Theoretical Modeling of Effective Components on Biophilic Design of Spaces between Residential Complexes
محورهای موضوعی : Architecture
faeze yazdanirostam
1
,
Zahra Sadat Saeideh Zarabadi
2
,
Farah Habib
3
1 - 1. Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - 2. Associate Professor, Department of Urban Development, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Professor, Department of Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
کلید واژه: Intervening space, Biophilic residential complexes, Biophilic design, Structural-Interpretive Modeling.,
چکیده مقاله :
The construction of biophilic residential complexes is one of the new approaches to increasing the nature of the residents of residential complexes whose benefits will lead to better people's life. In recent years, in the field of architecture, biophilic residential architecture has been paid special attention and tries to consider the link between architecture and nature further. This study aims to investigate the theoretical modeling of the components affecting the biophilic design of the intervening spaces of residential complexes and the design of the relationships of these factors. The research method is descriptive-analytical in terms of applied results. A qualitative research approach was used through systematic review and purposive sampling to identify the studied components. In the section on interpretive structural modeling, expert academic opinions in architecture and Urbanism have been used through the Delphi method. Data collection tools are interviews and a two-way questionnaire, and a face validity criterion was used to assess the validity of the questionnaire. The relationships between the components affecting the biophilic design of the spaces between residential complexes have been determined using a new analytical methodology called interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and analyzed seamlessly. The findings showed that the relationship with natural systems with nine penetration power is the most effective and the strongest motivator of the biophilic design of the spaces between residential complexes and acts as the underlying stone of the model. Also, the order and complexity component with the penetration power of 4 has the least effect.
The construction of biophilic residential complexes is one of the new approaches to increasing the nature of the residents of residential complexes whose benefits will lead to better people's life. In recent years, in the field of architecture, biophilic residential architecture has been paid special attention and tries to consider the link between architecture and nature further. This study aims to investigate the theoretical modeling of the components affecting the biophilic design of the intervening spaces of residential complexes and the design of the relationships of these factors. The research method is descriptive-analytical in terms of applied results. A qualitative research approach was used through systematic review and purposive sampling to identify the studied components. In the section on interpretive structural modeling, expert academic opinions in architecture and Urbanism have been used through the Delphi method. Data collection tools are interviews and a two-way questionnaire, and a face validity criterion was used to assess the validity of the questionnaire. The relationships between the components affecting the biophilic design of the spaces between residential complexes have been determined using a new analytical methodology called interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and analyzed seamlessly. The findings showed that the relationship with natural systems with nine penetration power is the most effective and the strongest motivator of the biophilic design of the spaces between residential complexes and acts as the underlying stone of the model. Also, the order and complexity component with the penetration power of 4 has the least effect.
Abazari, T., Potvin, A., Demers, C. M., & Gosselin, L. (2022). A biophilic well-being framework for positive indoor-outdoor connections in energy-efficient Arctic buildings. Building and Environment, 226, 109773.
Abdelaal, M. S., & Soebarto, V. (2019). Biophilia and Salutogenesis as restorative design approaches in healthcare architecture.
Afrogh, E. (1998), space and social inequality, providing a model for spatial selective segregation and its consequences, Tehran: ¬¬Agah publication.
Akbari, M., Taherpour, F., Boostan Ahmadi, V., Fouladi, A. (2020). Structural-Interpretive Modeling of Factors Affecting the Development of Religious Tourism in Iran with Future Studies Approach. Tourism and Development, 9(4), 296-285.
Ali Akbari, E., Akbari M. (2017), Interpretive structural modeling of factors affecting the viability of Tehran metropolis. Journal of Space Planning and Planning, 21(1), 1-31.
Amat, R. C., Ismail, S., Wahab, M. H., Ahmad, N. H., & Rani, W. N. M. W. M. (2020). A Dimension of Biophilia in Urban Design. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 409, No. 1, p. 012016). IOP Publishing.
Azar, A., Khosravani, F. & Jalali, R. (2013). Soft Operation Research Problem Structured Approaches. First edition, Industrial Management Organization.
Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: integrating nature into urban design and planning. Island Press.
Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning & design. Island Press.
Bentley, I., McGlynn, S., Smith, G., Alcock, A., & Murrain, P. (2003). Responsive environments. Routledge.
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249-259.
Brielmann, A. A., Buras, N. H., Salingaros, N. A., & Taylor, R. P. (2022). What Happens in Your Brain When You Walk Down the Street? Implications of Architectural Proportions, Biophilia, and Fractal Geometry for Urban Science. Urban Science, 6(1), 3.
Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). Patterns of biophilic design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC, 3-4.
Buffon, G. L. L., & Daubenton, L. J. M. (1766). Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, avec la description du Cabinet du Roi (Vol. 1). Chez JH Schneider.
Cackowski, J. M., & Nasar, J. L. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation: Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and behavior, 35(6), 736-751.
Čákyová, K., Vertaľ, M., Vargová, A., & Vranayová, Z. (2023). The Concept of Green Industrial Zones. International Scientific Conference EcoComfort and Current Issues of Civil Engineering,
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1), 129-138.
Day, C. (2017). Places of the soul: Architecture and environmental design as a healing art. Routledge.
DE, N. C. G. T. (2017). Ecosystem Services in the City—Protecting Health and Enhancing Quality of Life. Summary for Deci-Sion-Makers.
Fromm, E. (1964). Creators and destroyers. The Saturday Review, New York (4.1. 1964).
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings (Vol. 23). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Giusti, M. (2019). Human-nature relationships in context. Experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions that shape children's desire to protect nature. PloS one, 14(12), e0225951.
Groenewegen, P. P., Van den Berg, A. E., De Vries, S., & Verheij, R. A. (2006). Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC public health, 6(1), 1-9.
Gür, M., & Kaprol, T. (2022). The Participation of Biophilic Design in the Design of the Post-Pandemic Living Space. In Emerging Approaches in Design and New Connections With Nature (pp. 75-106). IGI Global.
Hady, S. I. M. A. (2021). Activating biophilic design patterns as a sustainable landscape approach. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 68(1), 1-16.
Harel, K. L. (2022). Darwin's Love of Life: A Singular Case of Biophilia. Columbia University Press.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T.) 2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109-123.
Heerwagen, J. (2008). Biophilia and design. Handout for Portland lectures.
Heerwagen, J., & Hase, B. (2001). Building biophilia: Connecting people to nature in building design. Environmental Design and Construction, 3, 30-36.
Hildebrand, G. (2008). Biophilic architectural space. Biophilic design: the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Holtan, M. T., Dieterlen, S. L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). Social life under cover: tree canopy and social capital in Baltimore, Maryland. Environment and behavior, 47(5), 502-525.
Howard, E. (1946). Garden cities of tomorrow. Faber London.
Jacobs, D. (2011). Death and life of large American cities. Russ. ed.: Dzhekobs D.(2011)Smert'izhizn'bol'shikh Amerikanskikh Gorodov. Moscow: Novoe Publ.
Jafari Mehrabadi, M., Akbari, M., Ataei, F., Razeghi Chamazkati, F. (2017). Interpretive Structural Modeling of Factors Affecting the Development of Food Tourism (Case Study: Rasht). Human settlements planning studies, 12(3), 681-698.
Kellert, S. R. (2008). Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design. Biophilic design: the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life, 3-19.
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis.
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (2008). Biophilia. Human Ecology, 2008, 462-466.
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M . (2010) Biophilic design: the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
Kellert, S., & Calabrese, E. (2015a). The practice of biophilic design. London: Terrapin Bright LLC, 3, 21-46.
Kellert, S., & Calabrese, E. (2015b). The practice of biophilic design. London: Terrapin Bright LLC, 3, 21.
Koohsari, M. J., Mavoa, S., Villanueva, K., Sugiyama, T., Badland, H., Kaczynski, A. T., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). Public open space, physical activity, urban design, and public health: Concepts, methods, and research agenda. Health & Place, 33, 75-82.
Kweon, B.-S., Ulrich, R. S., Walker, V. D., & Tassinary, L. G. (2008). Anger and stress: The role of landscape posters in an office setting. Environment and behavior, 40(3), 355-381.
Lang, J. (2004). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. (A. Einifar, Trans.). Tehran: Institute of Publishing and Printing of Tehran University.
Li, Z., Zhang, W., Wang, L., Liu, H., & Liu, H. (2022). Regulating effects of the biophilic environment with strawberry plants on psychophysiological health and cognitive performance in small spaces. Building and Environment, 108801.
Lynch, K. (2005). A Theory of Good City Form (Q. Bahrain, Translator) Tehran.
Ma, Y., & You, X.-y. (2022). A sustainable conservation strategy of wildlife in urban ecosystems: Case of Gallinula chloropus in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Ecological Informatics, 101571.
Madanipour, A. (2005). Urban Space Design: An Attitude Toward a Social-Spatial Process. Translated by Farhad Mortezaei, Urban Planning and Processing Company Publications: Tehran.
Makes, N. I. M., & Sense, F. (2012). The Economics of Biophilia. In: New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.
Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness, and associations with health, well-being, and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389.
McCann, E., & Mahieus, L. (2021). Everywhere from Copenhagen: Method, Storytelling, and Comparison in the Globalization of Public Space Design. In Professional Service Firms and Politics in a Global Era (pp. 115-134). Springer.
Newman, P. (2014). Biophilic Urbanism: a case study on Singapore. Australian Planner, 51(1), 47-65.
Oliver, T. H., Doherty, B., Dornelles, A., Gilbert, N., Greenwell, M. P., Harrison, L. J., Jones, I. M., Lewis, A. C., Moller, S. J., & Pilley, V. J. (2022). A safe and just operating space for human identity: a systems perspective. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(11), 919-927.
Parsons, R., Tassinary, L. G., Ulrich, R. S., Hebl, M. R., & Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology2(18)-113-140.
Pyle, R. M. (2003). Nature matrix: re-connecting people and nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206-214.
Register, R. (1987). Ecocity Berkeley: building cities for a healthy future. North Atlantic Books.
Richardson, M., & Butler, C. W. (2022). Nature connectedness and biophilic design. Building Research & Information, 50(1-2), 36-42.
Ryan, C. O., & Browning, W. D. (2020). Biophilic design. Sustainable Built Environments, 43-85.
Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., & Kallianpurkar, N. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 8(2), 62.
Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K. W., Mistretta, L., & Gagne, M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 159-168.
Salingaros, N. A. (2019). The biophilic healing index predicts effects of the built environment on our well-being.
Schiebel, T., Gallinat, J., & Kühn, S. (2022). Testing the Biophilia theory: Automatic approach tendencies towards nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101725.
Scull, J. (2011). The separation from more-than-human nature. In: Retrieved.
Shelton, R. D. (1994). Hitting the green wall: why corporate programs get stalled. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2(2), 5-11.
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 903-906.
Söderlund, J. (2019). The emergence of Biophilic design.
Soderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS environmental science, 2(4), 950-969.
Tam, K.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64-78.
Tekin, B. H., Corcoran, R., & Gutiérrez, R. U. (2023). A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework of Biophilic Design Parameters in Clinical Environments. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 16(1), 233-250.
Tibbalds, F. (Ed.). (2005). Making people-friendly towns: Improving the public environment in towns and cities. Taylor & Francis.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230.
Van Nes, A., & Yamu, C. (2021a). Introduction to space syntax in urban studies. Springer Nature.
Van Nes, A., & Yamu, C. (2021b). Private and Public Space: Analysing Spatial Relationships Between Buildings and Streets. In Introduction to Space Syntax in Urban Studies (pp. 113-131). Springer.
Vidal, D. G., Fernandes, C. O., Teixeira, C. P., Dias, R. C., Seixas, P. C., Barros, N., Vilaça, H., & Maia, R. L. (2022). Behavioural Mapping of Urban Green Spaces Users: Methodological Procedures Applied to Corujeira Garden (Porto, Portugal). In Sustainable Policies and Practices in Energy, Environment and Health Research (pp. 147-166). Springer.
Wijesooriya, N., Brambilla, A., & Markauskaite, L. (2023). Biophilic design frameworks: A review of structure, development techniques and their compatibility with LEED sustainable design criteria. Cleaner Production Letters, 100033.
Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114-141.
Zucker, P. (1960). Town and square: From the agora to the village green.
Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Le Grange, L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2(1), 119-143.
