesis uses existing design frameworks to develop themes. When the development of the themes is a communal effort of a professional interdisciplinary team, it is refer to as interdisciplinary ideation, while, if the development is based on the internal expertise of the development team, it is referred to as expert knowledge. Table 4.3 summarises the use of each technique at different stages across the seven BD frameworks analysed.

Table 4.3 Use of techniques for developing themes at different stages in biophilic design frameworks

We further summarised Table 4.2 to understand which techniques are more commonly used at each stage for each of the framework (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Summary of techniques used during framework development stages

According to Table 4.2, literature synthesis is the basis of most of the frameworks, except from the guide by ILFI (2018), which uses interdisciplinary ideation. Table 4.4 reveals that literature synthesis and framework synthesis are more predominant during the development process. Expert knowledge, although not a technique per se, can contribute when the framework is novel by building on the existing expert knowledge base. Table 4.5 summarises which of these techniques we used to construct the BD framework presented in this book.

Table 4.5 Techniques used for the development of biophilic design framework at different stages

4.3 Step-By-Step Use of the Process-Bridging Technique

This section presents a step-by-step guide to PBT. We start by deriving categories that can be applied to both an ESD and BD approach (Stage I). We use the nature-centric sustainability manifesto developed in Chap. 3, which defines the built and nature as comprising five elements: earth, air, energy, water and habitat. The following are the definitions given in Chap. 3 under ‘Biophilic Thought’ (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Categories and definition of biophilic thought

These five elements are used as the main categories for both place and performance criteria lists. For each category, place criteria and performance criteria are required to bridge them and to derive a biophilic criteria. An NPI is developed to associate place criteria with performance criteria.

4.3.1 Developing the Place Criteria

In developing the place criteria (Stage II(a)), we suggest you use the framework synthesis and to take inspirations form the existing BD frameworks already in use. These frameworks are primarily qualitative, and, in many instances, some criteria found in them will fall into multiple categories. For example, consider three frameworks: Kellert (2008), Kellert and Calabrese (2015) and Browning et al. (2014). For clarity, we use only one category, earth. If you refer to these frameworks and you select the criteria used for earth, you will generate a list that contains the criteria presented in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Place criteria for earth

This list is referred to as place criteria because, it is generated using BD frameworks focused on sensory attributes that contributes towards a sensory place experience within a building. The list is divided into 3 sections: natural material selection, place-making with earth resources and composition of material variability. Each section has themes for earth related place criteria.

4.3.2 Developing the Performance Criteria

Similar to place criteria list, it is recommended to use the framework synthesis technique for deriving the performance criteria. In this case, you can refer to common GBRTs that you might already be familiar with. In our example, we used four rating schemes detailed in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 Details of selected green building rating tools

Remembering that we are considering the category earth, the GBRTs are analysed to identify those criteria that can be related to our focus. In LEED, ‘materials and resources’ provide most of the criteria for earth, but some are extracted from the ‘indoor air quality’ and ‘regional priority’ categories. In BREEAM, ‘materials’ provides the majority of criteria, with a few from ‘waste’ category. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully go through the whole framework in selecting criteria items for each category.

Table 4.9 shows the list of earth criteria generated synthesising above four GBRTs. In this case, the list is called performance criteria because all criteria are generally quantifiable and commonly found in evidence-based design approaches.

Table 4.9 Performance criteria list for earth

The performance criteria is directly associated with the materiality of the building and will not require design strategies to understand its implications. Again, with the long list, the criteria are categorised under three headings: material selection, impact management and waste management.

4.3.3 Deriving the Natural Process Inventory

Once the place and performance criteria lists have been derived, an NPI can be used to bridge the two. You can derive the NPI by selecting natural processes of preference from the literature. Unique biophilic criteria can be generated depending on the items included into the NPI. This step requires expertise in principles of building science, passive design and approaches for bioclimatic design. Your teacher will provide you with the references and resources necessary for this.¹ Table 4.10 shows an example of NPI derived using research on natural processes.

Table 4.10 Natural process inventory for earth-related processes

The list in Table 4.10 contains items associated with earth either in place and/or performance. For example, ‘sand filters for water purification’ has visible elements of sand that would mean it falls under earth in the place criteria, whereas its performance of enhancing water quality means it is in the water category. The associations between the two types of criteria under place and performance using NPI items depends on the user’s interpretation, with an opportunity to individualise the final biophilic criteria list. This is further discussed in the next section.

4.3.4 Bridging to Derive Criteria List Items

With two criteria lists and the NPI compiled, bridging these list items generates the biophilic criteria list. Bridging is a unique step introduced in the PBT that also supports individualisation of your biophilic criteria list, depending on what items are included in the NPI and how the biophilic criteria items are written. Your expertise and personal preferences will shape which natural processes are selected and how they are associated with place and performance criteria. While writing the biophilic criteria descriptions, the proposed design strategies and elements allow for another level of individualisation that can reflect your architectural style and gusto.

Bridging can be done in three ways: (1) place pathway, (2) performance pathway and (3) process pathway. ‘Process’ is a shorter term used in this context to refer to NPI items. As the terms indicate, each path is identified based on where the bridging starts and its direction for association with other criteria items. Each pathway is shown below with examples using the generated lists.

4.3.4.1 Place Pathway

Place pathway bridging starts from place criteria. It is then associated with process, which is in turn is associated with performance (Fig. 4.3).

Fig. 4.3

Place pathway

In this pathway, place criteria can be associated with multiple processes, as they contain abstract concepts that focus on the sensory experience in the built environment. Since the NPI items are specifically written for natural processes that contribute to building performance, the association with performance will give at least one link. This one link can lead to multiple performance items (Fig. 4.4) since one natural process can be used to achieve many building performances. Figure 4.4 demonstrates one example of a typical place pathway bridging.

Fig. 4.4

Place pathway bridging for ‘fractals in natural materials’

As illustrated in Fig. 4.4 ‘fractals in natural materials’, from the place criteria list, is associated with ‘earth walls for enhanced thermal performance’, ‘clay as a thermal insulation’, ‘timber as a material for carbon offset’ and ‘timber as a rapidly renewable material’ within the NPI. To associate this further with performance criteria, ‘clay as a thermal insulation’, as an example, can be associated with ‘low-emitting materials’ and ‘building life-cycle impact reduction’ from the performance criteria list for earth. Earth category mainly focuses on materials and the knowledge around the shift towards circular use of resources emphasised in concepts such as cradle-to-cradle, circular economy, circular construction processes are crucial. In this example use of clay support the cradle-to-cradle approach where clay is biodegradable material that can be disposed back to nature with no environmental consequences.

However, the direct implication of ‘enhanced thermal performance’ can be assumed to be in such a list derived for energy. This is quite a common phenomenon when the place pathway is used.

The biophilic criteria item for ‘enhanced thermal performance’ can, as an example, be written as ‘use of natural materials in fractals for enhanced thermal performance’. By using the generic term ‘natural materials’ rather than the more specific term ‘clay’ in the criteria, there is more opportunity during design stages to respond with multiple design strategies.

The place pathway is recommended when place-making aspects are in focus and the design is required to improve upon its building performance without compromising on the BD considerations.

4.3.4.2 Performance Pathway

The performance pathway starts the association from an item within the performance criteria list. With some performance items including management aspects, it is difficult to associate with any natural processes. Due to this, there can be some items in the performance list without a link to a natural process. This can result in a performance criterion not contributing to the overall BD approach in the design. The potential associations are illustrated in Fig. 4.5.

Fig. 4.5

Performance pathway

This pathway can result in one of three potential associations: a performance can be linked to both process and place, process only or have no links at all. An example is given in Fig. 4.6 to demonstrate this.

Fig. 4.6

Performance pathway bridging for ‘long-term emission control’

The performance item ‘long-term emission control’ is associated with ‘flora for air purification’ and ‘flora for air quality enhancement’. When attempting to associate these to place criteria, numerous items can be linked due to their abstract level. It takes disciplinary expertise to determine what aspects should be covered by a particular NPI item and what should be included in the biophilic criteria list. In this example, ‘information richness’, ‘age, change and patina of time’ and ‘growth and efflorescence’ are selected from the place criteria list to associate with ‘flora for air purification’.

The biophilic criteria items are written as ‘use of flora contributing to information richness (or ‘age, change and patina of time’ or ‘growth and efflorescence’) for long-term emission control’.

This pathway is useful when the design is focused on building performance and there is a need to improve its BD response.

4.3.4.3 Process Pathway

The process pathway starts at the NPI by selecting a natural process and then associating it with both performance and place, as shown in Fig. 4.7.

Fig. 4.7

Process pathway

This pathway usually results in one of two types of associations: links to both place and performance, or with a link only to performance. ‘Solar electricity’ from the NPI is one example of the latter, as there is no visible natural element to associate with the place criteria list. A pathway is shown in Fig. 4.8 using the generated lists for earth.

Fig. 4.8

Process pathway bridging for ‘Timber as a renewable material’

In this example the process item ‘timber as a rapidly renewable material’ is selected, and the item description itself indicates a performance item within earth: ‘rapidly renewable materials’. Associating the process item with place criteria is not as direct, since the use of timber in place can link with multiple items; however, we have selected ‘information richness’, ‘growth and efflorescence’ and ‘fractals in natural material’. All of these qualities can be achieved by using timber as a material.

Hence, biophilic criteria can be written as ‘use of natural rapidly renewable materials contributing to information richness’, ‘use of natural rapidly renewable materials contributing to growth and efflorescence’ and ‘use of natural rapidly renewable materials depicting fractals’. Again, this shows that writing biophilic criteria can vary according to user knowledge, with immense opportunity for original interpretations.

4.3.5 Design Strategies and Building Components

This is an additional step that is used to derive a more elaborated BD framework. A good example of associating with design strategies (referred to as ‘design considerations’ in the BD framework) and proposing design elements is given in the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (Browning et al., 2014). Figure 4.9 shows this step for ‘use of flora contributing to information richness for long-term emission control’.

Fig. 4.9

Design strategies and building components for ‘use of flora contributing to information richness for long-term emission control’

It is worth differentiating between design strategy and building component at this point. As shown in this example, a design strategy is an overall idea for achieving a certain criterion, whereas a building component is an actual feature included in the building. In this example, ‘interior landscaping features with multiple plant types’ is a broader-level design strategy, while ‘vertical green wall’ and ‘constructed wetland’ are two building components used to achieve this. Sometimes, one building component can be used to satisfy multiple design strategies. Similarly, one design strategy can guide several building components, as shown in Fig. 4.9.

Expert knowledge, literature synthesis and interdisciplinary ideation can be used for this step. To use literature synthesis, you can review the current literature, to find design strategies and building components for each criterion. Alternatively, you may draw upon your expertise to do this task. If you are working in a group, you can each assume the different roles of stakeholders involved in the design and then generate ideas for design strategies and building components from different disciplinary viewpoints. By doing this, you are using interdisciplinary ideation. This is an opportunity to explore role-play to support your interdisciplinary learning.

4.4 Synthesising a Biophilic Design Framework

We use the term ‘BD framework’ to identify a guiding framework that includes a biophilic criteria list, design strategies and building components that can be easily used for your ESD project. This is similar to an industry GBRT. This section outlines how the generated themes for the biophilic criteria list, design strategies and building components can be developed into a BD framework. You can also develop a BD framework with only biophilic criteria, since the two other themes are follow up stages of the PBT (Fig. 4.2).

Your generated themes can be integrated into the success matrix as a separate category; this category will then become your BD framework. Alternatively, you can use the BD framework itself as the success matrix. We highly recommend that you use the latter option, since, building performance is already considered in writing biophilic criteria and is compatible with ESD criteria. You can further synthesise the BD framework into a self-assessment tool regardless of your integration option. Both options are discussed below.

4.4.1 Use of BD Themes Within the Success Matrix

With this option, your generated themes are integrated into the success matrix as a separate category of a criteria. This is very much similar to current ESD practice, where, in GBRTs, you would find either a separate category for BD or credits that can be achieved through other existing criteria. For example, the Living Building Challenge has BD as one of its 20 imperatives (Fig. 4.10). In LEED, there is a separate credit for BD that can be achieved through other categories.

Fig. 4.10

Living building challenge’s 20 imperatives. Source Adapted from International Living Future Institute (2018)

If you are to include your generated BD criteria list into your success matrix, you can also use either one of these methods. Figure 4.11 shows a sample success matrix that uses BD as a separate category.

Fig. 4.11

Biophilic design framework as separate category

In this example, the success matrix has five categories: site management, energy, air quality, water efficiency, materials and resources and biophilic quality. The BD framework only consists of biophilic criteria without design strategies and building components.

4.4.2 Use a Biophilic Design Framework as the Success Matrix

With this option, you can use the generated themes developed as a BD framework as your success matrix. This is similar to using a current BD framework, such as the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, to guide your design (see Appendix B). The example given in Table 4.11 illustrates how a BD framework is used as a success matrix with the earth category. The total BD framework with five categories of earth, air, water, energy and habitat is given in Appendix C.

Table 4.11 Biophilic design framework used as a success matrix

As shown in Table 4.11, categories used for PBT are repeated with biophilic criteria, with elaboration up to design strategies. During the place and performance criteria development, all the ESD criteria are mapped against the same categories. Therefore, it is sensible to use the same categorisation used in generating biophilic criteria for the success matrix.

4.4.3 Developing the Biophilic Design Framework into a Self-Assessment Tool

This step is highly recommended: it will allow you to learn to judge the quality of your work and which is a necessary skill for using BD within an ESD approach. By synthesising your BD framework into a self-assessment tool, your success matrix will automatically become part of this tool. Whether you have BD criteria within the success matrix, or it is used as the success matrix itself, the method to be used to synthesise a self-assessment tool is similar.

The use of a design framework as a self-assessment tool is seen consistently in industry GBRTs. If you carefully investigate LEED, every category has certain criteria with assigned credit values. GBRTs generally provide design strategies and indicators to achieve these credits. Using a similar structure, you can convert your success matrix into a tool that can be used to assess the achievement of your sustainable design. You will need to assign credits to each criterion within the categories, which may result in differing weightings for each category. Figure 4.12 shows three key GBRTs and their weightings for each category.

Fig. 4.12

Weightings across categories among green building rating tools. Note LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; BREAAM = Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method

Assigning credits and providing weightings for each category depends on your perception of sustainability. At this point, you can refer to your sustainability manifesto to decide which categories should have higher weightings.

The way you have integrated the biophilic criteria list will also lead to one of two different outcomes. If you used the BD criteria as a separate category, you could attain a building with higher biophilic quality only if you provide a higher weighting for the BD category. If you are using a BD framework as the success matrix, your design outcome will have a higher biophilic quality. In the second option, how you assign weightings for each category may determine the focus of your BD response. Say, for example, you give more weight to water-related categories—your design may become focused on achieving BD principles using water as an element. Table 4.12 shows a BD framework that is developed to be used as a self-assessment tool with differing weightings across the categories.

Table 4.12 Biophilic design framework developed as a self-assessment tool

4.5 Validating the Biophilic Design Framework

An important step in the process is the validation of the developed BD framework in terms of its compatibility with ESD criteria. For this step, you can use the method proposed by Xue et al. (2019). This method is simple, and it provides clarity by visualising the results. The key objective of the validation is to assess the success of the developed biophilic criteria in achieving the building performance anticipated by the selected GBRT. Each criterion in the GBRT has a credit-awarding points assigned to it. By using a design strategy within the building design, the credit point will be awarded to the criteria. Hence, the method is simply to find how many credits can be achieved in a certain criterion by using the design strategies in response to the developed biophilic criteria.

As an example, select LEED as the GBRT and provide all the performance criteria items from LEED and which are categorised into earth (Table 4.13). The credits assigned to the LEED items are shown in the second column, ‘LEED credits’. Once the biophilic criteria are derived, an evaluation is performed to ascertain how much credits can be gained by using this biophilic criteria, and the credit value is given under the third column, ‘biophilic criteria potential credits’.

Table 4.13 Comparison of LEED credits and potential achievement through biophilic criteria

After the credits are assigned, a radial diagram is generated to compare and visualise the achievement (Fig. 4.13).

Fig. 4.13

LEED credits achievement through Biophilic criteria. Note LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

The radial diagram in Fig. 4.13 illustrates how generated biophilic criteria can be used to achieve the credits in LEED credit-awarding systems. Further conclusions can be drawn by totalling the credits from LEED and finding what percentage can be achieved using the biophilic criteria—in this example, the result is 75%. The same validation and analysis can be repeated for each GBRT using this process. When multiple GBRTs are used, the analysis can also indicate which GBRT is more supportive towards developing a BD framework for enhanced human–nature connectedness.

4.6 Concluding Remarks

This chapter provided a methodology for developing a BD framework. The strategic step in this is generating the biophilic criteria using PBT. We showed how to develop a place criteria list, a performance criteria list and the NPI required for this technique. You will need a sustainability manifesto to generate these lists so that you have the same categories in the place, performance and process lists.

You need to integrate the criteria into your success matrix, a design framework used in sustainable design studio. We showed how to synthesise the biophilic criteria as a BD framework, with additional instructions for using it as a self-assessment tool. You can also use the validation method if you are working with a standard GBRT. You may have to refer to Student Guide 1 (how to develop sustainability manifesto) to start with the PBT, and Student Guide 3 (how to model your BD thinking process) to understand how the BD framework is used in your design thinking process.