DESIGNING BIOPHILIA INTO INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE:
A BIOPHILIC DESIGN ASSESSMENT TOOL DEVELOPMENT
By
BETH LENA SHERMAN MCGEE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2018
© 2018 Beth McGee
To my Family: I could not have completed this without you
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to Dr. Park who took the long journey with me and was the friendly support I
needed at all times and a key to my success. Thank you to my committee who were a very
helpful support system, I am very grateful to you all. Thank you to my husband who is my
support system and my best friend. Thank you.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................11
Theory Building ......................................................................................................................14
Biophilic Design Matrix .........................................................................................................15
2 ESSAY 1 .................................................................................................................................19
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................19
The Original Biophilic Design Matrix ............................................................................22
Design and Assessment Tools .........................................................................................23
Method ....................................................................................................................................25
Research Design ..............................................................................................................25
Phase One: Biophilic Design Matrix Development ........................................................26
Phase Two: Biophilic Design Matrix Testing .................................................................33
Results .....................................................................................................................................36
Research Question One: Perceptions of Biophilia ..........................................................36
Research Question Two: Optimal BDM as a Tool ..........................................................37
Research Question Three: BDM Validity and Reliability ...............................................39
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................40
3 ESSAY 2 .................................................................................................................................44
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................45
Lighting ...........................................................................................................................47
Materiality .......................................................................................................................49
Color ................................................................................................................................50
Study 1 Method .......................................................................................................................53
Study 1 Results and Discussion ..............................................................................................57
Lighting ...........................................................................................................................61
Materiality .......................................................................................................................63
Study 2 ....................................................................................................................................65
Method .............................................................................................................................65
Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................66
6
4 ESSAY 3 .................................................................................................................................75
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................75
Restorative Environmental Design ..................................................................................79
Studio Education and Biophilic Design ..........................................................................81
Method ....................................................................................................................................83
Participants ......................................................................................................................83
Instruments ......................................................................................................................84
Studio Project and Data Collection .................................................................................85
Results .....................................................................................................................................87
Biophilia Perception ........................................................................................................87
BID-M Helpfulness for Students .....................................................................................91
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................97
5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................103
APPENDIX
A ASSIGNMENT SHEET .......................................................................................................111
B BDM SURVEY ....................................................................................................................115
C COGNITIVE INTERVIEW MANUAL ...............................................................................126
D DESIGNER’S CHECKLIST ................................................................................................130
E EMAIL INVITATION .........................................................................................................131
F FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................132
G GUEST EXPERIENCE ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................136
H HOSPITALITY STUDIO PRE AND POST SURVEYS .....................................................138
Pre-Project Assessment Survey ............................................................................................138
Post-Project Assessment Survey ...........................................................................................138
I INFORMATION SHEET (BID-R) ......................................................................................142
LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................147
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................147
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
2-1. Cognitive interview overview. ...............................................................................................33
2-2. Biophilic design elements and attributes finalized. ................................................................34
2-3. Demographics of participants. ................................................................................................36
2-4. Pre-BDM practitioner’s perceptions of biophilia. ..................................................................36
2-5. Post BDM open answers, four most common comments. ......................................................37
2-6. Post BDM, future design process uses. ..................................................................................38
2-7. Overall quality of the BDM. ...................................................................................................38
2-8. BDM reliability element and combined results. .....................................................................39
3-1. Biophilic design elements and attributes. ...............................................................................46
3-2. Literature review biophilic design results. .............................................................................56
3-3. Biophilic feature frequency in the literature review. ..............................................................58
3-4. Demographics of respondents. ...............................................................................................66
3-5. Frequency of practitioner comments by BID-M attributes, element categories blocked in
color boxes. ........................................................................................................................68
3-6. Frequency of comments by biophilic element. .......................................................................69
3-7. Comparison table ranking highest to lowest frequency of attributes identified in the
literature and by practitioners, top three most frequent attributes. ....................................71
4-1. Biophilic design elements and attributes. ...............................................................................78
4-2. Frequency of open answer themes survey 1, pre-project questionnaire. ................................88
4-3. Perceptions about biophilia throughout project. .....................................................................89
4-4. Jury assessment of student work. ...........................................................................................92
4-5. Inter-rater reliability for the unique jury panels of each day. .................................................92
4-6. Open answer process number of open comments per theme..................................................94
4-7. Challenges and helpfulness of biophilic design. ....................................................................95
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1-1. Supporting theoretical framework diagram. ...........................................................................14
2-1. Study process diagram. ...........................................................................................................26
2-2. Site image examples. ..............................................................................................................27
2-3. Proposed restorative environmental design framework diagram. ..........................................43
3-1. Process diagram for both studies. ...........................................................................................52
3-2. Literature review flow diagram. .............................................................................................55
4-1. Study process diagram. ...........................................................................................................84
4-2. Student work example of hotel waiting area. .......................................................................101
4-3. Student work example of restaurant seating area. ................................................................101
9
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
DESIGNING BIOPHILIA INTO INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE:
A BIOPHILIC DESIGN ASSESSMENT TOOL DEVELOPMENT
By
Beth Lena Sherman McGee
August 2018
Chair: Nam-Kyu Park
Major: Design, Construction, and Planning
Evidence is growing for nature inclusion in the interior yet there is little support for
helping interior designers integrate it. This study uses the restorative environmental design
(RED) framework to explore the systematic development, testing, and expansion of the Biophilic
Design Matrix (BDM) tool.
In the three essays included, the first essay focuses on the BDM development, which now
contains a total of 54 biophilic design attributes within six element categories. These were
developed through cognitive testing from the original version and then pilot tested with 23
practitioners completing pre and post-questionnaires about their perceptions of biophilia and
experience doing an assessment of a lobby space with the BDM. After BDM use, practitioners
perceived an increase in knowledge of biophilic design. The modified version is now called the
Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) which seems to be valid and reliable. The second
essay contributes by linking research to specific attributes through a literature review and
identifying how practitioners are using biophilic design in their practice within color, light and
materiality. Differences and commonalities were found between the evidence for specific
attributes and the actual attributes being used by designers. Essay three explores the BID-M
10
being used in an undergraduate studio course for assessing how it can support conceptual design
and design development to aid students with biophilic integration. Their perceived importance of
biophilic design, confidence in using it and knowledge about it were statistically significant in
the group that had the BID-M throughout the project compared to the group that did not.
Additional comments showed a perceived value to the BID-M in design education and requests
for earlier adoption into the curriculum. This supports the Council for Interior Design Education
standard 7-a to help guide theoretical implications of the built environment with biophilic design
a listed referenced criterion.
Overall, the findings support both practitioners and students using the BID-M to assist
biophilic inclusion throughout the design process. Also, using the checklist as a quick reference
and the online repository, with its growing research base, should be useful to help designers
include thoughtful biophilic variety.
11
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
People's physical and mental well-being remains highly contingent on contact
with the natural environment, which is a necessity rather than a luxury for
achieving lives of fitness and satisfaction even in our modern urban society
—Stephen Kellert
Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life
How can interior design aid people’s connection with the natural world through the built
environment? That is a big question for modern interior design research since Americans spend
an average of more than 90% of time inside (Klepeis et al., 2001; US Environmental Protection
Agency, n.d.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Office of Air and Radiation, 1989) and
this time inside can greatly limit the amount of nature contact (Kellert, 1993). Research shows
positive benefits associated with nature contact (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Kahn, 1997;
Ulrich, 1984, 1991, 1983), yet questions exist as to how designers of built environments can
tackle nature integration in the interior to facilitate optimal wellbeing.
In a design paradigm called restorative environmental design (RED), Kellert (2008b)
defines RED as including both sustainable low-impact environmental strategies, as well as
positive impact (biophilic design) features, that “fosters beneficial contact between people and
nature in modern buildings and landscapes” (p. 5). This paradigm uses the definition of biophilia
as the innate need people have to connect with nature and natural systems (Wilson, 1984).
Interior design is important to the work of RED because it includes the specifying of features that
either provide or do not provide opportunities to reconnect with nature inside of the building
shell and through interior/exterior connections (Kellert, 2008b). Offering nature-based features to
users in buildings should increase biophilia and ultimately wellbeing. Biophilic design is an
12
underexplored area of interior design knowledge. The outstanding problem addressed in the three
papers in this study is the further development of the Biophilic Design Matrix (BDM) tool to aid
interior design identification and application of biophilia. This included the further development
of the design attributes, testing in different settings, using it as an assessment tool and pedagogy
tool and using it with designers of different experience levels. This was all to see how such a tool
could support practice and education in what is termed here as biophilic interior design.
Additionally, the three categories of color, light and materials are key to interior design (Bosch,
Edelstein, Cama, & Malkin, 2012; Dalke et al., 2006), yet they have not had much alignment to
biophilic design approaches for their use. This study begins to address this need as well,
specifically for supporting evidence-based design practice.
Evidence-based design (EBD) is seen as a “process of seeking answers to design
problems not a product that supplies ready answers or standard solutions pulled out of the
practitioner’s files” (Hamilton, 2010, p. 126). The evidence base for design has a history starting
with research around Taylorism and the Hawthorne Studies back in the early twentieth century,
but the landmark study by Roger Ulrich in 1984 connected health with the built environment
through a controlled experiment to start what would be called evidence-based design (Center for
Health Design, 2010).
While evidence-based design is not a new concept, for interior designers there is still a
need for new validated research tools and continued theory development. When such tools are
available they can then be used to aid design decisions that further looks at how people are
benefiting, or not, from the environment (Center for Health Design, 2010). I created the BDM in
2012 to aid biophilic identification, specifically child life play spaces. It was developed based on
the LEED checklist format where a credit is either fulfilled or not. The BDM has been further
13
validated with additional testing (Weinberger, Butler, McGee, Schumacher, & Brown, 2016).
One other tool exists has been proposed that integrates a quadrant overlay on each space for
attempting to count feature frequency with a focus on quantity to assess childcare centers
(Caballero, 2013). How the further integration of biophilic design can best be supported in a
user-friendly version was untested prior to this project.
Biophilia has begun to be supported by evidence from a wide variety of fields. The
evidence shows nature connections offering positive influences on human health, productivity
and environmental attitudes (Beute & Kort, 2014; Kahn, 1997; Louv, 2008; Van den Born,
Lenders, Groot, & Huijsman, 2001). Research shows that active and even passive viewing of
nature can influence health and wellbeing (Kahn, 1997; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995;
Ulrich,1984). Active engagement with living nature provides optimal restoration, but even
passively viewing nature or natural representations, such as complex fractal patterns and varied
visual surroundings, seems to allow the mind to easily range from directed attention to
fascination as needed for mental and physical wellbeing (Hagerhall, 2004; Joye, 2007; Kaplan,
1995).
Designers have had increasing reason for including biophilic design in the interior since
the beginning of the 1980s with the development of the concept of evidence-based design as an
interdisciplinary approach to building and sharing evidence (Cama, 2009; Ulrich, 1984). The
design field is attempting to incorporate nature into the interior using evidence-based design
(Barnes, 2010; Browning, Ryan, & Clancy, 2014), especially healthcare facilities, however,
research on design has not found vast adoption in practice (Huber, 2016). The development of
tools by the Center for Health Design offers a patient room design checklist and evaluation tool
as well as a safety risk assessment (“chd | The Center for Health Design,” n.d.). The Center also
14
offers case studies that highlight best practices for others to consider. These are very targeted to
performance and specific wellness objectives. The adoption rate of these tools is unknown, and
they are not designed specifically to guide designers with their attempts at integrating biophilia.
Theory Building
What is unique about restorative environmental design (RED) versus traditional design
practice? “Restorative environmental design, aka biophilic design, provides a more holistic
approach to the design of buildings and environments. It marries green design principles with an
approach that seeks to connect nature and humanity” (2011, para. 3). This can be seen in the
construct diagram, Figure 1, where nature influences people (biophilia) and people influence
nature (sustainability). Where people connect with nature biophilia results. When people build
and act sustainably, then they preserve or even restore nature. When both are present, restorative
environmental design can exist in a symbiotic relationship.
Figure 1-1. Supporting theoretical framework diagram.
Much of the research directed at the restorative part of restorative environmental design
currently comes from environmental psychology. This includes attention restoration theory and
psychoevolutionary theory focusing on stress reduction and attention restoration (Hartig,
Bringslimark, & Patil, 2008; Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich, 1983). This is a view of nature influencing
15
people’s behavior, health and wellbeing. However, these theories fall short of the greater impact
that restoration, as proposed by Kellert in RED, offers. This is the nurturing of nature
connections to facilitate a healthy relationship with nature for both personal wellness and a
global awareness and benefit. Since theory building is an ongoing process “in the discipline of
interior design, researchers should not only be analytical but also engage in a creative process
that requires adjustments and revisions to theoretical propositions and methods” (Clemons &
Eckman, 2011, p. 32). This study does so by seeking evidence for a user-centered
design/assessment tool to guide designers while also allowing understanding how interior design
plays a role in biophilic design. A struggle with design theory application in building design is
well stated by Bardenhagen and Rodiek (2016) specifically regarding health facilities and the
challenges are “to be able to identify which, among the myriad elements available, will best
combine to optimize the intricate human–environment relationships and desired therapeutic
outcomes that exist or are proposed to exist in the space” (p. 149). How designers can include
natural connections is prompting further validation of the BDM.
Biophilic Design Matrix
The Biophilic Design Matrix (BDM) is an evidence-based design tool. The BDM is
aimed to be contextually relevant and useful for designers, because if it is “not contextually
situated, and therefore relevant to the audience that must act on those findings, there will be no
action until the audience finds that contextual relevance” (Barnes, 2010, p. 131). Initial testing of
the BDM involved eight hospitals and 24 child life play spaces (McGee, 2012). The inter-rater
reliability during initial scoring with a test-retest of matrix coding had agreements of 89% by the
first rater and 94% by the second rater. The matrix scores for the 24 spaces (n=24 of 26 child life
play spaces in the state studied) had a mean total score of 21.5 out of 52 attributes. The score
ranged from a low score of 14 and high score of 39. The six elements were: 1) Environmental
16
features- most obvious and well recognized nature characteristics, 2) Natural shapes and forms-
nature representations and simulations, 3) Natural patterns and processes- properties derived
from natural features and processes, 4) Light and space- light qualities and space relationships, 5)
Place-based relationships- culture together with ecology, rooted in the local geography, and 6)
Human-nature relationships- paired biological needs. The BDM had an internal consistency,
Cronbach's Alpha of .804, but showed areas where item development may assist with reliability.
The revised version of the BDM and its use as a design assessment tool now provides a chance to
investigate validation of its contextual relevance for diverse users.
The BDM tool aligns with two worldwide programs that integrate biophilia, WELL
(“WELL v2,” n.d.) and the Living Building Challenge (International Living Future Institute,
2014). Each of these supports biophilia integration in the design of buildings. WELL is a
framework that seeks to advance health and well-being through the built environment (“WELL
v2,” n.d.). It has an indoor plant feature, with a percentage of the wall or floor space needing
coverage, and other options for using nature features, lighting and layout, as well as natural
patterns and outdoor connections. These features are based upon the Living Building Challenge
which is a green building certification program and sustainable design framework seeking ideal
built environments (International Living Future Institute, 2014). There are additional related
features like circadian lighting systems as well. The Living Building Challenge references
Kellert’s original list of biophilic features. However, Kellert’s list of features was not developed
specifically for interior design, so this research aimed to better develop the BDM for clear and
reliable definitions for interior application to relate with frameworks such as WELL and Living
Building Challenge.
17
Besides these few growing sustainable design frameworks, the availability of research
developed tools or frameworks has increased but has had limited adaptation by practitioners
(Browning et al., 2014; Huber, 2016, 2018; Quan, Joseph, & Nanda, 2017). Interior designers are
commonly seeking out research, but they often use fast surfing tendencies when reviewing
information, use familiar sources and do so as quickly as possible (Huber, 2018). There is an
“opportunity to narrow the research utilization gap by making scholarly sources more
approachable” (p. 25). Since interior designers are seeking out more knowledge specifically
about biomimicry/biophilic design, this research used participatory methods for a user-friendly
biophilic interior design language to improve the utilization gap. This led to three areas of focus
in this research. The first, was the BDM being revised through cognitive testing and then further
tested with practitioners in a new context. This was in the hope that these revisions would make
the Matrix more valid, reliable and user-friendly. The second area of focus was the attribute
“color”. It was a key shortcoming of the original version with its definition being “any color”.
This was addressed by adapting the Color Planning Framework (Portillo, 2009) into the Matrix
and was a key improvement. Third, the BDM was used in an undergraduate interior design
studio as a pedagogical tool for teaching and learning about biophilic design as well as aiding its
incorporation.
The research questions of the three essays were:
Essay 1
1. How do designers perceive biophilia?
2. What is the optimal BDM for designers as a design tool for usability?
3. How validly and reliably does the revised BDM appear to measure the variety of
biophilic features present when used by interior designers?
Essay 2
1. What evidence for color, light, and materials can support the biophilic design attributes?
2. How through color, light and materials is biophilia being incorporated into design
practice?
18
3. What are the similarities and differences between the research available and designers’
use of color, light and materials?
Essay 3
1. How do interior design students perceive biophilia?
2. How is the BDM helpful for interior design students?
The Biophilic Design Matrix development process included cognitive testing with
practitioners using a questionnaire with pre- and post-questions surrounding an assessment of a
given healthcare lobby space. They were asked to evaluate the given images of the space for the
presence of the biophilic attributes. Sixty-four features were finalized and then tested with
practitioners using the questionnaire. Furthermore, a literature review linked research to the
attributes through a PRISMA-P modified format. Finally, two groups in a studio project for
undergraduates were compared to investigate how the BDM can aid biophilic design in a
hospitality studio. One half of the class was given the BDM throughout the design process, the
other half was not. At the end, everyone completed an assessment of their own design solutions
and a pre- and post-questionnaire was included. The use of a mixed method approach was
employed for strengthening the BDM to expand the potential for future application.
19
CHAPTER 2
ESSAY 1
A systematic development of the biophilic design matrix attributes, broadened
application and further validation of a biophilic interior design tool: The objective of this
research was to develop the Biophilic Design Matrix. It was originally created to support
designers in identifying and quantifying biophilic features through a visual inventory. This study
continues the process of establishing a formal language for biophilic interior design, as well as
validating the Biophilic Design Matrix. Background: The Biophilic Design Matrix offers a
variety of choices for designer-driven integration of biophilia. It was developed to assess the
variety of biophilic features in the interior. Methods: The original BDM attributes were
reassessed and those appropriate to interior design were put through two rounds of cognitive
testing with pre- and post- questions. The list of features was then refined, definitions developed,
and examples included for each attribute to aid in the ease of biophilic identification. Fifty-four
design features were finalized. The attributes were then further tested with 23 practitioners.
Results: The systematic development and validity testing of the tool resulted in a matrix relevant
to designers. It now offers an expanded application beyond the original setting. Also, its usability
and functionality are attested. Practitioners showed increased perceived knowledge of biophilic
design after use. The six element categories showed internal reliability, as did the Biophilic
Design Matrix as a whole. Conclusions: The revised Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M)
enhances users’ knowledge of biophilic design and is useful throughout the design process for
guiding creative biophilic design solutions.
Literature Review
Love of life. This is an innate need people have to connect with nature and natural
systems, or biophilia (Wilson, 1984). Modern Americans are spending more time inside with
20
limited direct contact with nature (Klepeis et al., 2001). It has been a growing concern since
connecting with nature has positive influences on human health and wellbeing (Heerwagen,
Judith & Hase, 2001; Kahn, 1997; S. Kellert, 2008; Louv, 2008; van den Berg, Koole, & van der
Wulp, 2003). Research has shown active and even passive viewing of nature can be influential
(Hensley, 2015; Kahn, 1997; Ulrich, 1984). Active engagement with nature is optimal, but even
viewing features found in nature, such as complex fractal patterns, allows the mind to easily
range from directed attention to fascination as needed for mental and physical wellbeing
(Hagerhall, 2004; Joye, 2007; Kaplan, 1995). These views of natural features create a
“neurological nourishment” as our brains effortlessly process complex information from living
or artificial sources (Salingaros & Masden II, 2008). People react negatively to an environment
that is neurologically non-nourishing with distress and anxiety. There needs to be organized
complexity, not too plain and not presenting disorganized complexity. Biophilic design then
needs to mimic this natural complexity. In a recent study, an increase in biophilic variety was
found to parallel an increase in the assessment of “best” playroom by specialists (Weinberger,
Butler, McGee, Schumacher, & Brown, 2017) which may indicate that as natural environments
are varied, so people seek similarly nature-based varied interior spaces. In this way, biophilic
design is serving as a modern “rediscovering” of the connection between humans and the
sensorial environment around them (Salingaros, 2011).
There are also economic advantages of biophilic design across diverse building sectors
that show fiscal disadvantages of ignoring nature, including profit loss (Browning et al., 2012;
Heerwagen, 2010). It can be argued that “incorporating nature into the built environment is not
just a luxury, but a sound economic investment in health and productivity, based on well-
researched neurological and physiological evidence” (Browning et al., 2012, p. 3). A literature
21
review reveled increases in healing rates, learning rates, productivity, property values, reduced
absenteeism, medical costs, stress and even reduced prison costs Browning et al., 2012). These
findings support commercial investment interests.
Restorative Environmental Design
In design people are attempting to help preserve the natural world through limiting
resource use and it has become the standard approach. A new approach to sustainability goes
beyond simple resource reduction and can be seen through a design paradigm called restorative
environmental design (RED) which is a unique concept defined as:
… an approach that aims at both a low-environmental-impact strategy that
minimizes and mitigates adverse impacts on the natural environment, and a
positive environmental impact or biophilic design approach that fosters beneficial
contact between people and nature in modern buildings and landscapes. (Kellert,
2008b, p. 5).
Designers of interior environments are substantially responsible for specifying features
that either provide, or do not provide, opportunities to reconnect with nature both through
interior/exterior connections and interior features (Kellert, 2008b). Offering nature-based
features to users in buildings should ultimately allow people to increase their biophilia and
research shows that such connections can increase health (Beute & Kort, 2014; Hartig et al.,
2011) and wellbeing (Kahn, 1997; Kaplan, 1995; Matteson, 2013; Ulrich, 1984, 1991). The great
amount of time spent in the interior (Klepeis et al., 2001) and the nascent research support
(Green & American Society of Landscape Architects, 2012) requires looking specifically at
biophilic interior design, also how it might support RED.
In RED, a sustainable approach goes beyond minimizing environmental impact to
increasing ecological health. However, it is becoming apparent to many that the next step for the
sustainable design movement is mimicking the natural habitats humans innately prefer (Cama,
22
2013). How interior design can best mimic nature is still a vague and elusive strategy, since
currently there is little support for guiding best practices for how to create such natural spaces.
Kellert first operationalized biophilia in 2008 to guide designers and other building
stakeholders. Based on this list of features, the BDM was applied to interior child life play rooms
in healthcare settings and added a scoring procedure (McGee, 2012). Preliminary reliability was
good but the need to further develop the BDM was apparent. The process of instrument
development typically has an iterative nature. The formulation of concepts and the measurement
process when applied commonly leads to further modification in order to capture a more
adequate representation (Adcock & Collier, 2001). The development of a measurement tool for
biophilic design asked the following research questions:
1. How do designers perceive biophilia?
2. What is the optimal BDM for designers to enhance usability?
3. How validly and reliably does the revised BDM appear to measure the variety of
biophilic features present in a space when used by interior designers?
The Original Biophilic Design Matrix
Opportunities for improvement of the original BDM were noted by the researcher and by
the inter-rater testers as they attempted to use the original BDM. The matrix was not particularly
user friendly and quite time consuming to complete. Many of the attribute definitions adopted
from Kellert’s original list were wordy and difficult.
The attribute color in the original BDM showed no discrimination because it was simply
described as “any color”, as such it was not very informative. Color is complex with direct
relationships with lighting and materiality (Bosch et al., 2012). It seemed of key importance to
develop these three concepts for interior design application. The adaptation of the Color Planning
Framework (Portillo, 2009) was introduced to address this weakness. This framework uses five
categories for an evidence-based approach to color planning and how they impact people and
23
space design. These are now adopted and have been adapted to represent color, light, material
and space concepts more distinctly in the fourth element group of the BDM which is now called
color and light. The new attributes in the element of “color and light” are based on Portillo’s
(2009) five design tactics: compositional (shaping space), communication (creating meaning),
preference (reflecting individuality or market trends), response (arousing feelings and responses)
and pragmatics (responding to resource parameters). To illustrates further, an example of
communication is color selection inspired by the site for telling a visual story connecting the
inside with the outside. This is based on the human need for communicating through design and
interpretive meaning. Regarding color as composition, “working with color compositionally
requires objective problem-solving to integrate color, lighting, and materiality” (Portillo, 2009,
p.7). It needs to be understood individually and with its surrounding composition, such as color
palettes based upon nature. Preference can include such things as personal preference for certain
natural fabrics or colors over synthetic ones. Also, types of art preference varies with more
nature representations preferred (Eisen, Ulrich, Shepley, Varni, & Sherman, 2008) . Response to
the natural environment is an innate reaction and designers can mimic these considerations as
people will have responses to stimuli in the interior. Comfortable seating in an area where you
want a low-stress feeling, is one example. Pragmatic concerns can include sustainability features
and maintenance considerations that increase life cycle as well as safety features, like using
resilient fabrics and lighting in high traffic areas. These 5 attributes adopted from the Color
Planning Framework further develop the BDM as a tool for designers to use in the design
process.
Design and Assessment Tools
Designers are adopting tools in the design process more commonly to support green
building design standards (Edwards, 2010). LEED is the most common sustainable building
24
design standard (Nguyen & Altan, 2011) with little biophilic consideration (Kellert, 2004).
WELL v.2 is a health and well-being focused building design standard that includes both a
quantitative and qualitative biophilia feature (“WELL v2,” n.d.). These address nature
incorporation qualitatively within environmental lighting, layout, natural patterns and direct
interaction. For the quantitative feature, a specific minimum amount of indoor plants is needed.
It also has other related features like a water category, but its goal is specific to health-related
considerations in general, not concerned with experiential connection to nature that addresses
human health, well-being, and spirit. WELL uses the Living Building Challenge as its guidance
for these two biophilic features. The Living Building Challenge v3.1 has similar features without
a plant mandate and are specifically using Kellert’s original definitions for biophilic design that
he proposed in 2008. It is a green building certification program and sustainable design standard
for ideal built environments including integrating people with nature (International Living Future
Institute, 2014). It includes design features that incorporate actual nature, represent nature,
natural patterns, color and light, natural relationships and connections to the place. The Living
Building Challenge creators, International Living Future Institute, also host a biophilic design
initiative aimed to connect people with nature in the built environment and increase access to
resources plus connecting research and researchers with design practitioners (“Biophilic Design
Initiative,” n.d.). This includes access to case studies, a map and links to biophilic examples.
This is helpful in supporting biophilic design. These tools were not developed specifically for
interior designers and relies upon the original language from Kellert to guide biophilic design.
After a review of the top tools available for aiding biophilic design, currently there is a lack of
interior design biophilia focus that could offer specific, user-friendly interior design tactics for
designers to use.
25
Sustainability and evidence-based design do offer models for reference in development of
the BDM. Examples like LEED and the Living Building Challenge are used as both a design and
assessment tool and were used as references to expand the BDM, initially an assessment tool, to
a design tool as well. The BDM can best be symbiotically used with these existing tools in aiding
biophilic design. Many of the items in WELL and Living Building Challenge correspond to
biophilic attributes, so it would be optimal if the BDM were used as inspiration and guidance to
achieve the goals of such building standard programs. This research supports this through adding
improved wording and examples in the revised BDM to guide design application of biophilic
design.
Method
Research Design
This study integrated a mixed-methods approach in an exploratory manner. Social
science exploration is a designed process for “maximizing the discovery of generalizations
leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (Stebbins,
2001, p. 3). This study attempted to further operationalize biophilic design for interior design
practice through two phases, Phase one: BDM development and Phase two: BDM Testing
(Figure 2-1).
The online survey used in both phase one cognitive testing and phase two BDM testing
with practitioners used a photoethnography method for completion of the BDM assessment of
the given site. The site images were provided through a link added to the online survey. This
photo-based assessment was a consistent approach with the original instrument development
that proved preliminary reliability and validity (McGee & Marshall-Baker, 2015). The lobby of a
research building waiting areas was used for both phases. This LEED platinum building seemed
an appropriate example to use as it was:
26
Inspired by the principles of the Biophilia Hypothesis, the project emerges from
the inherent human affinity for natural systems and processes. Understanding the
environmental forces of the site, as well as the surrounding context which
includes wetlands, wooded gardens, a parking structure and a cogeneration plant,
informed the programmatic organization, massing and site strategies. The
concept…emerged from the desire to provide sustainable healing, working and
educational environments (“University of Florida Clinical Translational Research
Building,” 2014)
This same site was used for the phase two study.
Figure 2-1. Study process diagram.
Phase One: Biophilic Design Matrix Development
Step one
Phase one had four steps of development. The first step was the preparation needed to
begin the cognitive testing. It started with reassessing the initial list of attributes from Kellert
(2008) to see which ones were appropriate generally to interior environments. Of the 74 features,
66 were included in the first phase of development. The eight not included were exterior focused
Phase 1
BDM
development
•Step 1-Pre-design of BDM and study instruments
• Pre-evaluate attributes
• Created pre and post-questionnaires
• Pilot tested 66 attributes
•Step 2-First round of cognitive interviews
• Interviewed 6 practitioners
• Reivsed language and scale
•Step 3- Focus group with students
•Step 4- Final round of cognitive interviews
• Revised scale again after first tester
• Continued to test, revise, retest
• Interviwed 4 practitioners
• Finalized 54 attributes
Phase 2
BDM testing
• Step 5- Final validation testing included:
• Instruction page
• Demographics page with 4 questions,
• Pre-assessment page with 4 questions
• Picture link and instructions page
• Each of the six element categories followed with the 54
attributes
• Post-questionnaire with 10 questions
27
and/or duplicated in other features. Additionally, four were merged for similarity in interior
design: sensory variability with information richness were merged and simulation of natural
features with biomorphy were also merged. Moreover, the need to further develop color, as well
as its interaction with light and materiality in the interior, were attempted to be resolved by
adapting the Color Planning Framework (Portillo, 2009, see Essay 2).
The definitions were only modified if needed for clarity in the application to interior
design. These were organized in Kellert’s six elements: actual natural materials, natural
representations, natural patterns and processes, light and space, place-based relationships and
human-nature relationships. See Table 2-2 for the element definitions.
The pre- and post-questionnaire and the BDM assessment were created as a single online
survey. The initial questions were developed by creating multiple versions of each to see which
ones seemed to be clear and concise. It was then pilot tested with an interior designer for
readability, use of the site images and general flow of the survey. The feedback helped to revise
the clarity of the instructions and images to prepare for the first round of cognitive testing.
Figure 2-2. Site image examples.
Step two
Step two was then testing the BDM in a round of cognitive interviews. Cognitive
interviews (CI) are the administration of a draft version of an instrument that includes additional
collecting of verbal information about the participant’s survey response and their mental
28
processes (Beatty & Willis, 2007). Cognitive interviewing procedures were used in order to
verify that the tool made sense to the target population and was answerable (Krueger & Casey,
2015), also evaluating the quality of responses and if the question was collecting the kind of
information intended (Beatty & Willis, 2007). This approach emerged in the 1980’s in the
cognitive sciences to add insights into questionnaire design decisions (Campanelli, 1997). The
use of this testing was to make sure everything made sense to the users for gaining valid
information, as such “cognitive testing should be a standard part of the development process of
any survey instrument” (Collins, 2003, p. 229). Additionally, “cognitive interviewing can play an
important role answering the current demand about empirical and theoretical analyses of the
response processes as a source of validity evidence in psychological testing” (Castillo-Díaz &
Padilla, 2013, p. 963). This is important to measurement error and whether respondents
misunderstand questions or concepts. Additionally, it is important to know if people do not know
or cannot recall the necessary information, use incorrect judgment references, hide information
or are only providing a perceived socially desirable answer. The use of cognitive interviewing
can help to identify such issues (Beatty & Willis, 2007).
The two main paradigms since 1984 for cognitive interviews are think aloud and probing
(Beatty & Willis, 2007). The think aloud paradigm asks respondents to report what they are
thinking while they are attempting to answer the question with the interviewer, who is also
prompting for information from the respondent as needed. Notes were taken in the manual, see
Appendix C. These notes were typed up and then guided adjusting the BDM and the
questionnaires. This testing used “think aloud”, as it is a preferred method for being respondent-
driven and a low burden (Collins, 2003). The thinking aloud of answers by the individual was to
see if the items in the BDM seemed confusing when people were trying to answer.
29
The probing paradigm uses interviewer probes regarding comprehension, confidence
ratings and paraphrasing, instead of thinking-aloud. Think-aloud interviews alone may suggest a
problem but not explain what the problem is, and probes address this gap. The blending of the
two original paradigms is a new paradigm (Presser, 2004) and was used in this study where the
participants were asked to think aloud with additional prompting via a post-questionnaire
including a variety of probing types used. The CI probing process can be distinguished in four
key probing types: anticipated, spontaneous, conditional and emergent (Beatty & Willis, 2007).
According to Beatty and Willis, anticipated probes are scripted ahead of time based on
anticipated issues. Spontaneous probes are not scripted and are a response that interviewers make
when looking for potential problems based on their own impetus. Conditional probes are scripted
but are based on a response from the participants. Emergent probes are unscripted and are based
on responses from the participant. Multiple probing types can be used together to address either
expected or encountered problems and useful for identifying the most egregious problems in
groups of participants. CI is finished when interviews are yielding diminishing returns. “There is
always the possibility that one additional interview could yield a significant new insight, or that
an additional interviewer would be more likely to notice additional problems. By the same token,
claims that a questionnaire has ‘no problems’ are impossible—the strongest claim that could be
made is that no problems have (yet) been discovered” (Beatty & Willis, 2007, p. 303). This study
used mostly spontaneous and emergent probes, with some conditional to allow for flexibility and
on-the-spot reactions to the participant.
The cognitive interview selection of participants included establishing a level of expertise
in the field of over ten years of interior design practice and used convenience and snowball
sampling (see Appendix E). Typically in CI, the sampling is used to “reflect the detailed
30
thoughts and problems of the few respondents” (as cited in (Beatty & Willis, 2007, p. 295) and
not necessarily representative of the population. But, again that is not the purpose of CI, as long
as relevant respondents are selected in regard to the topic and have demographic variety (Willis,
2005). The sample size required for CI has been a debated topic with current practice finding that
a small sample of participants reveal most critical questionnaire problems (Beatty & Willis,
2007). While one study found it may take more than 50 interviews to reveal an undiscovered
issue (Blair, Conrad, Ackermann, & Claxton, 2006), generally CI are conducted in rounds of 5 to
15 interviews with repeated revision of questions tested further to eliminate problems (Beatty &
Willis, 2007). Interviews were conducted until relatively few new insights were garnered. While
it might be short of the point when all insights might stop emerging, it is based on the principle
of diminishing returns and a small number of interviews may suffice. Even one interview has
been sufficient (Beatty & Willis, 2007; Charmaz, 2014; Willis, 2005). It has been proposed that:
one potentially useful variation would be to employ an iterative testing approach,
based on rounds of testing with questionnaire revisions between rounds. This
approach is arguably accepted as an ideal practice, and it would be useful to see
whether revised questionnaires are in fact “better,” and how rates of problem
identification decline across revisions (Beatty & Willis, 2007, p. 306).
This is the approach used in this study with two major rounds testing ten participants, six in the
first round and then four in the second round.
All ten participants were interviewed either in person or via a conference call. The first
two participants showed a general appreciation for the BDM and their responses prompted
further testing. Two more sets of two participants were tested with minor adjustments made
between sessions and had similar results. A major revision was needed to fix clarity issues. The
pre- and post-questionnaires also were in need of modification based on feedback from the round
one participants.
31
Step three
The third step of this study included a mid-point assessment of the revised BDM by
students. The major revision of the BDM included adding a scale to the response choices and
fixing the noted repetition among attributes and difficult language. This revision was then tested
in a sophomore undergraduate interior design environment and behavior class to verify if
designers of all level of experience could understand and use the BDM. The use of groups of
students was a type of focus groups. Focus groups have been combined with cognitive interviews
in the same study and complementary (Campanelli, 1997). A focus group is used to better
understand the feeling or thoughts people have about a topic; they gather opinions. Similar to a
standard focus group, the use of a classroom activity collaboratively builds information socially
for increased diversity of perspectives and opinions (“CTI - Collaborative Learning,” n.d.). In the
past using the differing perspectives of students to reveal missing validity issues has also
uncovered issues missed by experts during cognitive interviews (Ding, Reay, Lee, & Bao, 2009).
The interior design students’ considerations proved very insightful during the middle of the
cognitive interview process and aligned with many of the practitioner’s comments. Using
students as a target audience was purposeful in order to assess usability for designers of all
expertise levels.
The process involved the researcher and instructor giving an assignment to the
sophomore class. There were 26 students tasked to use the original version of the BDM with 66
attributes for an assessment of an on-campus game room. After they gathered together for an in-
class activity, they were divided into small groups of 3-5 students and each group was given one
of the six elements (categories), from the original BDM. They were directed to document any
issues they had with attributes in their given element. They were then given the new version of
the same element and instructed to do the same markup process. Each group afterwards shared
32
their findings collectively with the class regarding how the BDM should still be improved and
the differences they saw between the original and modified versions. The assignment aligned
with the environment and behavior course content covering research instrument development.
This information showed the need for further elaboration of the scoring procedure and additional
fine tuning of the vocabulary.
Step four
After the feedback from the students, additional modifications were made, and a revised
BDM version was ready for the second round of cognitive interview testing. The cognitive
interview participants gave insightful feedback after using the BDM. Both the first and second
round of cognitive interviews highlighted the justification for the BDM and its continued
development. For example, CI #7 mentioned “I think this would be a benefit for clients to
understand the long-lasting effects of the feeling of a space through biophilia”. Another
commented regarding how they saw themselves using this list of features (BDM) in the future if
available. They said it could be a “key design driver, to create connection to place, natural and
cultural references” (CI #10). Another designer noted changes they might make in their next
design in how they approach adding color, light and materiality and said they would “Keep it at
the forefront of my brain while designing, always keeping in mind I can come back to my
‘checklist’ to make sure I have covered all categories” (CI #3). The education of the client is an
interesting finding. One designer said “Yes - I think this would be a helpful tool to use with
clients to identify how, not only do they see the space but also how guests/users see and feel in
the space” (CI #7). After the cognitive interview results showed marked improvement with
clarity issues and a shorter time length required, the final survey was sent out to practitioners.
The BDM was finalized with a score range from 0-3: not present at all (0), weak presence (1),
moderate presence (2) and strong presence (3). There was also an option to select “not
33
applicable” for those features difficult to assess in the given site photos. Not applicable was
marked as not present for scoring. See Table 2-1 for the CI participant work experience level,
time to completion of the survey and the number of issues they found.
Table 2-1. Cognitive interview overview.
Cognitive
interview order
Tester’s experience
in years
Complete Qualtrics
time/ minutes
# BDM comments:
clarity issues
1
20-25
65
23
2
20-25
63
15
3
10-14
64
14
4
10-14
50
14
5
14-19
87
18
6
14-19
60
27
7
14-19
68
14
8
21-25
45
10
9
26 +
46
3
10
26 +
25
2
Average
20+
57
14
Phase Two: Biophilic Design Matrix Testing
Phase two used the same data collection already tested in phase one, with an online
survey. The practitioners were recruited through direct email, snowball sampling or notification
through social media, such as LinkedIn and Twitter.
Instruments
The goal of step five was to test the BDM with practitioners in order to assess the
perceptions of practitioners regarding biophilia and the improved usability, reliability and
validity of the BDM. The finalized list of attributes is shown in Table 2-2 with the related
elements noted and the attributes numbered for easy reference.
34
Table 2-2. Biophilic design elements and attributes finalized.
Actual natural features- actual (not images) of
real nature characteristics in the interior
1
Air
2
Water
3
Plants
4
Animals
5
Natural materials
6
Views and vistas
7
Habitats
8
Fire
Natural shapes and forms- representations of
nature and simulations
9
Botanical motifs
10
Animal-like
11
Shells and spirals
12
Curves and arches
13
Fluid forms
14
Abstraction of nature
15
Inside-outside
Natural patterns and processes- properties
derived from natural features and processes
16
Sensory richness
17
Age, change and the patina of time
18
Area of emphasis
19
Patterned wholes
20
Bounded spaces
21
Linked series and chains
22
Integration of parts to wholes
23
Complementary contrasts
24
Dynamic balance and tension
25
Natural ratios and scales
Color and light- color, light and material
qualities and space relationships to nature
26
Composition
27
Communication
28
Preference
29
Response
30
Pragmatics
31
Natural light
32
Filtered light
33
Reflected light
34
Light pools
35
Warm light
36
Light as shape and form
37
Spaciousness
38
Spatial variety
39
Space as shape and form
40
Spatial harmony
Place-based relationships- culture together with
ecology, rooted in geography
41
Geographic connection to place
42
Historic connection to place
43
Ecological connection to place
44
Cultural connection to place
45
Integration of culture and ecology
46
Spirit of place
Human-nature relationships- paired biological
needs of the human relationship to nature
47
Prospect/refuge
48
Order/complexity
49
Curiosity/enticement
50
Mastery/control
51
Attraction/attachment
52
Exploration/discovery
53
Fear/awe
54
Reverence/spirituality
Similar to the version tested in phase one, the phase two online survey also included the
BDM and a pre- and post-questionnaire. The pre-questionnaire had four five-point ordinal scales.
The four questions were on biophilic design and its perceived importance, how much they had
attempted it, their confidence in using it, and their knowledge of it. The post-questionnaire
included one question that asked when they might use the BDM features and could select all that
35
applied. A question with a five-point scale asked about the importance of biophilic design in
interior design. There was another question with five-star rating options (five being the highest
score) and seven categories used to assess the quality of the BDM. Additionally, there were
seven open answer questions with unlimited answer length. The open answer formatted
questions were not limited in the length of response and the coding process used thematic
analysis of the participants’ comments. The comments were coded by the researcher and a
trained research assistant. They agreed on the coding assignment together. Following the coding,
related themes were collapsed, see Table 2-5.
The congruent validity of the answers were tested by looking at item-total correlation and
inter-item correlation with relation to Cronbach’s Alpha (Gliem & Gliem, 2003), since validity
and reliability are key to making sure the findings are truly connected to the construct and are
then relevant for others to build upon. Each step of this iterative method in developing the BDM
builds validity, reliability and discriminatory power into the BDM.
Participants
The final survey assessment of the BDM with practitioners included interior architects
and interior designers. The results included 23 practitioners who completed the BDM
assessment, had a Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) or National Architectural
Accrediting Board (NAAB) design degree and had been practicing more than 2 years in interior
architecture or design. The demographic breakdown, Table 2-2, showed a variety of experience
length. The most common certification was LEED and the most common specialization was
corporate design.
36
Table 2-3. Demographics of participants.
Results
Research Question One: Perceptions of biophilia.
In general, designers saw biophilia as relatively important (a lot or a great deal of
importance) to interior design (M = 3.39, SD = .72) with a moderate amount of attempted
application (M = 2.26, SD = .92). They were, however, only moderately confident in using
biophilia (M = 2.17, SD = 1.03). See Table 2-4.
Table 2-4. Pre-BDM practitioner’s perceptions of biophilia.
Note: 5-point scale, 5 being high
Designers’ knowledge after using the BDM showed they found the variety of choices
available for biophilic design as remarkable as well as the availability of the tool, see Table 2-5,
column 1. As one designer described it, “There are many subtle ways to bring in biophilic
elements.” Another designer responded that having the BDM “is a valuable reference tool as we
approach wellness goals of the space; the latter are client mindset dependent.”
Practice
years
Frequency
(%)
Certification
Frequency
(%)
Specialty
Frequency
(%)
< 2
0
0
AAHID
1
3
Corporate
9
26
2 - 5
6
26
LEED
12
34
Healthcare
6
17
6 -10
4
17
NCARB
1
3
Hospitality
4
11
11 -15
3
13
NCIDQ
9
26
Institution
1
3
16 - 20
2
9
Well
1
3
Residential
7
20
21-25
1
4
State license
7
20
Other
8
23
≥ 26
7
30
Other
4
11
Pre-BDM assessment
n
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Importance
23
3.39
.72
-.77
-.59
Attempted use
23
2.26
.92
.21
-.64
Confidence
23
2.17
1.03
.44
-.85
37
Table 2-5. Post BDM open answers, four most common comments.
Research Question Two: Optimal BDM as a Tool
The general perceptions of the BDM was they would use it in the design process or as an
assessment, as shown in Table 2-5 column 2 and 3. One designer said, “It would be a useful
reminder throughout a project and especially in the programming and concept design phases.” It
could be improved by adding more examples, including case studies. Their use of it as a
reference and checklist for ideation was interesting: “this could be a great checklist to share with
clients as part of the design development process”. Another person said, “I could see using the
BDM with a client interested in promoting wellness in their space without direct access to the
outdoor for their employees (in a commercial setting) to create understanding for the importance
of incorporating particular design elements or design decisions.” Another commented “After
using the BDM I feel the need to learn more about it and apply it more into my commercial
projects”.
Post BDM Assessment
Any change in
knowledge of
biophilia
Relative
frequency
(%)
Ways the
BDM can be
improved
Relative
frequency
(%)
Using the BDM in
the future.
Relative
frequency
(%)
Variety of
choices
9
More
examples/ case
studies
6
Design process/
assessment
10
Tool
availability
3
Choices
clarified/
common
language
2
Reference/checklist
3
Increased
knowledge/
desire to learn
2
Qualtrics
format
2
Client justification/
teaching
2
Concept
defined
2
Shorten/chart
2
Teaching aid
2
38
Table 2-6. Post BDM, future design process uses.
One additional question asked more specifically when in the design process they might use the
BDM, see Table 2-6. The majority response (n=15) was that they would use it throughout the
design process with the second highest (n=7) being use in the conceptual design phase. This was
again an interesting finding after their use of it as a post-occupancy evaluation.
Table 2-7. Overall quality of the BDM.
Note: 5-point scale, 5 being high, 54 items, one person did not complete this question.
The BDM quality was rated using a 5-point scale; the mean scores ranged from 3.8 to
4.4, see Table 2-7. Also, the BDM as an assessment tool now has a total possible score of 162.
When might you use the BDM?
Design Phase
Frequency
%
Conceptual
7
21
Programming
5
15
Design dev
5
15
Post occupancy
1
3
All
15
45
Other
0
0
Post-BDM assessments
BD
How would you rate the quality of the BDM as an interior design tool in the following
categories
n
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Instruction
22
3.82
.97
-.77
.36
Definition
22
3.93
.68
-1.43
2.23
Name
22
4.16
.63
-.97
1.19
Choices
22
3.96
.47
-.58
.04
Comprehen-
siveness
22
4.39
.75
-.63
-.373
Overall
Clarity
22
4.07
.90
-1.21
2.35
Helpfulness
22
3.96
.66
-17.95
3.40
Total BDM score of the given space
BDM score
22
63.00
21.08
4.51
2.01
39
This is based on adding up each attribute’s possible score (0-3). The total score for the
practitioner’s assessment of the given space averaged 63. Several practitioners noted that they
saw the space lacking in biophilic variety and feeling very cold, which may have been
represented in the BDM scores. This is preliminary testing so there is not a set high vs low score,
which may be a future development.
Research Question Three: BDM Validity and Reliability
The element categories were internally reliable as shown in the Cronbach’s Alpha results
of the elements in Table 2-8 with a range α =.77 to .91 (DeVellis, 2017). The overall BDM as a
whole scored α = .94. Additionally, the individual attributes were assessed with the following
criteria:
• Cronbach’s Alpha, greater than or equal to .70
• Inter-item correlations, greater than .15
• Corrected item-scale correlations, greater than or equal .50
• Cronbach’s alpha’s if item deleted, decrease in alpha if item deleted
Table 2-8. BDM reliability element and combined results.
The criteria used excluded 4 attributes: habitats, composition, pragmatic and reflected
light. None of the Cronbach's alpha if item deleted scores for these four items was drastically
different from the element category Cronbach’s Alpha score: habitats (Cronbach’s alpha if item
BDM reliability testing
n
# of attributes
Cronbach’s Alpha
Actual Natural Feature
23
8
.79
Natural Shapes and Forms
23
7
.77
Natural Patterns and Processes
23
10
.79
Color and Light
23
15
.75
Place-Based Relationships
23
6
.91
Human-Nature Relationships
23
8
.86
All elements combined
23
54
.94
40
deleted was .82 up from .79 for the element), composition (Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted was
.76 up from .75 for the element), pragmatics (Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted was .80 up from
.75 for the element) and reflected light (Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted was .77 up from .75 for
the element). Additional rounds of test-retesting of the Cronbach’s alpha by removing these
items and looking at resulting correlation issues increased the Alpha only slightly. These items
should be re-assessed before removing them to see if revised definitions with an alternate
assessment site may provide more rich information and may contradict these findings. The
overall reliability was good, so future testing is needed to expand upon the findings here and
address the potentially biased sampling.
Discussion
Designers see biophilic design as important, however they had only moderate confidence
and previous experience in using it. Future testing with experienced users of the BDM can see if
knowledge increased correspondingly with confidence levels. This would align with other
findings of a correlation between confidence and knowledge in evidence-based practice among
occupational therapy students as experience increased (DeCleene Huber et al., 2015).
After identifying that biophilic design was important, finding out what kind of tool would
support interior designers was even more relevant. The BDM was helpful, had an overall good
quality level and was considered a design aid to the entire design process. It was both relevant
and useful as a design aid but could also be used to teach clients and explain design decisions.
This aligns with Kirk Hamilton’s view on an evidence-based designer being one that makes
decisions with an informed client (2004). In this regard, it is a tool that designers can use to help
clients see the diversity of the needs of building occupants by having conversations with them at
the beginning of a project. This is optimal for working within the building information modeling
process (Azhar, Khalfan, & Maqsood, 2012).
41
To insure the future of the work done here, the concept of biophilic interior design is
proposed, distinct but under the umbrella of biophilic design. To align with this, the name of the
BDM is being changed to the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix with a coordinating toolkit of
parts. The biophilic interior design (BID) toolkit has the following four components now
available at http://redgatordesign.wixsite.com/biophilicdesign:
• biophilic interior design matrix (previously the BDM), BID-M
• biophilic interior design checklist sheet, BID-C
• biophilic interior design reference document, BID-R
• online biophilic interior design research repository
The BDM was overall seen having a good quality and could be used as an assessment tool so it is
now called the BID-M. It was also seen as a design aid so a simplified version without the
scoring feature was created (BID-R) for this purpose, as well a single page list of all the
attributes created for a quick reference “checklist”. Huber found similar to this study that interior
designers are seeking information about biomimicry/biophilic design, and there is an
“opportunity to narrow the research utilization gap by making scholarly sources more
approachable” (Huber, 2018, p. 25). Thus, having used a participatory design process with
designers helped to result in an easily adaptable toolkit and is an important advancement toward
an established biophilic interior design language being operationalized.
Since nature is a sensorial varied experience, a varied biophilic-based interior should be
part of a nature-based design strategy. The original BDM was based upon this idea but was
originally only applicable to one setting, had difficult language and required a long time to
complete. The new version has improved usability and is easily accessible online with a more
robust reliability and validity. The BID-M is poised to aid the identification of a variety of
features with validity results indicating the features can be assumed to be biophilic. The impetus
is placed on designers to use the list of features for their thoughtful integration of variety to aid
42
their design process. In this regard as the BID-M develops it can aid designers using WELL and
Living Building Challenge. It offers clear language, research support and example strategies to
give guidance for designers. This should ultimately encourage more participation in these
programs for greater biophilic design, ultimately increasing the knowledge base and encouraging
further projects.
Revisiting the four attributes with low internal reliability could be improved, especially
with the three that clustered in the color and light category deserving further consideration as a
group. Habitats (the interior of buildings and their landscapes that possess a close and
compatible relationship to local habitats) may have been an issue with people trying to decide
whether to include the manmade landscape outside as being considered a local habitat.
Composition (color, light and materials applied as a composition through unity and/or variety
connecting with nature) could have been an issue with the overall design feeling not very natural
with the mostly grey interior, while others did see the large window and indoor/outdoor feel very
unified. Pragmatic (color, light and materials selection based upon maintenance, life cycle cost,
existing conditions, external weather and/or environmental choices) could have also varied with
some people appreciating the durable materials and others not seeing this an obvious design
decision in the photos. Reflected light (light reflecting off surfaces) could have been an issue to
some not seeing the reflections of overhead light in the floor, while others may have seen the
mostly matte surfaces as not offering significant sparkle to count as offering reflected light.
These may be examples where the assessment was difficult based on the site used or the
definitions and the features need to be improved, or they may be just truly not related close
enough to the elements and moved elsewhere or removed. These might however perform better
through use as a design tool to justify their inclusion. Overall, the BID-M offers a systematic and
43
holistic biophilic interior design tool and language for aiding designers in incorporating nature in
the interior.
Figure 2-3. Proposed restorative environmental design framework diagram.
In this study interior designers saw relevance in biophilic design attributes and the current
list of attributes provides a concrete list to reference, use in the design process and educate
others. It also highlights how interior design can uniquely play a part in restorative
environmental design. The combination of sustainability and biophilic design can best be
obtained when the different design professions work together alongside of the building
stakeholders/users from the beginning of the project. A new proposed framework, see Figure 2-2,
diagrams how these different parts combine as a bridge between sustainability and restorative
environmental design. This ultimately benefits the future of people and the planet when everyone
comes to the table and works together to optimize the design solution for sustainability and
biophilia.
44
CHAPTER 3
ESSAY 2
A study of the current status of color, light and materiality in biophilic interior
design literature and practice: Although there is growing evidence for biophilic interior
design, there is little guidance for designers in attempting to include evidence-based biophilic
design features, specifically through the most common interior design tactics color, light and
materials. The Biophilic Interior Design Matrix was recently developed to facilitate the
identification of a variety of biophilic features among 54 attributes in six elements, with a
specific expansion in color, light and materials, however these features lack a current connection
to evidence. To address that short fall, a modified systematic literature review was conducted in
regard to color, light and materials. In linking research to biophilic attributes it begins to provide
evidence and guidance for their adoption. Additionally, a survey of interior design professionals
identified the current state of biophilic design practice, specifically regarding the use of color,
lighting and materiality. The exploratory literature review found relevance among a variety of
the biophilic attributes in 19 studies. Similarities and differences were found with practitioners
biophilic design applications compared to the research. Designers focused their biophilic
integration on considerations for human response and preference, as well as connecting to the
locale. These topics were not as highly identified in the literature. Plants and abstraction of
nature were additional tactics used by practitioners that had a greater research focus. An
emphasis in research and practice occurred within the newly adopted attributes from the Color
Planning Framework and they offer a more robust view of color, light and material integration
strategies for biophilic interior design.
45
Background
Designing with nature has become a growing trend and this includes evidence-based
design principles that support the use of nature-based environmental design for optimizing
people’s wellbeing (Kellert, 1993). This is known as biophilic design, or an approach that
attempts to mimic the natural environment to gain possible benefits. The Biophilic Interior
Design Matrix (BID-M) assists designers with identification of biophilic features through 54
biophilic attributes that are categorized in six elements. These elements are titled: actual natural
materials, natural representations, natural patterns and processes, color and light, place-based
relationships and human-nature relationships, see Appendix I. There was currently no
systematic and holistic way for designers to incorporate nature and so the further development of
the BID-M was recently warranted to optimize its usability. Color, light and materiality are three
universal concepts used in interior design (Bosch et al., 2012; Dalke et al., 2006), yet they were
underrepresented in the BID-M in the original version. Five new attributes were added from the
Color Planning Framework (Portillo, 2009) to the fourth element, color and light. With this
development, there are new opportunities for research. The first is the ability to investigate the
current state of biophilic research among color, lighting and materiality with the 54 attributes.
Second is investigating biophilic practice in relation to color, light and materiality to see what
types of strategies designers are using. This allows for knowing the current state of biophilic
design in research and practice to better support practitioners through future research.
The term biophilia was original defined by E.O. Wilson in his studies of biology (1984).
Connecting with nature allows people to experience neurological nourishment, with physical,
psychological and spiritual outcomes (Kahn & Kellert, 2002; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Louv,
2011; Ulrich et al., 2008). Biophilia is joined with sustainability in the restorative environmental
design (RED) framework for creating holistically beneficial buildings. RED views buildings as
46
being “protective in both direct and indirect ways” (Hartig et al., 2008, p. 139). Within this
framework, the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) uses a variety of features to support
design decisions for long term beneficial connections between people and nature (McGee, 2012).
These features include:
Table 3-1. Biophilic design elements and attributes.
Actual natural features- actual (not images) of
real nature characteristics in the interior
1
Air
2
Water
3
Plants
4
Animals
5
Natural materials
6
Views and vistas
7
Habitats
8
Fire
Natural shapes and forms- representations of
nature and simulations
9
Botanical motifs
10
Animal-like
11
Shells and spirals
12
Curves and arches
13
Fluid forms
14
Abstraction of nature
15
Inside-outside
Natural patterns and processes- properties
derived from natural features and processes
16
Sensory richness
17
Age, change and the patina of time
18
Area of emphasis
19
Patterned wholes
20
Bounded spaces
21
Linked series and chains
22
Integration of parts to wholes
23
Complementary contrasts
24
Dynamic balance and tension
25
Natural ratios and scales
Color and light- color, light and material
qualities and space relationships to nature
26
Composition
27
Communication
28
Preference
29
Response
30
Pragmatics
31
Natural light
32
Filtered light
33
Reflected light
34
Light pools
35
Warm light
36
Light as shape and form
37
Spaciousness
38
Spatial variety
39
Space as shape and form
40
Spatial harmony
Place-based relationships- culture together with
ecology, rooted in geography
41
Geographic connection to place
42
Historic connection to place
43
Ecological connection to place
44
Cultural connection to place
45
Integration of culture and ecology
46
Spirit of place
Human-nature relationships- paired biological
needs of the human relationship to nature
47
Prospect/refuge
48
Order/complexity
49
Curiosity/enticement
50
Mastery/control
51
Attraction/attachment
52
Exploration/discovery
53
Fear/awe
54
Reverence/spirituality
47
The BID-M was originally based upon Kellert’s (2008) proposal of biophilic features. It
can be used to assist with creative design generation during the programming and design
development or can be used as an evaluation tool (see Chapter 2 and 4). The BID-M supports the
evaluation of nature-based features for an overall assessment of biophilic variety. Since nature is
a highly varied environment, greater variety should be more likely to support biophilia. This has
been initially validated by a recent study where specialists rated spaces and then correlated with
the amount of biophilic variety (Weinberger et al., 2017). The recent BID-M redevelopment was
through a systematic participatory method with improved reliability and validity (see Chapter 2).
The Biophilic Interior Design Matrix had its foundation in Kellert’s proposition of
biophilia being a weak biological tendency that is:
reliant on adequate learning, experience, and sociocultural support for it to
become functionally robust. As a weak biological tendency, biophilic values can
be highly variable and subject to human choice and free will, but the adaptive
value of these choices is ultimately bound by biology. Thus, if our biophilic
tendencies are insufficiently stimulated and nurtured, they will remain latent,
atrophied, and dysfunctional (Kellert, 2008b, p. 4).
The ability for people to connect with nature, natural systems and processes inside of the built
environment ultimately is facilitated or impeded by the design of the building, including its
interior design. Evidence is beginning to show that “people's physical and mental well-being
remains highly contingent on contact with the natural environment, which is a necessity rather
than a luxury for achieving lives of fitness and satisfaction even in our modern urban society”
(Kellert, 2008b, p. 4). However, modern Americans spend about 90% of time inside and this
limits direct nature contact (Derr & Kellert, Stephen, 2013; Klepeis et al., 2001).
Lighting
In regard to designing with light, the definition of light is “the natural
agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible” according to the New Oxford American
48
Dictionary (2018). Designing with light requires thoughtful layers of lighting applied for
function and aesthetics and when done well it reveals the beauty of the design and enhances the
colors and materials of the space (Livingston, 2014). Light can direct attention, provide
functionality for tasks and spark the imagination. Richard Kelly, the “father” of architectural
lighting design, used a variety of focal glow, ambient luminescence and the play of brilliants
(known today as ambient, task and accent lighting). While light is both a wave and particle and
can have objective measurements applied, it is also an important element of composition and
reveals form. It is inextricably tied to materiality and the visual assessment people have of an
interior with subjective effects on mood (Livingston, 2014). It is also influenced by the room.
Livingston notes this:
One aspect affecting the distribution of light is the way surfaces interact with
light. What we perceive as brightness is not just the amount of lighting in a room.
Room brightness is a combination of the intensity of the light and the reflecting,
diffusing, transmitting, and absorbing properties of the surfaces in the room
(2014, p. 67).
The quality of natural light especially influences the interior; direct access to natural light has
growing research support (Alimoglu & Donmez, 2005; Beute & Kort, 2014). Some of the
specific approaches to the use of light in the BDM include filtered light, reflected light, light
pools, warm light and light as shape and form. All of the features are defined in Appendix B.
The quality of natural light especially influences the interior with direct access to natural
light having growing research support (Alimoglu & Donmez, 2005; Beute & Kort, 2014). Some
of the specific approaches to the use of light in the BID-M include filtered light, reflected light,
light pools, warm light and light as shape and form. Filtered light is modulated daylight which
reduces glare through the use of blinds, shades or tinted glazing, for example. This is
representative of the filtered light found under a tree canopy that offers protection from too much
sun exposure. Reflected light is the light that reflects off of surfaces and is what provides the
49
sparkle, or play of brilliants as Richard Kelly called it. It is the found in sunlight reflecting off of
water and the shimmer off morning dew. The use of mirrors and small lights can replicate this.
Light pools are pools of connected light in a series on the floor or wall drawing you from one
area to another, often surrounded by darker areas, such as in high contrast lighting environments
that provide emphasis. Retail stores use this to bring customers toward the highlighted
merchandise as in nature; the well-lit path draws us forward. Warm light is lighting that has a
2,000 to 3,000 K color temperature and is inviting, like a fire that draws you in to get warm. The
use of candle light is a good example that makes a space feel cozy. Light as shape and form is
present when natural light is manipulated to create stimulating, dynamic and/or sculptural form.
The use of light shafts or skylights can represent a beam of light that breaks through a cloudy
sky. These lighting considerations are housed in the color and light element to align with its
close relationship in biophilic design with light, color and materiality.
Materiality
The definition of materiality is the “quality or character of being material or composed of
matter, with material being defined as the matter from which a thing is or can be made” (New
Oxford American Dictionary, 2018). Designing with materiality requires attention to the
interconnection of the human experience and how properties engage people (Gesimondo &
Postell, 2011). Materials can be highly subjective, such as our preference for a particular material
and object materiality is influenced by its properties. Additionally, “environmental context and
cultural bias collectively give materials their broader meaning, while interior space offers a
spatial framework for daily experience” (Gesimondo & Postell, 2011, p. 3). Portillo adds a
poignant thought to the relevance of material selection as it relates to nature:
Just as the hues of nature have inspired artists through the ages, introducing
natural materials into designed spaces creates a coloration that is often nuanced
and complex. Some designers and schools of thought embrace a truth-to-materials
50
stance that celebrates materiality in design. This perspective elevates natural
materials over applied color finishes, such as paint. Regardless of the design
stance on authenticity, color planning should be approached with intention and
purpose (2009, pg. 5).
Additionally, Portillo (2009) points out that it is not as important to look at if something is
authentically “natural”, like if a faux painted stone wall is less natural than a real stone wall. It is
more important to consider how it is being applied to support the design of the space and
ultimately the users as well. The BID-M allows for such an approach as individuals can explore
their individual assessments of the degree of strength a particular feature has in the interior while
acknowledging variety in effect and affect. Both actual, representational and other types of
nature connections are included in the matrix that cover a broad range of nature-features that will
interact with color, light and materials.
Color
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary (2018) the definition of color is
“the property possessed by an object producing different sensations on the eye as a result
of the way the object reflects or emits light”. Color is a concept that “elevates the human
experience and transforms space; yet, the process of designing with color can be quite complex
and challenging” (Portillo, 2009, p. 1). Designing with color requires both understanding and
accounting for subjective and objective responses. People have individual responses to color and
yet there can be commonalities across user groups and cultures (Lee & Park, 2011; Park & Park,
2013). There are objective realities with color that are consistently able to be measured, such as
color wavelengths, and these require understanding light because “the properties of lighting and
illumination influence color appearance” (Portillo, 2009, p. 45). Plus, the materials in a space
brings with them color, as well, being influenced by the conditions of the surrounding materials
(Gesimondo & Postell, 2011). To further consider these concepts, the Color Planning Framework
51
was adopted and adapted within the BID-M to represent color, light and materials. The original
BID-M included color defined simply as any color and as such was not helpful in guiding
designers in further development of design solutions. It was also clear that there needed to be
improvements in the overall user-friendliness of the tool. The revised BID-M addressed these
issues and resulted in a list of 54 features with refined definitions and nomenclature that makes it
more user-friendly as a tool. The Color Planning Framework (CPF) was used during the BID-M
revision as a criteria-based framework with five functions added as attributes.
Color as preference is “color, light and materials reflecting the time, place, and
circumstances in which we live” (Portillo, 2009, pg. 65). Examples include a designer or firm’s
signature style and market trends, such as the Pantone color of the year. People have subjective
likes and that is a valid design consideration. One example of preference would be to reflect
local favorite landmarks in the design.
Color definitely influences people’s response to a design to various degrees. Response is
defined as natural inspired color, light and materials integrated for physiological, psychological
and/or behavioral responses (e.g., light fixtures that mimic sunrise/sunset patterns). Color
response with engagement in interiors can include arousal and emotion, color and temperature,
performance and memory, flavor and consumption, and productivity (Portillo, 2009). Color
response is influenced by lighting variation and materials used. Currently many design findings
from research are hard to generalize but the link to nature and people’s general biological
response to color, light and materials is a key future research path. Empirical research on “color
and emotion, temperature, memory, and the perception of flavors (even food and beverage
consumption and preference) shed light on the influence of color. More complex behaviors, like
workplace performance, are much more difficult to research and predict” (Portillo, 2009).
52
Research is needed but nature-based research related to preference is growing (Cho & Lee, 2017;
Coad & Coad, 2008; Eisen et al., 2008).
Pragmatics reflects the practical realities of designing with color, light and materials. It is
defined as “color, light and materials selection based upon maintenance, life cycle cost, existing
conditions, external weather and/or environmental choices”. An example is a sustainable flooring
choice for high traffic area. This links well with the historical practice and modern rediscovery of
the need to use local and regional materials when possible, as well as selections with life cycle
and durability in mind.
The two independent research studies included a systematic literature review and a
survey of practitioners, see Figure 3-1. The resulting research questions were:
1. What evidence for color, light, and materials can support the biophilic design attributes?
2. How through color, light and materials is biophilia being incorporated into design
practice?
3. What are the similarities and differences between the research available and designers’
use of color, light and materials.
Figure 3-1. Process diagram for both studies.
Student
literature
review
• Step 1 Introduction
• Step 2 5 articles/ topic abstract review
• Step 3 1 article/topic literature chart
Screening
/ analysis
• Step 4 Screening/analysis
Survey
• Practitioner questionnaire
53
Study 1
Method
During the process of developing the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix there was found
under-representation in the topics of color, light and materiality. It was then desired to develop
those topics in relation to linking the available evidence for their inclusion in biophilic interior
design.
The protocol for the literature review follows the 2015 PRISMA-P Checklist (Shamseer
et al., 2015). This is a protocol that provides a set of items for developing and reporting
systematic reviews. The rationale for the review was the growing number of research studies on
features that look at biophilia or are related, yet there has not been an attempt to link research to
the variety of biophilic design attributes. Since the revision of the Biophilic Interior Design
Matrix was aimed at assisting designers with evidence-based design, the list of features could
benefit by being linked to research for supporting evidence-based practice. Limitations of the
study included not analyzing the entire database of options, as the original number of articles
selected was limited from the start to five per topic in order to be feasible for students.
The review focused on intervention and outcomes regarding research for color, light, and
materials supporting the biophilic design attributes (see Appendix A for the assignment sheet).
Students had already been exposed to how to conduct a literature review. The junior interior
design students in a lighting design class had already learned how to conduct a literature review
and the learning objectives were to improve upon their ability to access and synthesize research
and familiarize themselves with research related to color, light and materiality, as these were the
overarching topics covered in regard to lighting design. They were given a set list of criteria to
search through the University library OneSearch feature or GoogleScholar. InformeDesign was
also highlighted in class.
54
• Art and Architecture Source
• Building Green
• Compendex
• Dissertations and Theses Global
• Materials Research Database
• Referex Engineering - Materials and Mechanical Collection (Engineering Village)
• Web of Science
• InformeDesign
The search criteria were selected for either those closely related to the built environment
or as a broad base for related fields. English articles were used with a publication date range
from 1984, the date range was allowed to extend if related. The project timetable was just over
five weeks for the students’ assignment. Then, the assessment and synthesis followed at the end
of the semester.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Step one began with a conceptual discussion of the project
need and the concept of biophilic design. The Biophilic Interior Design Matrix was reviewed,
and the updated checklist and definitions were also given. See the flow diagram, Figure 3-2, for
an overview of the process. After a review of the objectives of the assignment, in step two each
student conducted a review of the research for color, light, and materials that might support
biophilic interior design attributes. Five articles were required for each student per topic. Articles
were selected by students according to their own interests after an abstract review. In step three
after these were turned in, the articles were then narrowed to one per topic in an indiscriminate
selection process by the researcher and the final three articles for each student were then used to
fill out the given annotated bibliography template.
This process resulted in 22 students having 3 articles, one per topic, for 66 articles total;
after duplicates were removed there were 55. The results from step three were then analyzed in
step four with the removal of grey literature, obviously not related articles and if an abstract was
in another language. This resulted in 33 records screened among three independent reviewers.
55
Two research assistant each reviewed half of the list, organized alphabetically by title, with the
primary researcher reviewing all of the articles. After another screening, two more were
removed, for a total of 31 articles relevant for full-text inclusion.
PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Figure 3-2. Literature review flow diagram.
The studies were scored on a 100-point scale to see if they addressed both interior design
and biophilic features, as well as belonging to one of the categories of color, lighting or
materiality. For inter-rater reliability testing, the articles were shared with a group folder in
Zotero, a research organization application, and GoogleSheet assessment forms. This process and
Records identified through database search
(n = 66)
Identification
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 55)
Records screened
(n = 31)
Records excluded
(n = 24)
Literature review 8
Not empirical research 6
Book/thesis 5
Topic not related 3
Conference 2
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 19)
Full-text articles excluded,
(n = 12)
Not covering both interior design
and biophilic design (n=11) or not
being empirical research (n=1)
Studies included in synthesis
(n = 19)
Screening
Eligibility
Included
56
the form was pilot tested with one article assessed together as a teaching example, then five
articles were done independently, and the results compared. If there was agreement of at least
70% that the article was related to both biophilic design and interior design, it was retained.
Table 3-2. Literature review biophilic design results.
Author
Biophilic
Attributes
Color
Light
Material
Biophilic
Implication
Strength
(-)
Biophilia Benefits
1
Gray & Birrell
(2014)
Plants
⚫
short-term wellbeing and more
positive perceptions of working
environment after plants added
2
Tavsan &
Sonmez (2015)
abstraction of
nature
⚫
biomimicry used as design
inspiration for design students
3
Rossin (2010)
abstraction of
nature
⚫
biomimetic process added to
interior design process to solve
problems
4
Olguntürk &
Demirkan (2011)
abstraction of
nature
⚫
color in a pattern is principal
component tying it to concept
5
Kim et al. (2017)
response
⚫
⚫
CQAT used for color quality,
luminous environment and
circadian action factor varied
with finishes
6
Raanaas et al.
(2010)
Plants
⚫
adding plants to a rehab center
benefited wellbeing
7
Odabaşioğlu &
Olguntürk (2015)
composition,
response
⚫
⚫
colored lighting affected
perceptions
8
Campbell (1979)
composition,
plants, preference
⚫
plants, visual posters and
organization influence how
people feel and how they see the
owner of the space
9
Vouchilas (2017)
preference
⚫
color preference in designed
objects and spaces influences
perception of design
10
Theodorson
(2018)
natural light,
pragmatics
⚫
natural light and views in
classrooms need easy to use
daylight control
11
Koranteng &
Simons (2012)
natural light,
pragmatics
⚫
natural light reduced from
architectural and cultural
decisions, education needed
about benefits of natural light
57
Table 3-2 Continued. Literature review biophilic design results.
Note: is low biophilic implications to is high
Results and Discussion
The evidence available for color, light, and materials did include a variety of biophilic
attributes. This literature review managed to summarize 19 articles in relation to biophilic
design: four on color, eight on light and nine on materiality; two had dual topics. The dates
ranged from 1979 to 2018 and were found to be appropriate to the review goals, see Table 3-3.
The most common biophilic feature was preference.
Author
Biophilic
Attributes
Color
Light
Material
Biophilic
Implicatio
n Strength
(-)
Biophilia Benefits
12
Park & Farr
(2007)
preference,
response, warm
light
⚫
preference for lighting including
color temperature, color
rendering changes with age &
warm lighting use, consideration
needed with older populations
13
Dijkstra et al.
(2008)
Plants
⚫
indoor plants add an aesthetic
quality that reduced perceived
stress
14
Sanati & Utzinger
(2013)
filtered light,
natural light,
preference,
response, mastery/
control
⚫
light shelf helpful for increased
daylight access, control of blinds
important
15
Park & Farr
(2007)
response,
preference
⚫
perceptions of pleasurable
lighting varies by culture
16
Pati et al. (2016)
inside-outside,
sensory richness
⚫
sky representation over patient
beds beneficial for acute stress
and anxiety levels
17
McCoy & Evans
(2002)
order/ complexity,
views and vistas,
natural materials,
⚫
views of natural environments
and exposure to natural materials
may promote creative
performance
18
Daneshgarmogha
ddam & Bahrainy
(2014)
integration of
culture and
ecology, spirit of
place
⚫
spirit of place can benefit from
natural features in the built
environment inside and outside
19
Eisen et al.
(2008)
preference,
botanical motifs
⚫
nature representation in artwork
for children's spaces are most
preferred, choices should be
available
58
Table 3-3. Biophilic feature frequency in the literature review.
Note the articles were able to be categorized with more than one biophilic features.
Color
The color literature was not a large contributor to this review, although there has been a
great deal of research conducted on the color in design in general (Elliot & Maier, 2014).
Number of articles per BID-M features for Color:
• Response (2)
• Abstraction of nature, Preference, and Composition (1 each)
The addition of the Color Planning Framework into the BID-M provided a key link to the
literature reviewed, as 50% of the coding for the color articles was represented in the related
attributes from the Color Planning Framework, although this is a small sample. Color had a weak
representation in the literature reviewed with only four of 19 articles and a weak to moderate
biophilic implication strength. However, growing evidence supports the biophilic features
identified here. As they are theoretically tied to human innate needs, these features point to how
Biophilic features
Biophilic attribute #
Frequency of articles
Preference
28
6
Plants
3
4
Response
29
4
Abstraction of nature
14
3
Natural light
31
3
Composition
26
2
Pragmatics
30
2
Botanical motifs
9
1
Filtered light
32
1
Inside outside
15
1
Integration of culture and ecology
45
1
Mastery/ control
50
1
Natural materials
5
1
Order/ complexity
48
1
Response
29
1
Sensory richness
16
1
Spirit of place
46
1
Views/ vistas
6
1
Warm light
35
1
59
people can connect with nature via nature-inspired design features, such as preference and
response.
Response was the most commonly researched biophilic feature related to color and second in
the combined list of all three topics. Looking for direct linkages between color and health
outcomes is still under-researched and “no sufficient evidence exists in the literature to the causal
relationship between settings painted in particular colors and patients’ healthcare outcomes”
(Tofle, Schwarz, Yoon, Max-Royale, & Des, 2004, p. 4). Also, color can influence behavior and
cognition based upon the context, for example aiding wayfinding (Dalke et al., 2006; Wise &
Wise, 1988). The color spectrum of light has been directly linked to circadian rhythms and
human response with health outcomes (Bosch, Edelstein, Cama, & Malkin, 2012), so there is
evidence growing around how color influences people but it also may be influenced by a
person’s stimulus screening ability. As a study in an office setting found that a person with low
stimulus screening reported more dysphoria in red and white offices than their counterparts,
high-screeners, who performed better on tasks in the red and poorer in the blue-green offices
(Kwallek, Woodson, Lewis, & Sales, 1997). One of the reviewed studies found that colored
lighting affected responses in an experiment looking at red, green and white lighting
(Odabaşioğlu & Olguntürk, 2015). This is similar to other research that found “demonstrable
perceptual impressions of color applications that can affect the experience and performance of
people in particular environments” (Tofle et al., 2004, p. 4), such as perceptions of spaciousness
and confinement attributed to color value. Additionally, warm colors can promote memory recall
which could be helpful for wayfinding (Hidayetoglu, Yildirim, & Akalin, 2012).
Meanwhile, the research on preference is additionally growing. One of the studies looked
at in this review found that color in designed objects and spaces was a key consideration for
preference and being labeled as “good design” by millennials (Vouchilas & Ulasewicz, 2017).
60
This aligns with other studies about designing for older users having preferences first for blue,
then red/green, and then yellow (Bosch et al., 2012; Dittmar, 2001). Importantly, perception of
color “is influenced by its context and surrounding variables” (Okken, 2015, p. 12) and as such
color is dependent on light and the surrounding contextual materiality. Yet, color was the most
influential design element when patterns were studied (Olguntürk & Demirkan, 2011).
Preference for color also needs to be approached with culture in mind and an awareness of the
many variables at play such as noise and ambient temperature physical and psychological states.
This makes color research more challenging. As such, there is only a small amount of evidence-
based guidance for color in healthcare settings (Park & Park, 2013; Portillo, 2009) and
essentially no evidence showing any specific approach to using or defining nature-based color.
Perhaps controllability of color, as was found by Coad and Coad, is important since “several
participants referred to wanting the ability to control their environment such as changing the
color of walls and lighting” (2008, p. 44). As such variety and controllability may be key
features exhibited by nature that need to be highly prioritized. Just as a chameleon changes it
skin and plants adjust to the amount of light, so the ability to adapt to our perceived preference
during a situation is similar to these processes found in nature.
Composition is a core function of interior design and when designers “understand the
relationship between color properties, form, light, and materiality, they are able to most
effectively utilize color for creating emphasis, contrast, unity, and balance within spaces as well
as manipulate how spaces are perceived” (Okken, 2015, pp. 13–14). Consideration for the
composition of a design included using local context and natural materials as inspiration. While
color is a well-established component of design education, it appears very little in the light of
biophilic design research has been attempted. The work by Odabaşioğlu and Olguntürk (2015)
61
showed colored lighting affecting spaciousness, comfort, quality and aesthetic. This points to
how color and light should be studied together as well as apart. It also aligns with the biophilic
attribute response, as in another study that showed blue interior finishes had greater effect on
biorhythm response (Kim et al., 2017). Abstraction of nature has had some biophilic design
research with patterns (Olguntürk & Demirkan, 2011). Overall, color has much opportunity for
expanding the evidence base. Research on color and response offers guidance for considering
how variety and controllability can be offered to users of a space. Also, preference offers a way
to look at the programmatic needs of a space by considering personalized nature inclusion.
Lighting
The research on lighting spanned from weak to strong within nine articles. Lighting with
response, preference, natural light and pragmatics were included in more than one article and
focused on here.
Number of articles per BID-M features for Light:
• Response (4)
• Preference, Natural light, and Pragmatics (3 each)
• Composition, Filtered light, Inside outside, Mastery and control, Sensory richness and
Warm light (1 each)
Light has been studied regarding human health and performance and this falls into four
mechanisms: enabling performance of visual tasks, controlling the body’s circadian system,
affecting mood and perception, and facilitating direct absorption for critical chemical reactions
within the body (Olguntürk & Demirkan, 2011). In regard to preference and response, two
studies by Park and Farr (2007a, 2007b) looked at lighting in retail environments for how light
can affect mood and perception. Pleasure responses to color rendering were found to be varied
among cultures. American perceived a higher color rendering index of lighting (95 CRI) as more
pleasurable than Koreans and participants perceived the high (5000 K) correlated color
62
temperature as more approachable. The other study was with older adults. They rated comfort
and preference higher for all four given lighting conditions than younger adults. As well,
participants in both age groups experienced more visual comfort under the cooler lighting
conditions and preferred cool light under all lighting conditions.
The exposure to natural light (or daylight) is well established in regard to controlling
circadian rhythm and facilitating direct absorption for critical chemical reactions within the body
(Shepley, Gerbi, Watson, Imgrund, & Sagha-Zadeh, 2012; Zadeh, Shepley, Williams, & Sung
Eun Chung, 2014). However, natural light and views of nature are often studied in separate fields
and without acknowledging the effect one has on the other (Beute & Kort, 2014), as was often
found in this review. However, natural light and pragmatics were studied together in studies by
Theodorson (2018) and Koranteng and Simons (2012). Natural light was found in both to be
preferred for sustainability, but issues were identified with its control. Natural light was reduced
due to architectural and culture decisions. Education was needed to increase the use of natural
light. Another study (Sanati & Utzinger, 2013) involved a variety of biophilic features: filtered
light, natural light, preference, response, pragmatics and mastery/control. A light shelf was
found to help reduce the need for lowering blinds that in turn led to lesser window and view
occlusion for enabled task performance. It also showed a significant energy savings which is
another good example of pragmatics.
When natural light is not available, however, LED sky representation panels may be
used, and this was studied in one experiment where 181 participants were studied with 11
outcomes regarding the benefits of a photographic sky used over patient beds. Significant
findings included more positive environmental satisfaction by patients and improved diastolic
blood pressure. This aligns with other research (Lankston, Cusack, Fremantle, & Isles, 2010;
63
McCuskey Shepley, 2006; Nanda, Eisen, Zadeh, & Owen, 2011) regarding nature-inspired art
for improving patient outcomes where patients who are ill and stressed prefer the “state of calm
created by the blues and greens of landscape and nature scenes instead” (Lankston et al., 2010, p.
490).
Other applications of lighting include pragmatic designing with sustainability in mind.
“While making decisions regarding lighting, economic factors (first costs, energy consumption,
and maintenance) must also be taken into consideration” (Joseph, 2006, p. 10). However, as
recently identified (Freihoefer, Guerin, Martin, Kim, & Brigham, 2013), spaces that meet
lighting specifications for sustainability may not satisfy the occupants. The response of people to
light is a very importatnt design consideration that may take additional education of the users of
the space to ensure that the lighting control systems in place are understood and maintained.
Materiality
The most obvious and well-known strategy for including biophilia inside is the
incorporation of plants. The number of articles per BID-M features for Materiality were:
• Plants (4)
• Abstraction of nature and Preference (2 each)
• Composition, Order and complexity, Views and vistas, Natural materials, Integration of
culture and ecology, Spirit of place and Botanical motifs (1 each)
Along with natural light and views, as already discussed, plants are perhaps one of the
most impactful biophilic attributes that can improve perceptions of wellbeing (Dijkstra, Pieterse,
& Pruyn, 2008a; Gray & Birrell, 2014; Park & Mattson, 2009; Raanaas, Patil, & Hartig, 2010).
Gray and Birrell (2014) conducted a study with the integration of plants into a workplace and
found short term positive effects but several other adjustments made the space different from
previous offices, limiting implications. Another study found subjective wellbeing increased in
one of the study groups when plants were added to common areas. A study of hospital patients
64
exposed to rooms with plants showed reduced feelings of stress through the mediating variable
of attractiveness (Dijkstra, Pieterse, & Pruyn, 2008b). A similar integration of plants in a hospital
room setting with surgery patients found having plants in the rooms during recovery had positive
influence on health outcomes in comparison to the control group (Park & Mattson, 2009). These
findings are not unexpected within the RED framework and biophilia theory with plants offering
an actual natural connection that is direct and more impactful than representations.
Representation of plants, or botanical motifs, has also been studied in nature-themed art work
and was the preference of children given art choices (Eisen et al., 2008). This is similar to
abstraction of nature, where the concept biomimicry is included. It is when engineers and
designers look to nature to inspire design solutions to human problems (Benyus, 2002). Two
studies reviewed used biomimicry to help design students (Rossin, 2010; Tavsan & Sonmez,
2015). One used it as design inspiration and one looked at integrating it in the design process.
Combining direct and indirect connections to nature with plants and visual imagery into
an office space was tested with students and the aesthetic quality reduced perceived stress
(Campbell, 1979). Even views of natural environments or use of natural materials can be
influential (McCoy & Evans, 2002). McCoy and Evan’s study specifically looked at creativity
and found that “environments perceived low in creativity potential were consistently
windowless, finished in manufactured or composite materials, and with overall cool colors”
(2002, p. 420). The preference for windows with a view (views and vistas), natural materials and
warm colors seems to also promote creativity. This was then tested in a second study. The
researchers next compared two spaces and found that greater creativity was expressed in the
more natural environment. Both spaces had natural light but the more natural environment
included more natural materials and warm colors. Teasing these two variables apart did not
65
occur and could also be useful. The researchers noted that testing with different ages and for
different lengths of exposure would also be helpful. The differences within the settings in the
study limit the generalizability but “if human responses to physical settings include enhanced
levels of creativity performance, the implications are vast” (2002, p. 425).
This snapshot of current research shows that there has been emphasis in research among
certain areas with response, natural light and plants being the most common. This review
supports also looking at the current state of biophilic design in practice regarding the use of
color, light and materials.
Study 2
The present use of color, light and materials related to biophilic design was unknown.
Study 2 sought out practitioners to understand the current strategies being used.
Method
Respondents
The respondents were recruited by direct email, snowball sampling or notification
through social media. The participants included 23 interior architects and interior designers. The
average length of practice was over 15 years of experience. Additional certifications were most
commonly LEED and corporate design was the most common specialization. The National
Qualification of Interior Designers was the most common accreditation, n = 9.
66
Table 3-4. Demographics of respondents.
Data Collection
A questionnaire was sent out to ascertain practitioners’ current use of color, light and
materials in their design practice in relation to biophilia. This email provided a link to the
Qualtrics online survey with an open answer question that had no minimum or maximum
requirements. Thematic analysis of the open answer questions categorized responses into themes
and the coding was jointly assigned by two researchers. The coding process looked at the
concept of color, light and materiality separately and each comment was coded in regard to each
of the three concepts, with multiple attributes possible per response. Following the coding,
related themes were collapsed. The responses (n=19) ranged in length from 3 words to 86.
Results and Discussion
The findings showed the practitioners used a variety of approaches to integrate color,
light and materials into their projects. Twenty-nine different biophilic attributes were represented
and 25 not included. Forty-nine comments were assigned to color, 41 for light and 61 for
materials. The top three most common features for each category are discussed next.
Most comments per BID-M features for Color, number of comments in parenthesis:
• Natural materials (6)
• Geographic connection to place (5)
• Composition and Ecological connection to place (4)
Practice
years
Frequency
(%)
Certification
Frequency
(%)
Specialization
Frequency
(%)
< 2
0
0
AAHID
1
3
Corporate
9
26
2 - 5
6
26
LEED
12
34
Healthcare
6
17
6 -10
4
17
NCARB
1
3
Hospitality
4
11
11 -15
3
13
NCIDQ
9
26
Institution
1
3
16 - 20
2
9
Well
1
3
Residential
7
20
21-25
1
4
State license
7
20
Other
8
23
≥ 26
7
30
Other
4
11
67
In general, the top themes represent that color was most often tied to the composition of
the space and the local context. The use of natural materials and representations brings with it
color influence. “Colors can be drawn from natural imagery” one practitioner stated. Another
comment highlights that designer’s approach biophilic design “by designing an interior that
seems appropriate to its location and varying the stated design elements to create a texture like
one would find in nature.” Additional participants talked about using nature-based artwork and
tying the concept of the design to the locality for very project specific design solutions.
Highest comments per BID-M features for Light:
• Natural light (7)
• Pragmatics and Geographic connection to place (4 each)
• Ecological connection to place, Response, and Views and vistas (3 each)
For light, natural light, pragmatics and geographic connection to place were the top
three attributes. Natural light and pragmatic included considerations for efficiency and the
conservation of energy. This includes the use of natural light when available and allowing as
many people as possible to have close access to it. Manipulating color temperature, especially
warm light, was another variable that designers use in their designs. Also, designers use artificial
light to mimic natural light through intensity and circadian rhythm systems to more closely align
people’s responses with natural ones. Pragmatics was also a common consideration including
maintenance and conservation of energy.
Top comments per BID-M features for Materiality:
• Natural materials (6)
• Geographic connection to place and Ecological connection to place (5)
• Abstraction of nature and Cultural connection to place (4)
Some of the natural materials mentioned (aside from plants specifically mentioned
twice) includes natural wood, stone, natural fabrics, crafted and rustic materials and natural
68
artwork. Practitioners also mentioned using organic shapes, patterns and textures. These tactics
are represented within the natural patterns and processes element. Designers also use “layering
in terms of materials and views” and “symbolic use of color and images in wayfinding and
branding”. Human considerations were also noted, like creating soft, comfortable and warm
spaces while avoiding sterile spaces. Again, local context was mentioned with an example being
that the designer would “search for locally or culturally related materials, etc.”
Table 3-5. Frequency of practitioner comments by BID-M attributes, element categories blocked
in color boxes.
As shown in Table 3-5, the six categories of biophilic design, which are named elements,
had varied representation in the numbers of comments. Color, light and materials did group into
two most common areas, color and light and place-based relationships with 46 and 44
comments respectively, out of 155, see Table 3-5. This shows a real sensitivity from the
practitioners for making design decisions specifically to connect the users with the local
environment. Perhaps opportunities for expanding the strategies designers use for biophilic
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
BDM#
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
How practitioners include biophilia through color, light and materials
color light materials
Actual nature
features
Natural
shapes &
forms
Natural
patterns &
processes
Color & space
Place-based
relationships
Human-
nature
relationships
69
design should consider additional attributes.
Many of the strategies designers use showed thoughtful joint consideration of color, light
and materials. Interestingly, geographic connection to place was a biophilic feature that placed
in all three categories. Next, natural materials and ecological connection to place was found in
two out of three categories. One example of a participant’s comment highlights this:
Participant A: We favor using a mix of natural texture (sisal rug, grass-weave wallpaper,
wooden blinds). We have a preference for using natural fabrics such as linen,
cotton, and silks (when appropriate). Many of our projects include designing
custom window treatments, we favor drapes with the use of sheers to bring in
more light but providing some privacy. We specify color temperatures aiming for
2700-3300K. We select sustainable materials, natural materials, such as real wood
furniture (or repurposing existing) as opposed to MDF laminated furniture. Our
projects focus designing for life and durability (excluding kids, pets, and wine).
For example, by using real wood furniture, which is durable and can be finished
rather than a piece (laminated MDF) that cannot be repaired. Finally, we often
purchase and pot up plants to complete the finished project.
Another participant noted that these biophilic design approaches can “be used as basic design
tools in any project”.
Table 3-6. Frequency of comments by biophilic element.
Biophilic Element Categories
Definition
Frequency of comments
Actual natural features
Actual (not mages) of real
nature characteristics in the
interior
23
Natural shapes and forms
Representations of nature and
simulations
24
Natural patterns and processes
Properties derived from natural
features and processes
4
Color and light
Color, light and material
qualities and space relationships
to nature
46
Place-based relationships
Culture together with ecology,
rooted in geography
44
Human-nature relationships
Needs of the human relationship
to nature
3
70
Color, light and materiality are important to interior design and a key focus of the
development of the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix. Through the adoption and adaption of the
Color Planning Framework (CPF), the ability to capture the essence of how interior design can
optimize nature integration allows for a more sensitive capture of color, light and materiality
from the original version. The current study shows that there is a diverse range of research being
produced to aid designers for an evidence-based design approach and designers commonly use
human-centered design attributes. The top attributes shared by both the literature review and
practitioners were abstraction of nature, composition, natural light, natural materials, response
and views and vistas. Two of the six features were from the Color Planning Framework, so its
addition appears to have strengthened the BID-M. This shows how some similarities exist
between research and practice. Interestingly, the literature review found 17 of 38 biophilic
features in the articles were represented in the Color Planning Framework items, further
validating its inclusion.
The similarities with research and practice can be seen in Table 3-7. The use of
composition was shared by both through color application. This aligns with research that has
found that a palette composition with pastel colors can benefit anxiety reduction in some people
(Ireland, Warren, & Herringer, n.d.). Additionally, color composition has been shown to
influence atmosphere and perceptions of a space (Smith & Demirbilek, 2010). Pragmatics was
also a shared common strategy for lighting a space including the control of natural light and
limiting glare. Strategies such as daylight tubes can help (Almusaed & Almusad, 2014).
Differences exist in the more common reliance of natural materials and natural light by
the practitioners. These are two common sense ways of creating a biophilic feeling within a
space. Their use could also be due to a lack of familiarity with the other options avaiable in
71
biophilic interior design. In comparison it is interesting to see that research has had an emphasis
on plants and response. These topics may be easier to research with targeted ways to control
variables. A review of the psychological benefits of indoor plants among 21 studies found
heterogeneity in the results which limit general beneficial claims (Bringslimark, Hartig, & Patil,
2009) so while plants may be easier to research and to get funding, challenges remain. Infection
control is a key consideration for plant inclusion in healthcare settings, for example, but current
guidelines have found that with simple control protocols “flowers and potted plants need not be
restricted from areas for immunocompetent patients” (Center for Disease Control, 2003, p. 149) .
Concerns for infection and maintenance, however, may be why it is not as commonly used.
Table 3-7. Comparison table ranking highest to lowest frequency of attributes identified in the
literature and by practitioners, top three most frequent attributes.
Biophilic attributes found in research
Color
#
Light
#
Material
#
Response
2
Response
4
Plants
4
Abstraction of nature
1
Preference
3
Abstraction of nature
2
Composition
1
Natural light
3
Preference
2
Preference
1
Pragmatics
3
Composition
1
Composition
1
Order and complexity
1
Filtered light
1
Views and vistas
1
Inside outside
1
Natural materials
1
Mastery/control
1
Integration of culture and
ecology
1
Sensory richness
1
Spirit of place
1
Warm light
1
Botanical motifs
1
Biophilic attributes used by practitioners
Color
#
Light
#
Material
#
Natural materials
6
Natural light
7
Natural materials
6
Geographic connection
to place
5
Pragmatics
4
Geographic connection to
place
5
Composition
4
Geographic connection
to place
4
Ecological connection to
place
5
Ecological connection
to place
4
Ecological connection
to place
3
Abstraction of nature
4
Response
3
Cultural connection to
place
4
Views and vistas
3
72
A larger, targeted systematic review of each feature may be helpful to draw additional
research together for designers to reference in relation to all three concepts. Color, light and
materiality are complex and have been studied in multiple ways across many disciplines. This
review, although very targeted and the sample perhaps had a bias towards an interest in biophilia,
has been an important starting point for attempting to explore the current state of biophilic design
research. Additional research among the biophilic attributes can support designers in their
attempts at evidence-based design.
An important finding regarding color in both research and in practice aligns with Elliot
and Maier’s recent color literature review where color has “important influence on people’s
affect, cognition and behavior” (2014, p. 112). Natural inspired color can be included through
referencing the local context and incorporating natural materials. This was similarly a key focus
of current design practice. Designer’s selection of color is a key component that can thoughtfully
incorporate local environmental colors. This creates an easy connection to nature while being
fully controlled by the designer through selection of hue, saturation and value in the overall
design concept (Portillo, 2009).
In this paper, light in interior design research focused on biological studies of natural
light. This was similarly found by Gillis and Gatersleben (2015) in their review of psychological
literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. They also found evidence was
greater in supporting attributes of biophilic design like natural elements, while it was lacking for
attributes like natural materials and processes. Material incorporation in this paper was
dominated by studies that looked at the benefits of plants and the use of abstract nature images.
The practitioners focused instead on the use of natural materials and connecting to the local
context. Gillis and Gatersleben similarly found that natural materials had limited psychological
73
research attention (2015). This difference can be due to the difficulty of researching complex
interior environments with such broad constructs. However, a study of natural materials found
that preference varied for the amount of natural materials and variety is needed (Nyrud,
Bringslimark, & Bysheim, 2014). Variety is a key design consideration. This is supported in the
theory of biophilia, where varied incorporation of natural features should provide people with
nature connections, but it may elicit individual preferences. Considerations for users, their
preferences and needs, is a primary concern for biophilic interior design. Additional research to
provide best practice support is needed for the use of natural materials and connecting to the
locale.
Many studies and strategies were used by the designers that related to more than one
color, light and material category. These are somewhat inextricable concepts. In fact, it is
probably when all three of these concepts are thoughtfully used together that truly biophilic
designs are created. They are tools used by interior designers in their attempt to fulfill project
goals. To support this endeavor, the BID-M provides guidance for individualized design
decisions for interior designers. It also now allows for access to relevant research to support
practitioners in their biophilic designs. It also can support researchers in identifying opportunities
to support designers based upon current practice. The many under-explored areas of research and
practice that are represented in the biophilic design attributes affords additional opportunity for
designers to try new approaches and for additional research to offer guidance. A more varied
incorporation of nature may allow designers to apply their creative ability in exciting new ways
that can be studied and shared through programs like the Biophilic Design Initiative and case
studies. With increased adoption of biophilic design and more buildings being studied, interior
74
design can be leaders in offering human-centered designs that creatively provide restorative
environments.
75
CHAPTER 4
ESSAY 3
Biophilic interior design matrix as a pedagogical tool in an interior design studio:
This exploration involved using the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) as a pedagogical
tool in an interior design undergraduate studio class. The emergence of biophilia as a relevant
concept for interior design has created the need for guidance on how to identify and consider
applying biophilic design features in the interior. The BID-M was created for this purpose. After
a recent development of the tool, practitioners thought it useful throughout the design process as
a design tool. This study aimed to explore using the BID-M during the conceptual design phase
and design development, as well as using it in an analysis of the finalized design. The senior
interior design students in a 10-week hospitality studio class were divided between two
classrooms. One classroom received the BID-M throughout the project, while the other only did
the post-assessment. The results showed that interior design students had varied perceptions from
before using the BID-M to after. Their perceptions of importance, confidence and knowledge of
biophilia were higher with the group who used the BID-M throughout the project. The BID-M
offered benefits to the student’s design process and integration of biophilic attributes. Overall, it
was seen as a helpful tool for biophilic integration by the students. It facilitated ideation and
concept development. The students suggested earlier integration of the BID-M in the curriculum
and saw themselves using the BID-M in practice as a conceptual and design development aid.
Literature Review
Interior design is in an interesting position when it comes to biophilic design. The first
research that pointed to biophilia was Ulrich’s (1984) now famous study of gallbladder patients
with reduction in pain medication, faster healing, and less negative behavior during a hospital
stay for those with a view of nature from inside their patient room compared with similar patients
76
who had a view of a brick wall. For even passive connections with nature, such as a view of
nature, to have an impact on health was a serious change in perception for many people.
Evidence-based design developed to look at how buildings can be better designed by using
research for design decisions (“History of EBD,” n.d.).
Evidence has grown around how nature can be helpful through direct and indirect
contact, such as spending time in a park and viewing natural images (Hartig et al., 2011;
Kjellgren & Buhrkall, 2010; Ulrich, 1981). One study did a comparison of an actual natural
experience with a simulation of the same environment and found “both environments facilitated
stress reduction, with the natural environment additionally bringing increased energy and ASC
[altered states of consciousness], thus possibly enhancing and promoting restoration” (Kjellgren
& Buhrkall, 2010, p. 464). The interior, while not as optimal as nature for providing restoration,
also provides shelter and refuge that is needed to conduct modern life (Hartig et al., 2008; Kilmer
& Kilmer, 1992). Buildings are “protective in both direct and indirect ways; direct in that it
provides protection from what is potentially dangerous in the natural environment, and indirect,
in that it reduces impacts on the natural environment that would otherwise subsequently increase
the risk of harm to people” (Hartig et al., 2008, p. 139). However, it also is limiting direct contact
with nature which can lead to nature-deficit disorder, since people now spend so much of their
time inside (Jones, 1999; US Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency & Office of Air and Radiation, 1989). This is not a medical condition but
rather “nature-deficit disorder describes the human costs of alienation from nature, among them:
diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional
illnesses” (Louv, 2008, p. 36). How interior design can help to reconnect people with nature
while being safely inside is a unique challenge for interior designers, as interior designers specify
77
products worth $77.95 Billion annually (The American Society of Interior Designers, 2018).
This clearly demonstrates how significant the impact interior designers have but just how they
should approach integrating nature for best practice is relatively unknown.
The restorative environmental design (RED) framework connects sustainability and
biophilic design for optimal beneficial buildings for the users, the location and the global impact
that can result (Kellert, 2008b). Additionally, sustainability needs to be taught throughout the
curriculum by knowledgeable educators to facilitate student learning to internalize the ethical
responsibility involved with their design decisions in order to create designers knowledgeable in
sustainability (Demarotta, 2015; Gürel, 2010). This means that “design education has an ethical
responsibility to turn out environmentally conscious individuals who are sensible to social,
cultural, economic, political, scientific and technological concerns and developments” (Gürel,
2010, p. 185). It is also integrated into the Council for Interior Design Accreditation standard 16:
Students must understand standards and guidelines related to sustainability and wellness
(Council for Interior Design Education, 2018). In studio design pedagogy it has been found that
placing a central emphasis on sustainability in the course makes a difference in the understanding
and approach students make in their design. This should be a similar approach taken in teaching
biophilic design and this study looks at how biophilic design can be supported in interior design
education, specifically through the central use of the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M)
in a studio course. The BID-M was created to support biophilic design by developing 54
attributes from Kellert’s 2008 list of features. It was developed initially by adapting Kellert’s
features to interior play rooms and added a scoring procedure (McGee, 2012). It was then
redeveloped through a systematic process with practitioners to be more user-friendly, valid and
reliable (see Essay 1). The testing also found it valid in assessing different types of space. The
78
finalized list of attributes in their coordinating elements (categories) are found in Figure 4-1.
These elements are titled: actual natural materials, natural representations, natural patterns and
processes, color and light, place-based relationships and human-nature relationships.
Table 4-1. Biophilic design elements and attributes.
Actual natural features- actual (not images)
of real nature characteristics in the interior
1
Air
1
2
Water
2
3
Plants
3
4
Animals
4
5
Natural materials
5
6
Views and vistas
6
7
Habitats
7
8
Fire
8
Natural shapes and forms- representations
of nature and simulations
9
Botanical motifs
9
10
Animal-like
10
11
Shells and spirals
11
12
Curves and arches
12
13
Fluid forms
13
14
Abstraction of nature
14
15
Inside-outside
15
Natural patterns and processes- properties
derived from natural features and processes
16
Sensory richness
16
17
Age, change and the patina of time
17
18
Area of emphasis
18
19
Patterned wholes
19
20
Bounded spaces
20
21
Linked series and chains
21
22
Integration of parts to wholes
22
23
Complementary contrasts
23
24
Dynamic balance and tension
24
25
Natural ratios and scales
25
Color and light- color, light and material
qualities and space relationships to nature
26
Composition
27
Communication
28
Preference
29
Response
30
Pragmatics
31
Natural light
32
Filtered light
33
Reflected light
34
Light pools
35
Warm light
36
Light as shape and form
37
Spaciousness
38
Spatial variety
39
Space as shape and form
40
Spatial harmony
Place-based relationships- culture together
with ecology, rooted in geography
41
Geographic connection to place
42
Historic connection to place
43
Ecological connection to place
44
Cultural connection to place
45
Integration of culture and ecology
46
Spirit of place
Human-nature relationships- paired biological
needs of the human relationship to nature
47
Prospect/refuge
48
Order/complexity
49
Curiosity/enticement
50
Mastery/control
51
Attraction/attachment
52
Exploration/discovery
53
Fear/awe
54
Reverence/spirituality
79
The desire to test the BID-M in an educational setting resulted in the following research
questions:
1. How do interior design students perceive biophilia?
2. How is the BID-M helpful for interior design students?
Restorative Environmental Design
Reintegrating humans with nature requires not just the integration of human technology
into ecological processes, but the cognitive, emotional and spiritual reconnection of
humans to nature as a vital step to restoring both planetary health and the health of our
societies (Du Plessis & Brandon, 2015, p. 9).
This quote encompasses Restorative Environmental Design (RED). It is a holistic
embrace of nature that incorporates the whole being: cognitive, emotional and spiritual. It also
seeks to optimize current sustainability practice. It seeks both a “low-environmental-impact
strategy that minimizes and mitigates adverse impacts on the natural environment, and a positive
environmental impact, or biophilic design approach, that fosters beneficial contact between
people and nature in modern buildings and landscapes” (Kellert, 2008, p. 5). This is a vital step
to restoring both planetary health and human health. The inclusion of nature in design should be
taught then in addition to sustainability.
Biophilic design sees the natural environment as a necessary component for optimal
human health and wellbeing (Kellert, 2008). As Kellert stated, “people’s physical and mental
wellbeing remains highly contingent on contact with the natural environment, which is a
necessity rather than a luxury for achieving lives of fitness and satisfaction even in our modern
urban society” (2008, p.4). Humans, having great creative capacities, are able to either integrate
or separate themselves from nature through the built environment. When people have
connections with nature it has been shown to have positive benefits (Ulrich, 2008) and yet there
is an incomplete integration of biophilia focus in the dominant sustainability tools available.
80
Biophilic design emerged at a time when the current sustainability approaches, or “green”
design, were focused on minimizing negative environmental impacts through specific buildings
and their sites, mostly through conserving resources and site selection (Cole et al., 2012; Kellert,
2008; Robinson & Cole, 2015). Interior designers/architects are in demand who understand
sustainable rating systems like LEED (Demarotta, 2015; Kang & Guerin, 2009). LEED is also
seen as prescriptive and deterministic with little biophilic design focus (Du Plessis & Brandon,
2015). WELL and the Living Building Challenge are unique in their emphasis on biophilic
design and include general guidelines based upon Kellert’s (2008) list of biophilic attributes.
That list comes from a social ecology background and the language was recently improved for
interior designers in the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) (see Essay 1). The existing
tools also fall short in supporting cognitive, emotional and spiritual reconnection of humans to
nature. Cognitive, emotional and spiritual considerations in the BID-M provide a unique addition
to the existing tools that is designer driven and used as a resource for designers seeking a holistic
biophilic inventory of feature options to reference. The spiritual connection is especially missing
in most tools and this is expressed and experienced by many in nature, but it is an underexplored
component for facilitating sustainable action by people (Louv, 2008). The BID-M also addresses
the social and cultural context while being nonprescriptive. It is an evidence-based design tool.
Referencing research for guiding design decisions is a hallmark of evidence-based design
(EBD) (“About EDAC,” n.d.; “History of EBD,” n.d.; Hamilton, 2010). In general, research on
design and its related benefits has traditionally been poorly communicated to designers and little
guidance for designers regarding implementation strategies exists (Browning et al., 2014; Huber,
2016). The BID-M was created to serve as both a helpful design and assessment too, like the
Living Building Challenge, where both design development and post assessments are used.
81
Testing the BID-M with students was aimed to see if the tool was helpful for new designers in an
educational setting.
Studio Education and Biophilic Design
The traditional studio model is based upon the master-apprentice model that uses an
iterative design process (Forsyth, Lu, & McGirr, 1999). This is used to develop problem solving
through active learning, which is a method that engages students in the learning process through
learning activities (Prince, 2004). The iterative design process is a hallmark of design education
and a major component of the studio learning experience (Forsyth et al., 1999). Within interior
design education, the studio experience is where students learn by doing, based on the tradition
started in Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris (c. 1850) (Hill, 2007). The studio project is where
students collect relevant information to create design solutions in a cooperative and competitive
social environment. Such assignments involve “wicked” problems with many possible outcomes
(Elsheshtawy, 2007). Supporting students in this process is a unique challenge. How to support
biophilic interior design in the design studio was not known.
Introducing nature into the studio teaching model is not new, as design has always been
inspired by nature. Yet, there have not been many tools available to help students and teachers to
communicate clearly about the concept of nature integration. If you are not speaking the same
language it is hard to communicate and the BID-M aims to fill this gap (McGee & Marshall-
Baker, 2015). Testing the BID-M in a studio course offered a unique opportunity to identify
student’s perceptions regarding biophilic interior design and their experiences with it, as well as
the helpfulness of the BID-M. The studio environment is uniquely poised as a place of learning
and a place for scholarship which offers research a valuable platform (Varnelis, 2007). Studio
courses allow for research regarding teaching pedagogy, learning modalities, creativity and other
82
topics while new learning and application of design theory are investigated (Carmel-Gilfilen &
Portillo, 2010; D’souza, 2010; Portillo, 2002)
In design education, the use of the BID-M is a way to bring relevant knowledge about
biophilic design into consideration within the design process to the task of a complex design
problem (Boyer, 1990; Carmel-Gilfilen & Portillo, 2010). This can also be beneficial for
addressing cultural and global concerns (Sohoni, 2009). Real inquiry is interdisciplinary and
there is rarely one answer (Brooks & Brooks, 2001). This describes an interior design project,
that similarly requires assessment and refinement of diverse options and opinions (Kilmer &
Kilmer, 1992). It starts during programming and conceptual development but continues into the
design development and then finishes in the post occupancy evaluation where additional lessons
can be learned.
How the BID-M could be used in studio pedagogy was investigated in light of the zone of
proximal development (ZPD) (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). This theory approach measures
and observes what kind of help people needed to complete a task. This also aligns with
connectivism, where the learner makes connections to various resources in a unique and
individual learning itinerary to solve problems (Baker, 2012; Ioannou, 2017).
The biophilic design matrix is not a typical assessment where there is a right and wrong
answer or a right or wrong score, but a tool that might help tame the “wicked” problems
designers face. It is a resource for a designer driven response to the unique needs of the project
and the design program requirements. The students’ given studio task was not measured as a
right or wrong answer, but they were asked how much and what kind of help they needed to help
incorporate biophilia. The BID-M was recently redeveloped through a participatory deign with
improved validity and reliability. Its use should benefit evidence-based design and also assist
83
with meeting the recently updated Council of Interior Design Educators (CIDA) standards. Since
research shows the need for nature integration and the importance to interior design, it is now
reflected in the recently updated accreditation standards (2018). It is specifically in Standard 7
Human-Centered Design regarding how interior designers apply knowledge of human experience
and behavior to designing the built environment. Students must demonstrate for Standard 7-a an
understanding of theories related to the impact of the built environment on human experience,
behavior, and performance. The guidance provided for 7-a now includes biophilia as one of the
supported theories. So, the availability and application of a tool like the Biophilic Interior Design
Matrix was seen to have relevance in interior design education worthy of further testing.
Method
The BID-M as a resource was provided in the studio, along with an introduction and desk
critiques, aimed to support the students’ individual design processes. At the end, the use of the
BID-M and the pre- and post-questionnaires provided opportunity for feedback and reflection
regarding the help they desired and received.
Participants
The participants were 20 senior interior design students in their final semester, a
hospitality design studio course. Nineteen females and a male started their degree having
combined foundation courses for a year and a half with architecture and landscape design
students. By the last semester of their final year, they had completed a variety of commercial
projects. They had dedicated work space in their studio and were housed in two rooms on
separate floors. They self-selected being in either of the classrooms before becoming aware of
the project specifics or the research project. One half of the class was given the BDM throughout
the design process, the other half was not. Everyone completed an assessment of their own
design solutions and a pre- and post-questionnaire at the end. Group 2 was a stronger cohort
84
academically and was not as excited about the use of biophilic design in their project as Group 1,
based upon conversations held in class after the project began. Group 1 was the group that had
access to the BID-M, while Group 2 did not. Which classroom had the BDM was randomly
assigned before the project began.
Instruments
The instruments used included three surveys. Survey 1 was a pre-project questionnaire.
Survey 2 was a jury review of the final projects, and then afterwards Survey 3 was a student self-
assessment of their own finalized design with the BID-M that also included a pre- and then a
post-questionnaire. These were developed based upon the purpose of the study, see Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1. Study process diagram.
Survey 1, the pre-project questionnaire was taken before the project started and it
included five questions with three open answer and two Likert-type questions. It was a paper
form completed during class time. For Survey 2, a jury assessed the work with a given paper
form during and following each presentation. Survey 3, the post-project questionnaire, included
three parts in the online survey and completed in class. In Part 1 there were four questions, posed
before the BID-M; three Likert-type questions and one open-ended question. Then students
Survey 1
• Pre-project questionnaire
Survey 2
• Jury review of final projects
Survey 3
• Pre-assessment questionnaire
• BID-M assessment
• Post-assessment questionnaire
85
assessed their space in Part 2 with the BID-M. Part 3 was after the BID-M assessment where 15
questions were asked of Group 2 and 20 questions asked of Group 1. Group 2’s questionnaire
had 6 Likert-type, one select-all-that-apply, one rating list, and 7 open answer. Group 1 had an
additional 3 more Likert-type questions and 2 more open answers. The process of their
completing Survey 3 was a heads down solo activity, but help was available throughout. The
students did not appear to struggle with the concepts or the assessment process.
Studio Project and Data Collection
The studio project used a building shell from a recently constructed hotel in Charleston,
SC. Students needed to reimagine the entire hotel along with developing their own brand, guest
experience, and original design (see Appendix G for the project description). They were all
required to integrate biophilic design, specifically, biophilic design variety and thoughtful
biophilic integration. There were two instructors. The role of the researcher was to support and
guide the Phase 1 work for both studios and then was focused on Group 1 assistance with the
BID-M.
The project included three phases. Phase 1: Pre-Design Research (2 week), Phase 2:
Design Development Completed (4 weeks) including a project review with juries, and Phase 3:
Final Design Presentation (4 weeks) with deliverables due for presentation to a jury. These were
individual projects after Phase 1. In Phase 1 groups were given topics to research and share with
the class regarding context, client, precedents, hotel branding and trends, programmatic elements
and sustainability and hotel design. During Phase 1, the group responsible for sustainability and
hotel design shared the supporting general research on the topic which included an introduction
to biophilia and sustainability developed with help from the primary investigator. This shared
activity allowed for a fast programming phase to quickly move into concept development and
86
design development. The students were guided by the instructors and the primary researcher to
help them complete their project.
Phase 2 began concept generation with the finalization of their individual programs,
which were adapted to support the student’s choice of a target clientele and concept. During the
beginning of Phase 2, a presentation was made to Group 1 regarding the availability of the BID-
M with a general review of the content. Also, an introduction was made to the biophilic design
checklist, the availability of a website with the BID-M and (following Phase 2) a desk critique
was conducted with the researcher. Desk critiques are also typical to the design studio pedagogy
(Elsheshtawy, 2007), so after the midpoint critiques (at the beginning of Phase 3) the researcher
met with each student and reviewed each feature on the checklist for understanding how they
were or might incorporate the biophilic attributes listed. In this process, students talked about
their concepts and how biophilic features might be integrated. Group 2 had help from the
instructors during this time.
The final presentations occurred over two days. The students presented to a panel of three
jurors, two outside professionals and the researcher. The first day included two PhD
student/practitioners and day two had two practitioners. Each day included three hours of
presentations with each student getting 15 mins for both their seven-minute presentation and
feedback. After a brief overview of the form given and biophilic design in general, they were
given three items to assess: inclusion of variety of biophilia, thoughtful application of biophilia,
and the overall success of biophilic design.
The final presentations were followed by each student conducting a post assessment of
their own design using the BID-M with a pre and post questionnaire. Each individual from both
classrooms went through the BID-M at the same time and they assessed their own design and
87
completed the questionnaires. For all the surveys, the analysis of the open answer questions
included thematic analysis and inter-rater agreement through joint coding. To compare the
differences between groups, independent t-tests were performed. In the end, the student’s voices
were heard throughout the project and documented their experience, perceptions and
considerations of biophilic design.
Results
Biophilia Perception
The pre-phase 1 questionnaire documented 17 out of 20 students learned about biophilia
from classes either in their major, Interior Design (n=10), a College sustainability class (n=5), or
on their own (n=4). One student both had “heard it mentioned in studio and researched it
further” and this is representative of their general overall exposure.
Their perception of how to approach using nature inspired features at the beginning of the
project was most commonly through human considerations, natural elements or natural
representations, see Table 4-2. Plants were common in their selection of natural elements or their
representations. A student noted they would use biophilic features in “organic features that imply
plants or with the use of color, also using plants on the inside”. Group 2 generally commented
more about wanting help with practical application and creative ways beyond using plants, while
Group 1 was more evenly divided in their desires, including wanting more knowledge in general
about the topic. One example of a human consideration noted was their using "elements that help
people feel more connected to nature". An admiral goal but very undescriptive as to what that
exactly entails and an example of their understanding of the concept perhaps not being clear
regarding tactics for its approach.
88
Table 4-2. Frequency of open answer themes survey 1, pre-project questionnaire.
Note: Students were able to answer more than one choice.
In survey one, regarding their perception of biophilia before the project and if they saw it
as an approach that could aid in making design decisions, there was a difference between Group
1 and 2 (t = 2.83, p= .01). While Group 1 saw biophilia as more of a design aid for decisions,
both group’s confidence levels were similar and strong going into the project, see Table 4-3.
BID-M Group 1
Non-BID-M Group 2
How did you first learn about biophilia?
Major
6
4
College Sustainability Class
3
2
This Class
1
3
Own
2
2
Other Classes
1
1
Discuss Your Approach to
Using Nature Inspired Features (Biophilic Features).
Human Consideration
4
3
Natural Elements
1
3
Natural Representations
1
1
Local Context
1
1
Support Concept
1
0
Natural Forms
1
0
Integrated Arch.
0
1
Opportunistic
0
1
Cautiously
0
1
How would you like more help with biophilic integration?
Creative Ways Beyond Plants
2
4
Integrated
1
1
Practical Application
3
5
Human Consideration
2
0
More Knowledge
3
0
89
Table 4-3. Perceptions about biophilia throughout project.
N=number of students; M=mean; SD=standard deviation.
Note: the BID-M is on a 3 point scale per item for a 162-max value. The perceptions before were taken on a 7-point scale and converted to
a 5-point. The other items were one a 5-point scale.
*p<.05, **p<.01
At the beginning of the project students already had a view that biophilia could aid in
making design decisions. This remained high after the project, increasing slightly. Group 2 after
the project (before the use of the BID-M) scored it M = 4.33, SD = .59, compared to M=4.00,
SD=.50 before the project. Group 1 (post BID-M) scored M = 4.7, SD = .4, compared to M=4.6,
SD =.50. A Paired Samples test showed no statistical difference between the groups from before
BID-M Group 1
Non-BID-M Group 2
Independent t- test
5-point scale
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
t-test
p value
Cohen’s d
Perceptions BEFORE project, survey 1
Decisions *
9
4.67
.50
9
4.00
.50
2.83
.01
1.12
Confidence
9
3.89
1.05
9
3.78
.44
.29
.77
.14
Perceptions after project and BEFORE taking BID-M, survey 2 part 1
Now Decisions
10
4.70
.48
9
4.33
.50
1.63
.12
.72
Important**
10
4.80
.42
9
4.22
.44
2.92
.01
1.13
Confident**
10
4.00
.82
9
3.11
.33
3.04
.01
1.16
Knowledge*
10
3.40
.84
9
2.67
.50
2.27
.04
.94
Perceptions after project and AFTER taking BID-M, survey 2, part 3
Now Important
10
4.70
.48
9
4.44
.53
.29
1.10
.50
Instruction
10
4.30
.86
9
3.89
.55
.24
1.23
.56
Definition
10
4.20
.68
9
3.89
.78
.37
.93
.43
Name
10
4.35
.63
9
4.22
.62
.65
.45
.21
Choices
10
4.35
.47
9
4.50
.79
.62
.51
-.24
Comprehensive
10
4.20
.75
9
4.39
.65
.57
.58
-.27
Uniqueness
10
4.05
.90
9
3.94
.77
.79
.27
.13
Overall Clarity
10
4.10
.67
9
3.94
.68
.62
.51
.24
Helpfulness
10
4.85
.24
9
4.39
.42
.01
2.99
1.14
BID-M self-score
10
105.50
25.50
9
93.22
21.05
1.14
.27
.52
90
to after the project (M = 4.33, SD =.59) (M = 4.5, SD = .51), t(17) = -1, p < n.s. They all retained
seeing biophilia as a design aid throughout their project.
Group 2 did show statistical difference compared to Group 1in their lower perceived
importance of biophilia after the project (and before taking the BID-M), group 1 (M =4.80, SD
.42) versus group 2 (M = 4.22, SD =.44) t = 2.92, p= .01. Also, how knowledgeable they thought
they were in biophilic design was statistically higher in Group 1 (M = 3.40, SD = .84) t = 2.27, p
=<.05 than Group 2 (M = 2.67, SD = .50). Group 1 also had a significantly higher confidence
rating regarding their designing with biophilia (M = 4.00, SD = .82) t =3.04, p=.01 compared to
Group 2 (M = 3.11, SD =.33).
In the post-assessment questions an open answer question asked about any change in
knowledge of biophilic design and comments from both groups showed they did perceive a
change in knowledge. An example from Group 1 highlights this:
Before, I had no idea how broad biophilic design was. I thought it was just adding
plants to a space, but the BID-M showed that biophilia is achieved through so
many different ways. Now I know that biophilia isn't just putting a plant or tons of
plants within a space.
Another comment was that “I have learned so much. I had no clue what it was and I will
now use this method within my future designs.” A comment from Group 2 showed similar
knowledge change: “there are a lot more strategies and ways to incorporate biophilia than I
thought.” Another Group 2 example was “I now understand that biophilia is very broad in the
various ways you can incorporate it though light, material, space, etc.” Overall the change in
perceptions from before the project to after using the BID-M included a positive influence on
confidence and knowledge, agreement on the importance of biophilic design and its ability to be
used as a design aid.
91
Additionally, Group 1 scored the quality of the BID-M in all but two items higher
compared to Group 2. This was after all the students had just used the BID-M to assess their own
design solutions. The higher scores by Group 1 were expected. The two items of difference for
Group 2 were clarity of the choices available in the BID-M and the comprehensiveness of the
choices. This may be due to Group 2 having just being exposed to the variety of attributes and
more excited about their benefits. All the ratings for the BID-M scored relatively high. Group 1
scored all items above 4 out of 5 after having more time and experience working with it in design
development. Group 2 scored all items at or above 3.89 out of 5, even with their smaller amount
of interaction with the BID-M.
The BID-M assessment of their own design were widely varied but included the same
building shell and general programmatic elements. This was used to help all the students have an
exposure to the variety of features available within a dedicated time of reflection. Group 1 did
have a higher mean total BID-M score but not statistically significant compared with Group 2.
BID-M Helpfulness for Students
To look at the helpfulness of the BID-M, each of the final designs were assessed by two
jurors to see if the BID-M had impacted the student’s ability to include biophilic inclusion
variety, thoughtful inclusion and overall success of the biophilic inclusion. These showed no
statistical difference between Group 1 and 2 regarding inclusion, thoughtfulness and success (see
Table 4-4). However, the combined scores for Group 1 were slightly higher. Inter-judge
reliabilities were calculated for each of the two days judges and the reliability of the rankings on
inclusion and thoughtful application were cohesive, but overall success varied. An interrater
reliability analysis using the Kappa statistic was performed to determine consistency among each
day’s reviewers. It was a very cohesive agreement for Day 1 (Landis & Koch, 1977), for
example, inclusion Kappa = .93 (p <.0.001), 95% CI (0.74, 0.98). See Table 4-5. Comparison of
92
the two second day jurors ranged from moderate to high, with overall success having only fair
agreement. The reviewers on the second day were unique in not being fully trained with the list
of biophilia attributes in the BID-M and it may not have been as easy to evaluate everything
thoroughly during the quick, 7-minute presentations, when not familiar with the BID-M.
Table 4-4. Jury assessment of student work.
Table 4-5. Inter-rater reliability for the unique jury panels of each day.
When looking at how they had included biophilia into their projects, both groups relied
on their concepts to decide what biophilic features to include, then sought out actual or
representations of nature, followed by using the local context for inspiration. Group 1 found the
variety of choices in the BID-M to be the most helpful. A student explained this as: “I found that
the matrix given was most helpful in including biophilia design because it gave examples of
alternative ways to include plant life without including live plants. The most challenging was
trying to not use the same design element throughout and trying to think of more complex ways
to use the matrix” (Group 1). The students answered when they might use the BID-M in the
BID-M Group 1
Non- BID-M Group 2
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
t-test
p value
Inclusion of variety
4
3.56
1.38
5
3.27
1.06
.36
.73
Thoughtful application
4
3.38
1.21
5
3.37
.78
.01
.99
Overall success
4
3.42
1.04
5
3.63
.74
-.36
.73
Inclusion of variety
4
3.71
.63
4
3.42
1.04
.48
.65
Thoughtful application
4
3.58
.77
4
3.29
.97
.47
.65
Overall success
4
3.75
.50
4
3.98
.49
-.66
.53
Day 1 trained judges
Day 2 not-trained judges
n
k
CI
lower
CI
upper
p-
value.
n
k
CI
lower
CI
upper
p
value
Inclusion of variety
2
.93
.74
.98
.00
2
.81
.04
.96
.03
Thoughtful application
2
.92
.72
.98
.00
2
.60
-.55
.91
.11
Overall success
2
.91
.68
.98
.00
2
.22
-.65
.78
.31
93
design process and they unanimously said in the conceptual design phase and design
development (19 of 19), then programming (13 of 19) and then post occupancy (10 of 19).
The helpfulness of the BID-M in the open answer questions varied slightly in the
frequency of themes identified between the two groups. The concept was the key driver for both
groups, see Table 4-6. This was seen in many local inspired and natural feature design concepts.
The BID-M was the most helpful for the Group 1 vs the site being used for Group 2. The design
development was the most challenging for Group 2. Both groups saw the BID-M as able to help
them push their concept and design solutions to more developed states with Group 1 seeing the
BID-M as a source of inspiration and a reference. The BID-M Group 1 also found creativity and
the BID-M being used as a design tool much more than the non-BID-M Group 2. This is
probably connected with Group 1 seeing it as a way to push their concept and design solutions
since they experienced this during the project. One student noted “I have learned so much. I had
no clue what it was and I will now use this method within my future designs.” (Group 1). A
student from Group 2 said “Now that I know exactly what the features entail, I could see myself
thinking about my options to integrate biophilia earlier in the process” (Group 2). Additionally,
“It can be another way to reinforce and justify the design decisions that I am making” (Group 2).
94
Table 4-6. Open answer process number of open comments per theme.
BID-M
Group 1
Non- BID-M
Group 2
Helpfulness after project and BEFORE use of BID-M
How did you decide what features to include?
Concept
7
8
Actual or representations of nature
5
4
Local context
3
5
What did you find the most helpful for including biophilia?
BDM/variety of choices
4
0
Human consideration
4
0
Inspirational photos
2
2
Given site
2
5
What was the most challenging?
Design development
3
6
Feasibility of appropriate interior biophilia features
4
3
Knowledge of appropriate interior biophilia features
3
2
Helpfulness after project and after use of BID-M
Please explain how you see yourself using this list of features in the future if available?
Inspiration/brainstorming
5
3
Push concept/design
5
8
Reference and resource
5
2
Assessment tool
1
2
How do you see the BID-M aiding your future design
For all projects
3
0
Creativity
5
3
As design tool
5
0
As design reference
0
3
Aid thoughtfulness
0
4
Suggestions you may have regarding the BID-M for its future use in other studio projects.
BID-M
User friendly
2
0
Examples
2
1
Pedagogy
Stronger intro
3
3
BIM/technology
1
0
Intro earlier in curriculum
1
2
Stronger throughout project
0
1
Please describe your experience using the BID-M to assist you with including biophilic design
into your project. (Group 1 only)
Aiding inspiration/creativity
3
n/a
Enhancing project
5
n/a
Challenging thought
2
n/a
Providing design assistance
6
n/a
95
When asked afterwards about the challenges in using biophilic design, thinking beyond
plants was an issue: “The most challenging was finding ways to incorporate plants since they
didn’t really relate to my concept” (Group 2). They also struggled if they didn’t see their concept
relating, especially to plant inclusion, or they excelled if the concept did easily relate: “I did not
realize how biophilia could be incorporated other than putting plants into my design. This has
expanded my horizons.” “At first not realizing biophilia could be incorporated through ways
other than adding plants to the space made it somewhat difficult.” (Group 2).
Table 4-7. Challenges and helpfulness of biophilic design.
When asked about challenges in using biophilic design for concept development and
design development, Group 1 was less challenged to use biophilic features to fulfill their
design concept/strategy (d = -.84), probably due to having the BID-M list. To illustrate, student
quotations of perceptions regarding the BID-M and its use in the design concept phase highlights
differences and similarities between Group 1 and Group 2:
Group 1 It was not challenging using biophilic features to fulfill my design concept
strategy because part of my concept played off the architects love for nature. This
BID-M Group 1
Non- BID-M Group 2
Independent t- test
N
M
SD
N
M
SD
t-test
p value
Cohen’s d
Biophilic feature inclusion (after project and all have used BDM)
Challenging
Conceptual
Development
10
2.1
1.29
9
3.22
1.20
-1.96
.07
-.84
Challenging
Design
Development
10
2.4
1.35
9
2.78
.83
-.72
.48
-.34
BDM use (after project for Group 1)
Helpful
Conceptual
Development
10
4.4
2.83
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Helpful
Design
Development
10
4.2
2.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
96
matrix further pushed my concept and enabled me to include abstract forms of
nature to further show the architects love for nature.
Group 2 I did not have a good grasp on all the different ways that I could incorporate it.
Generally, what was most challenging for Group 2 was design development, compared to Group
1, who had a more even distribution of comments. Remember Group 1 had individual desk
critiques working with the BID-M during design development.
Group 1 experiences showed the need for a more rigorous introduction to the concept and
the Matrix. Also, perceived benefits for the BID-M were found. They noted not being as engaged
with it as they could have been at the beginning until after the desk critiques (at the beginning of
Phase 3) as illustrated by one student quote: “The checklist really became more helpful to me
halfway through the project, so I was able to add additional elements after considering it. I do
wish I had consulted it a little earlier.” Another student said:
The first introduction was slightly confusing, however, after moving past the
learning curve, the BID-M was a great asset. It gave me ideas that I wasn't able to
think of myself and allowed me to explore new concepts that really brought life to
my project. For example, understanding what the possibilities of a 'nature motif'
could be! Or exploring how 'separate parts become a whole.' Without the initial
introduction to these concepts, I would have been going in circles trying to figure
out how to accomplish my vision. But with the BDM as an aid, I was able to
reflect in new ways!
The BID-M proved helpful for incorporating biophilic design into their design
concept/strategy. Additionally, the given list of biophilic features was seen as helpful during
design development. It was used for ideation and as a helpful addition to their design process.
One student said “I thoroughly enjoyed it because it allowed me to think of new strategies and
motifs. My design probably wouldn't have gone as naturally inclined without it.” Their
experience with the BID-M in it assisting them with including biophilic design ranged from
wishing they had referenced it more to seeing it as a key to their success, for example “It was a
successful experience and it guided me through not only my concept but also my project.”
97
Additional examples of their reflective comments that highlight the overall findings of their
experience with the BID-M follow. These describe it being helpful in concept and design
development, as well as a reference for expanding their thinking about how to approach biophilic
integration. Several examples from Group 1 include:
Student A I decided what features to include in my project after evaluating my concept and
figuring out ways to include things such as repetition and scale found in nature.
Student B …I appreciated the examples given in the initial presentation, showed creative
ways to integrate biophilia
Student C Before, biophilic design was really difficult for me. However, the Matrix made it
so much easier and was extremely helpful.
Interesting results for future educational use of the BID-M were found in the final
questions regarding their thoughts about future studio use and additional comments. The students
want the BID-M at the beginning of the project, noted by both classrooms, and wished to have
had access to the BID-M earlier in the curriculum to grow with the concept as they developed
their design skills. A student said they would “Continue to use this as a tool, it is extremely
useful. Introduce it earlier in the design process though. Don't wait until senior year. Introduce it
to the sophomores and let them grow with the checklist.” Early integration of the BID-M and
biophilic design into studio and support classes should make it more integral to the design
thinking process and better help students to internalize the variety of features.
Discussion
Importantly, the use of the BID-M in a studio course resulted in helping students with
easier biophilic design integration. It was a benefit that the BID-M offers direction for design
decisions through the 54 attribute choices. Use throughout the curriculum should thus be further
investigated. The types of educational formats that could be used to train designers/students
could include web training, workshops, and in person or web conference presentations.
98
Examples of possible pedagogy expansion includes a dedicated biophilic design course, different
studio levels, environment and behavior theory course, introductory survey course, as well as a
sustainability course. It can be used in an introduction to interior design or survey course in order
to start a conversation about the concept and type of design considerations students should be
making using the BID-R to introduce the attributes and definitions. The inclusion of the links to
the website with related evidence can provide for additional discussions about evidence-based
design. Courses, like an environment and behavior course and sustainability course, could use a
project assessment as a classroom activity with a discussion following about the successful
biophilic design decisions made and where students see improvements possible. Or, it could be
used in studio with additional project market sectors explored and both lower and upper studio
classes used for earlier active engagement with the topic for optimal learning (Prince, 2004).
Additional ways that the BID-M can be studied in education include comparing different types of
user groups (e.g. cultures) and longitudinal studies.
This study informed the expansion of the BID-M in a few different ways. The first way
was through the newly expanded toolkit of parts developed based on student and practitioner
feedback to increase the usability. The biophilic interior design (BID) toolkit has the following
four components now available at http://redgatordesign.wixsite.com/biophilicdesign:
• biophilic interior design matrix (previously the BDM), BID-M
• biophilic interior design checklist sheet, BID-C
• biophilic interior design reference document, BID-R
• online biophilic interior design research repository
The matrix and checklist were used in the studio project, but a middle-sized version with the
definitions was needed, so the reference document was created to have the complete list of
features and examples included along with hyperlinks to the online visual examples and research.
99
The studio process used here could be expanded to include a four-stage process with a
pre-design charrette, conceptual design and design development use of the toolkit, and then a
post assessment. This is based on a student suggestion that using the BID-M in the studio process
could be strengthened by including an initial assessment for earlier hands-on experience with the
list of features. A type of pre-design charrette using the BID-M or group design assessment could
provide a valuable introduction to the attributes and tools. Students could then use the reference
sheet (BID-R) while designing. The BID-R is an interactive tool that could be used to provide
the list of features and connect to the additional resources online by the student. The checklist
could then be used as a deliverable in the mid and final review process to discuss the strategies
used as a visual expression of the features included.
The use of the checklist format could be handy when presenting the biophilic features in
design presentations and could also provide guidance for meeting CIDA Standard 7-a: theories
related to the impact of the built environment on human experience, behavior, and performance.
Biophilia is specifically included as a guiding theory. The toolkit can also help with 7-c to aid
students gathering and applying human-centered evidence. Future development of the CIDA
standards could include having 7-c expanded to reference design tools as supporting criteria.
This would allow for both theoretical understanding of biophilia, as included in 7-a, but also the
application of it in 7-c to be included as quality standards of interior design. Since guidance was
previously unavailable, this research offers an important expansion for interior biophilic design
education being able to develop current pedagogy practice. It also can indirectly support 16-b
with the students understanding standards and guidelines related to sustainability and wellness by
aiding the biophilic design component of WELL and the Living Building Challenge. This
standard could be expanded in the future to mention biophilia, sustainability and wellness.
100
The use of biophilic design in studio courses using the BID-M could benefit from having
the work examples evaluated by professionals for independent assessment of student work. The
jurors offered critical feedback regarding practical and beneficial design strategies for students
and reciprocally their visit also benefited the jurors in exposing them to a wide range of creative
ideas and they felt a sense of reinvigoration after seeing the student work. Studio projects require
flexible thinking to produce novel and appropriate design solutions (Meneely, 2010). However, it
is not clear how different thinking abilities and personality traits of individuals can be developed
in design education as expertise and experience increase. The BID-M tool increases perceptions
of biophilic design expertise so additional testing is warranted for how this could benefit creative
flexible thinking and how it may be applied differently based on personality or thinking ability.
This could be a target for future pedagogy development.
The leading experts in the biophilic design field hold that “we should bring as much of
nature as we can into our everyday environments so as to experience it first-hand; second, we
need to shape our built environment to incorporate those same geometrical qualities found in
nature” (Molthrop, 2011, p. 37). This study, while using a small sample, found that students
perceived biophilia as an important concept that broadened their horizons and considerations
within the design process. They brought as much of nature inside as they could by considering
social-ecological, historical, and place-making, beyond the elementary introduction of plants and
natural light. With students who had access to the BID-M throughout the project it helped them
to brainstorm and working with both an instructor and the BID-M helped to further develop their
designs. It also helped them to better understand the attributes available. Interestingly, using the
BID-M supported their desire to find unique ways to integrate biophilia and develop creative
designs. It now offers a successful platform for biophilic interior design education to build upon.
101
Two examples of biophilic design that highlight examples of how students approached including
a diversity of features are highlighted in Figure 4-1 and 4-2. The spaces shown offer a range of
biophilic features, such as plants, natural materials, botanical motifs, curves and arches, fluid
forms, abstraction of nature, area of emphasis, patterned wholes, bounded spaces, linked series
and chains, and the list goes on.
Figure 4-2. Student work example of hotel waiting area.
Figure 4-3. Student work example of restaurant seating area.
The overall quality of the BID-M was satisfactory. Students could see how biophilia
could be used to guide their design decisions and it aided their learning process and application.
102
This included opening them up to the wide variety of ways that they could integrate nature.
Although both classes were able to create nature-inspired projects, the results highlight the
success of using the BID-M in the studio process by supporting students in making it an easier
process. Students benefitted in the concept development and design development phases. They
found that it was helpful to tackle the complex concept of biophilic design making them feel
more confident and knowledgeable. The benefit of the BID-M as a pedagogical tool was
established but there is much more room for additional exploration of teaching and research
around the use of biophilic interior design.
103
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, interior designers do perceive biophilic design as important and as such a tool
like the BID-M finds relevance and timeliness in aiding the incorporation of biophilic design.
The development of the BID-M now better supports research, practice and teaching/learning. For
both practice and pedagogy, the BID-M was seen as useful throughout the design process,
beyond post occupancy assessments. Designers may also find online access to an entire tool kit
useful. The BID-M offers a new perspective to interior design and adds to the existing body of
knowledge in regard to how designers are using biophilic design, how they perceive it and how
the BID-M is helpful in trying to use it. Interior designers, from students to experienced
practitioners, now have a tool for biophilic design identification that they should find helpful.
This was seen in essays 1 and 3. The use of the entire toolkit by students is now relevant to be
adopted into multiple types of courses and levels. The ability to tailor the use of the different
tools to a variety of course work is an exciting new opportunity for advancement and expansion
of biophilic design.
Confidence was higher for students in their biophilic interior design abilities compared to
the practitioners. This may be because the students had been taught about the concept and were
more familiar with it. Knowledge and confidence is correlated and knowledge levels may
influence adoption of evidence-based biophilic design (DeCleene Huber et al., 2015). Future
education approaches with the BID tools may find the concrete list of features an approach that
supports both confidence and knowledge through initial connection to the concepts and resources
and then scaffolded experiential learning through use of the assessment tool.
104
Designers may find the reference document in the design process the most helpful tool
until they are able to internalize the definitions and then use the checklist sheet for its one-page
simplicity. This aligns with one of the comments made by a participant about being able to
internalize the list after a few uses, whereby a one-page reference sheet would be all that was
needed. Designers can be initially trained through a workshop or webinar or be self-taught by
simply reviewing the website. Once familiarized with the attributes and tools available, designers
can pick the right tool for their needs. Teachers can similarly be trained and assess what tool
would fit best with the learning objectives of the class. The importance of being familiar with the
list of features is an important consideration found in the differences among judging scores found
here. Teachers and those assessing work for biophilic design should consider training
beforehand. This is similar to what Amabile (1982) found where topics like creativity needed
appropriate judges selected for their level of familiarity with the topic. This appears to be the
same for assessing biophilic design output. It is optimal to have reliable and subjective
judgements of student work from professionals (Gurel & Basa, n.d.), but biophilic design needs
to have specific training not standardly available. The cohesive jury had either used the
assessment tool once or completed an exercise with the attributes. Simple training experience or
exposure to the attributes should provide adequate knowledge to use and assess biophilic design.
The current lack of biophilic inclusion guiding interior designers in how they can
creatively use biophilia as a design tool can now be solved through use of the BID-M and the
toolkit. As stated in the introduction, the BID-M can best be seen as symbiotic with other
existing reference tools in aiding designers in biophilic design. The ability of tools like LEED
provide encouragement for consideration of resource use and consumption patterns. Promotion
for platforms of sustainability, wellness and evidence-based design, like the tools offered by the
105
Center for Health Design and the Living Building Challenge, range in strategies. Developing
visual examples and case studies is an excellent approach that designers noted in desiring for
biophilic design that the BID-M could offer to support the Living Building Challenge and the
Biophilic Design Initiative. A point of difference in programs like LEED, WELL and Living
Building Challenge are that they offer accreditation programs for professionals that include
education and testing standards. The Living Building Challenge, for example, requires more than
70 hours of experience and a fee to pass the accreditation process, similar to other assessment
programs. These types of tools also then certify buildings to reach a certain level of performance.
The relatively large time and costs required of these tools is not required for becoming
experienced with the BID-M. Completing even one assessment provides knowledge that should
be able to guide future design considerations, which is the goal. Access to the toolkit will provide
the tools needed for the specific designer’s knowledge and needs, while a specific “level” of
achievement is not required. The BID-M instead limits the demands imposed on designers rather
than increases it once a general awareness is established. It does however offer guidance for
obtaining biophilic design in WELL and the Living Building Challenge as they use the same
foundational attributes minus the new features from the Color Planning Framework that were
added. All the BID-M features now have user-tested language and some have the beginning of an
evidence base to guide their application.
Supporting designers through their use of color, light and materials for biophilic design
can now be through research support in a variety of attributes. This is important because “colour
and lighting can have an impact on peoples’ perceptions and responses to the environment”
(Dalke et al., 2006, p. 343) and this is a very critical concern of interior design. But it is
important to represent nature in these tactics. It would be optimal to be aware and design with the
106
following mindset: “We are surrounded by an ever-changing palette of color in nature that
inspires the principles used in the creation and selection of materials for interior design” (Bosch
et al., 2012, p. 13). Regarding light, access to natural light is very important for circadian rhythm
and visual connections to actual nature. Window treatments and space planning can help
facilitate views and direct access to natural light and are important biophilic considerations.
Natural materials are another highly used tactic by designers that allows a direct connection with
nature on the interior distinct from most of the other representative attributes in the BID-M and
directly applicable through the specification of interior finishes (Dalke et al., 2006). Many of the
attributes will involve architects and landscape designers so early programming with the BID-M
and the entire design team is important.
Plants are the most common way that interior designers have been supporting biophilia.
Plants have research that supports its inclusion for sense of wellbeing and stress reduction and is
the initial approach that students considered when tasked with biophilic design.
Overall these common approaches shared by students, practitioners and researchers show
an innate inclusion of nature-based features in the interior that can and are supported with
evidence. They also point to how the RED theory can be further developed through more testing
and expanded evidence.
Framework development: Working under the restorative environmental design
framework with this research highlights that RED perhaps has areas of specialization needed to
work together to fulfill optimal restorative project goals. This further work with RED prompted
the diagram Figure 2-2. Prior research has involved a great deal of exterior nature experience
from a landscape design perspective where it was found that being in natural environments has
positive benefits for wellness (Berman et al., 2008; Beute & Kort, 2014). There is also growing
107
support for looking at how architecture relates to the people and the community and how
community planning benefits individual biophilia (Beatley, 2008; Bender, 2008; Rose, 2008).
Ulrich’s 1984 examination of interior passive interaction with natural views began to show that
interior access to exterior views is a blending of the importance of architecture and
landscape/urban design. Sustainability also has a long history with nature with the desire to
minimize planetary harm (Edwards, 2005). These are distinct approaches to biophilia that have
been growing in research support. Biophilic interior design has also been the focus of research
with support for representative and actual interior natural features affecting health (Eisen et al.,
2008; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Ulrich, 1984). Together these areas can optimize restorative
design decisions for establishing best practices.
Limitations
The limited availability of evidence for attributes is a great need for evidence-based
incorporation of biophilic design. However, additional literature reviews and the ability for
researchers to use the list of features as inspiration for future studies may help to alleviate this
issue.
The need to further train jurors for studio assessments (until wider spread adaption of
BID occurs) creates additional demand on both the instructor and the volunteer practitioner.
Judgment is always bound by cultural and historic context and it is not expected that universal
agreement on the assessed biophilic design of a space remains the same between people, cultures
and throughout time periods (Amabile, 1982). This is similar to Amabile’s experience with
creativity and should be an expectation of additional time requirement.
Differences in personal preference may be a limitation. This is acceptable, however, as
individuals will have diversity in their personal experiences with nature since biophilia is a weak
biological tendency, as discussed earlier (Kellert, 2008b), and as such it can be fostered or
108
atrophy. This may influence preference for inclusion of certain features. The BID-M, however,
provides a concrete list of features that does not rely on a developed personal biophilia and can
offer a way to analytically assess a space and offer choices. Individual assessments will
inevitably vary, as was seen here, and the designer will need to select what features are
appropriate, but the overall reliability tested here was within acceptable norms (Gliem & Gliem,
2003) even with a small samples size.
As discussed in the introduction, the aim of this research was to better understand how to
aid interior designers in biophilic design with multiple aims. Following is a further elaboration of
these specific aims.
Aim 1: understanding how to support designer’s attempts at biophilic design integration.
This was accomplished with the cognitive interviews and the open answer questions in the post-
questionnaire of the BID-M that the practitioners completed. The results showed that the
designers saw a benefit to the BID-M and could see themselves using it in the future as a
conceptual design tool, referencing it throughout the project, using it as an assessment tool and
being useful for diverse project types. Additional development of the BID-M and resources can
help respond to their suggestions for improvement. The development of the website, checklist
and reference sheet are key improvements.
Aim 2: increasing the applicability of the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix. The use of
the lobby space for an assessment to test the BID-M was useful. It provided for engaged
responses from the participants with several comments that the space in general relied on the
landscape design and large windows to provide the most biophilia. This space may have been
challenging to some in choosing when to include a feature from the outside or not, since the view
outdoors is such a big part of the design and this may have influenced the item reliability.
109
Overall, the reliability of the BID-M scores shows the ability of the BID-M to be portable across
space types, while additional testing and factor analysis may help to further asses this.
Aim 3: understanding how the BID-M can support design education and biophilic design.
An interesting insight was that students enjoyed having a concrete list to reference when tackling
the complexity of the topic, biophilic design. Before being introduced to the BID-M, students
weren’t sure what biophilia included, and they considered plants, natural light and environmental
considerations as the most common approaches but were excited to find additional options that
helped expand their choices. Yet, it was important that the BID-M gave them full freedom as to
how to incorporate those choices. Overall, students saw biophilic design as fairly important to
interior design. They also could see themselves using it in the future: “I see it aiding any future
project that I have”. One student noted that “I would like to explore light manipulation even
further now that I have gone through this list and have a lot of new ideas now.” A student noted
that “I now know that biophilic design plays a large part in the overall space planning of a
project and the small details such as color and light application.” It is an exciting outcome for the
BID-M to be useful in a studio course. Students who use the Matrix for evidence-based design
decisions in the future can move into practice and use the tool for design ideation as well as use
it to explain their design decisions.
Aim 4: supporting the BID-M features with evidence. A literature review of available
research related to color, light and materiality was conducted to identify evidence support for the
biophilic attributes and a variety of design features were aligned with research findings. Overall
natural materials and using the local context were the top color considerations. Composition was
also a consideration with how color is coordinated and tied into the local context and natural
materials selection process. Little research was identified for color in comparison to the other
110
two topics so many of these strategies that designers use could be aided with a targeted literature
review and future research toward color consideration in biophilic design. Light had three
common attributes preference, response and natural light in research. Natural light was also the
most common practitioner tactic identified. Probably the most impactful features, natural light is
also one of the most obvious biophilic light features. Interestingly plants were the most common
research tool, but natural materials were the most common tactic for practitioners. A targeted
review of that feature might be justified as a higher priority for future research. Overall, a
continued development of identifying and conducting more research of color, light and
materiality should prove beneficial to practitioners as they are attempting to use biophilic design.
The continued development of the BID-M and the related tools are the next steps in the
evolution of the BID-M. This includes additional testing with students and practitioners to
validate use and quality among diverse project types. Also, different cultures and different parts
of the curriculum can be explored. A literature review for adding research to the 54 attributes is
needed and can benefit both students and practitioners.
In conclusion the BID-M is a useful tool for designers, educators and students to use. It
allows for complete control by the designer regarding the application of features but provides a
tangible way to approach the concept of biophilia. Additional work on providing these tools
online and testing out the best dissemination for the tool is also needed. The justification of this
work and future development aligns with the aim of the International Living Future Institute and
their Biophilic Design Initiative to ultimately “achieve the goal of broad adoption of Biophilic
Design among the design community, building owners and cities” (“Biophilic Design Initiative,”
n.d., para. 1).
111
APPENDIX A
ASSIGNMENT SHEET
IND 3431 INTERIOR LIGHTING
COLLEGE OF DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DESIGN
Project 1
Light the Way: Nature-based Design Research
Background- Light interplays with both color and the materials within a space. This makes it a
primary interior design consideration. The biophilic hypothesis poses that people have an innate
need to connect with nature. This design topic began with a study that found even viewing nature
can have healing implications and affect our wellbeing. Since then, many studies have grown the
evidence base for interior designers to draw from when making design decisions. Among these,
those that help designers with light, color and materiality choices are especially important for
designers to be aware of and this project aims to help you become familiar with this growing
evidence base and light the way for other designers to see these connections that you have made
between these articles and the concept of biophilic design.
CIDA Standard 12. Light and Color
a) Students are aware of the environmental impact of illumination strategies and decisions.
c) strategies for using and modulating natural light.
e) Students have awareness of a range of sources for information and research about color.
f) Students understand how light and color in the interior environment impact health, safety, and
wellbeing.
g) color terminology.
h) color principles, theories, and systems.
i) color in relation to materials, textures, light, and form.
Objective- The project goal is to provide you with a wide range of design research knowledge
that can help you with future studio projects and in your knowledge and use of lighting and its
interplay with color and materiality.
Requirement- You will individually identify, summarize and share with the class 5 design
research articles to add to the Biophilic Design Matrix list of references for any of the attributes.
(see http://redgatordesign.wixsite.com/biophilicdesign/)
Procedure- Article Identification Part 1 Due: 1/31 @ 1pm
Identify 5 relevant articles for each topic (color, light and materiality) in interior design that are
related to the features on the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M). The BID-M can be
found at
http://redgatordesign.wixsite.com/biophilicdesign/biophilic-interior-design-matrix
Process- Using the UF Library search database
• Art and Architecture Source
112
• Building Green
• Compendex
• Dissertations and Theses Global
• Materials Research Database
• Referex Engineering - Materials and Mechanical Collection (Engineering Village)
• Web of Science
• Informedesign
• Googlescholar
•
Use the following search criteria:
Language: English
Published Date: 1985- present
Publication type: peer reviewed article or dissertation/thesis
Deliverable: Upload to Canvas an Excel file using the following template with citations in APA
format. These will be reviewed and 1 citation for each topic will be highlighted for you to focus
upon for Part 2.
CONTENTS
Color
Light
Materiality
Citation #1
APA
citation
followed by
(key
biophilic
features)
Example: Weinberger, N., Butler, A. G.,
McGee, B., Schumacher, P. A., & Brown,
R. L. (2017). Child life specialists'
evaluation of hospital playroom design: A
mixed method inquiry. Journal of Interior
Design, 42(2), 71-91. (biophilic features:
spaciousness, color, daylight)
Citation #2
Citation #3
Citation #4
Citation #5
Annotated Bibliography Draft Part 2 Due 2/19 @ 1pm
Use the following Guidelines and Template for the Annotated Bibliography.
Process- Complete a summary of each relevant article you read by filling out the given template
below. Articles to be used will be provided/highlighted for you by 2/12.
Guidelines for the Annotated Bibliography- Keep the following points in mind when filling
out the form and address them as they relate to the article.
▪ Author/title (Citation). Complete reference for the article formatted using the style delineated
in the APA Manual.
▪ Keywords. Identify the important keywords designers may use to search for this article and
its contents.
113
▪ Abstract. Copy the abstract.
▪ Purpose of the Study. Identify the purpose of the study including the questions and/or
hypotheses that frame the research.
▪ Biophilic Feature(s). List all of the biophilic features that are important to the study.
▪ Key Findings. What are the major findings from the study for interior designers to know?
▪ Strengths and Limitations of the Study. In what areas was the research strongest? What are
the limitations of the study from the perspective of research and/or practice? What do you
wish they would have included or focused on?
▪ Implications. What are the important take-a-ways for practice, education or research? Does
the article support or contradict previous theories/research/norms of practice? Does the
conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
CONTENTS
Color
Light
Materiality
Citation
Biophilic features
Abstract
Purpose
Key findings in relation
to biophilia
Strengths and
Limitations of the
Study
Implications for
practice, research
and/or theory
Any other lessons
2-5 Interesting
quotations from article
“
“
“
Deliverables- Fill out the given template using the guidelines provided for the selected 3 articles
on color, light and materiality related to biophilia in interior design. Upload Excel file to Canvas.
Annotated Bibliography Final Part 3 Due 2/28 @11:59 pm
Process- Finalize based upon review comments given back by 2/26.
Deliverables- Finalize template of 3 articles on color, light and materiality related to biophilia in
interior design. Upload Excel file to Canvas before midnight.
*Judging based on a scale of 1 to 9 for each criterion, with 3 points max per article, 1 being
lowest and 9 highest in total, except for Part 1 with 15 being highest score earned, 1 point for
each article.
1
Sufficient references in Pt 1 (1 pt each)
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
15
114
2
Use APA format in template Pt 1 (1 pt
each)
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
15
3
Biophilic connections correctly identified
in Pt 1 (1 pt each)
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
15
4
Appropriate and relevant articles selected
Pt 1 (1 pt each)
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
15
5
Sufficient references in the review; Use
APA format in Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6
Biophilic features identified Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7
Abstract included Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8
Clarity of the purpose guiding the inquiry
in Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
Well-developed key findings from the
body of the literature that also connect
with specific biophilic features Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses/ notable gaps of the research
in Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
Level of synthesis that describes the
major implications in Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
Including interesting 2+ quotations Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
Revised final draft per comments Pt 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
Overall, it is well written and well
communicated in Pt 2/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TOTAL SCORE: ____________ / 150 pts
115
APPENDIX B
BDM SURVEY
Welcome! You are about to help further develop the Biophilic Design Matrix (BDM). This
survey has four parts and should take around 30 minutes to complete. It will automatically save
your answers and you can start and stop as often as you would like. Due to the length, it is
recommended you take your time and take breaks as needed. You can move forward and
backwards as needed.
INSTRUCTIONS
Viewing the Survey Photographs
The following survey contains photographs of a lobby/waiting room. It will be important for you
to have a clear, enlarged view of the site images so that you will be able to notice the specific
and unique details of each space.
Please complete the electronic survey on a full-size laptop or desktop computer. Please do not
attempt to complete the survey using a tablet or smartphone, as the screen size will be too small.
For optimum viewing of the site, we recommend that you consider one or more of the following
to zoom in when you are viewing the electronic survey: On a PC, this can be done by pushing
the CONTROL key and + on the keyboard. On a MAC, this can be done by pushing the
COMMAND key (⌘) and + on the keyboard. This step can be repeated until the view is
enlarged enough.
Completing the Survey
There are 4 parts to this survey: •In Part I, you will be asked to enter background information
about yourself and your employment. •In Part II, you will be asked to complete a survey
regarding your personal experience as a sustainability-focused interior designer. •Part III you
will be provided images of the lobby and you are to reference the images on a separate screen.
Please carefully look to get an overview of the space and then complete the 54-item survey
related to that specific room. You will need to refer to the site (and have a clear, enlarged view)
in order to answer the questions. Please select the perceived amount of the attribute in regard to
the space if found at all in the interior. If you have any suggestions for modification of the
attribute name or description provided, please make note of them and then include this in
the modifications/suggestions question at the end of the survey. No need to add up the scale just
submit and you will see your results at the end. •In Part IV, you will be directed to complete a
separate survey to review your thoughts and opinions on the matrix and your experience with
designing with nature.
For technical help please email me at bls[email protected]. Thank you!
By continuing you agree to participate and share your findings with the researchers and any
future publications that may result. This is voluntary and no personal identifiers will be
published. A copy of the consent form and study information is available: INFO SHEET.
Demographics
D1 How many years have you been involved with designing interior spaces?
116
o Under 2 years
o 2 - 5 years
o 6 -10 years
o 11- 15 years
o 16 - 20 years
o 21 - 25 years
o 26 years or more
o I do not design interiors
D2 Do you have a design degree from a CIDA (formerly FIDER) or NAAB accredited program?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
D3 What related certifications or licensing do you have besides a design degree? Select all that apply.
o AAHID
o LEED
o NCARB
o NCIDQ
o WELL
o State License or Registration
o Other________________________________________________
117
D4 If you have an area(s) of specialization what is it? Select all that apply.
o Corporate
o Healthcare
o Hospitality
o Institution
o Residential
o Other ________________________________________________
Instructions Please complete the following survey regarding your personal experience.
Definition Biophilia is an innate (inherent) human need for nature so biophilic design is the deliberate
attempt to translate that affinity for natural systems and processes into the built environment.
Pre1
How much do you see biophilia as being important to interior design?
None at all
(36)
A little (37)
A moderate
amount (38)
A lot (39)
A great deal
(40)
Biophilia
importance (1)
o
o
o
o
o
Pre2
How much have you attempted to apply biophilia in any of your designs?
None at all
(20)
A little (21)
A moderate
amount (22)
A lot (23)
A great deal
(24)
Biophilia
application
(23)
o
o
o
o
o
Pre3
How confident are you in using biophilia in your designs?
None at all
(28)
A little (29)
A moderate
amount (30)
A lot (31)
A great deal
(32)
Biophilia
confidence (6)
o
o
o
o
o
118
Pre4
How knowledgeable are you in biophilic design?
None at all
(42)
A little (43)
A moderate
amount (44)
A lot (45)
A great deal
(46)
Biophilia
knowledge (3)
o
o
o
o
o
The room assessment starts next.
DIRECTIONS
Step 1) Open the Site Pictures
Right click on the link: SITE PICTURES to open another window and keep this window to
complete the survey.
You can download the pictures if desired.
Step 2) Review the Site Pictures
Scroll through all the pictures initially to get familiar with the space.
You can refer back as needed to review the space to identify if a feature is present or not.
For technical issues, please email [email protected] or call 616-340-8706.
Step 4) Refer to All of the Site Pictures to assess the following 54 features of the Biophilic
Design Matrix (BDM).
Step 4) Assess Site for the Features: Assess those features that are in the Interior or viewed from
the interior- regardless of the perceived intention of the design team.
Then select the strength of the feature in the space from Weak (1) to Strong (3), None if it is
not found or Not Applicable if the photo images provided does not allow for assessment of
that feature.
119
It will look like this:
Step 5) Get Started:
Go to the next page and start assessment.
First a little background info:
This site is located in Gainesville, Florida which has a dense tree-canopy with coniferous and
deciduous trees, small lakes and is approximately an hour from the ocean. It is in a humid
subtropical climate.
Instructions
There are 6 feature groupings.
Group 1 of 6
The first group of features are Actual natural features- actual (not images) of real nature
characteristics in the interior
Using all the pictures provided, please choose the strength that each feature has in the space.
Q1 Air
Natural ventilation.
(e.g., operable windows, inside/outside fresh air connections)
Q2
Water
Any type of actual water feature in the interior.
(e.g., water fountain, sink, or fish tank
Q3 Plants
Actual plants in any form (alive or preserved) in the interior.
(e.g., potted plants or dried leaves in a shadow box)
Q4 Animals
Actual animals in any form (alive or preserved) in the interior.
(e.g., fish in a fish tank)
Q5 Natural materials
Materials extracted from nature.
120
(e.g., wood, stone, or paper)
Q6 Views and vistas
Exterior views of natural features such as vegetation.
(e.g., window view of Central Park)
Q7 Habitats & vistas
The interior of buildings and their landscapes that possess a close and compatible relationship to
local habitats.
(e.g., views to locally appropriate landscape)
Q8 Fire
Fire providing comfort and civilization when controlled, includes color, warmth and movement.
(e.g., fireplace)
Instructions
Feature Group 2 of 6
The second group of features are Natural shapes and forms- nature representations and
simulations
Q9 Botanical motifs
Representations of shapes, forms and patterns of plants and vegetative matter.
(e.g., painting of flowers)
Q10 Animal-like
Representations of animals, may be highly stylized.
(e.g., animal forms, claws or heads)
Q11 Shells and spirals
Representations of invertebrates.
(e.g., images or forms of shells and spirals, bees and their hives, butterflies, spiders and their
webs)
Q12 Curves and arches
Representing curves found in nature like treelike shapes, ovals, semi curvilinear forms.
(e.g., egg and dart moulding, arching columns and domes)
Q13 Fluid forms
Shapes resisting straight lines and right angles that are flowing; they act as if they are adapting to
forces found in nature.
(e.g., sinuous floor inlay)
Q14 Abstraction of nature
A simulation rather than replication of natural form or function; forms are vaguely reminiscent of
those naturally found but use nature as a model.
(e.g., Monet painting of flowers, fleur de lis ironwork, Gaudi's Sagrada Familia)
Q15 Inside-Outside
Interior spaces that appear connected to the outside environment, embracing inside what's nearby
outside near to the building.
(e.g., interior gardens, ocean motif used if located at the beach, same flooring used both inside
and outside)
Instructions
Feature Group 3 of 6
121
The third group of features are Natural patterns and processes- properties derived from natural
features and process
Q16 Sensory richness
Information richness can include complexity in visual, sound, touch, smell and/or taste for a
sensuous and intellectually challenging environment.
(e.g., assortment of patterns, texture and color for sensory variety)
*Base this assessment upon the visual richness, typically in person observation would be needed
Q17 Age, change and the patina of time
Showing age or change, such as in wear or growth, particularly by organic forms like wood but
even inorganics like stone.
(e.g., use of plants that have obviously grown over time and "taken over", farmhouse table of
weathered wood)
Q18 Area of emphasis
An area of reference or interest in a space, central focal point.
(e.g., fireplace or grand staircase)
Q19 Patterned wholes
Unique individual parts become organized in a pattern, variety united.
(e.g., tile floor mosaic inlay)
Q20 Bounded spaces
A delineated space with clear boundaries or borders.
(e.g., walled room with a sense of enclosure)
Q21 Linked series and chains
Spaces connected that bring you from one space to another in a series.
(e.g., coordinated design tying together a series of rooms, clear glass walls separating adjoining
spaces)
Q22 Integration of parts to wholes
Individual similar components come together to create a greater whole.
(e.g., small wood planks can make up a wood floor, glass mullion pattern, subway tile
backsplash)
Q23 Complementary contrasts
The blend of contrasting features or opposites.
(e.g., light and dark areas, open and closed space, high and low ceilings)
Q24 Dynamic balance and tension
Shapes, forms or materials that are both balanced and show a degree of tension.
(e.g., symmetrically balanced ceiling mobile, view of a balancing sculpture)
Q25 Natural ratios and scales
Patterns such as natural arithmetic or geometric ratios or scales.
(e.g., golden ratio, golden sections, golden proportion, golden spiral, and Fibonacci's sequence:
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34..., these can be highly complex patterns yet seem organized like a
sunflower patterned fabric or artichoke light fixture)
Instructions
Feature Group 4 of 6
The fourth group of features are Color and Light- color, light and material qualities and space
relationships with nature
122
Composition
Color, light and materials applied as a composition through unity and or variety connecting with
nature.
(e.g., variety of natural materials used throughout with a unified color scheme)
Q27 Communication
Color, light and materials used to connect people with the site or locale; concepts symbolize
identity to send a message.
(e.g., color selection coming from the site for communing with the surrounding nature)
Q28 Preference
Color, light and materials reflecting the time, place, and circumstances in which we live.
(e.g., a designer/firm signature style, market trends such as the Pantone color of the year)
Q29 Response
Natural inspired color, light and materials integrated for physiological, psychological and or
behavioral responses.
(e.g., light fixtures that mimic sunrise/sunset patterns)
Q30 Pragmatics
Color, light and materials selection based upon maintenance, life cycle cost, existing conditions,
external weather and/or environmental choices.
(e.g., sustainable flooring choice for high traffic area)
Q31 Natural light
Daylight/ sunlight access.
(e.g., window, clearstory, skylight)
Q32 Filtered light
Modulated daylight, reduces glare.
(e.g., blinds, shades, tinted glazing)
Q33 Reflected light
Light reflecting off surfaces.
(e.g., reflective surfaces that may provide sparkle)
Q34 Light pools
Pools of connected light in a series on the floor or wall drawing you from one area to another,
often surrounded by darker areas.
(e.g., high contrast lighting environment)
Q35 Warm light
Warm and inviting lighting, 2,000 to 3,000 K color temperature.
(e.g., incandescent lighting, candle light)
Q36 Light as shape and form
Natural light manipulated to create stimulating, dynamic and/or sculptural form.
(e.g., light shaft)
Q37 Spaciousness
Openness or feeling of large expanse.
(e.g., a high ceiling)
Q38 Spatial variety
Variance in the interior space
(e.g., different ceiling heights or room widths)
Q39 Space as shape and form
Space that is manipulated into a natural inspired form or shape.
123
(e.g., Sydney Opera House)
Q40 Spatial harmony
Coherence in the interior space.
(e.g., repetition of design elements for coherence)
Instructions
Feature Group 5 of 6The fifth group of features are Place-Based Relationships- culture together
with ecology, rooted in geography
Q41 Geographic connection to place
Emphasizing geographic features such as climates, countries, people and/or natural resources
within the interior environment.
(e.g., photograph of a well-known local natural landmark)
Q42 Historic connection to place
Relation to the past through the marking of the passage of time, linking the past to the present,
fostering a culture's collective memory.
(e.g., historical portrait)
Q43 Ecological connection to place
Emphasizing ecological features within the interior environment of forest, grassland, desert,
tundra, freshwater or marine.
(e.g., interior bamboo garden)
Q44 Cultural connection to place
Integrating cultural identities.
(e.g., regional decorative craft)
Q45 Integration of culture and ecology
A social center that fosters community building.
(e.g., sustainable artwork)
Q46 Spirit of place
A metaphorical place given life, when a place becomes cherished by people it gives rise to and
sustains human culture and ecology over time.
(e.g., Mount Vernon, gothic cathedral)
*May need in person assessment
Instructions
Feature Group 6 of 6The sixth group of features are Human-Nature Relationships- paired
biological needs with nature
Q47 Prospect/Refuge
A place with the ability to survey the distance in a place of security/ a view of the entire space
AND a place of protection/ separated from spaciousness.
(e.g., view from an alcove to a larger space, interior view of spacious landscape)
Q48 Order/Complexity
Designs that meld order AND stimulate the desire for variety in a controlled manner, a balance
of structured organization with intricacy of detail that together appears orderly.
(e.g., bookshelves)
Q49 Curiosity/Enticement
Spaces that elicit exploration, discovery or mystery AND draws you farther in.
(e.g., space planning that draws you around the corner to view more)
Q50 Mastery/Control
Respectful mastery of nature which expresses ingenuity and cleverness AND user ability to
124
manipulate the environment.
(e.g., occupant control of air, light or sound quality; furniture with ergonomic adjustments)
Q51 Attraction/Attachment
Appealing natural designs AND affection for features together can create a lasting loyalty.
(e.g., beautiful wishing fountain)
Q52 Exploration/Discovery
The desire for further inquiry AND revealing a sensory rich interior.
(e.g., nature themed play structure)
Q53 Fear/Awe
Design integrating a feeling of peril AND feelings of wonder or delight.
(e.g., rock climbing wall, bridge with see-through flooring)
Q54 Reverence/Spirituality
Affirming the human need for establishing meaningful relationships to creation AND reverential
feelings of connection vs. the aloneness of a single person isolated in space and time.
(e.g., tall stain glass windows)
*May need in person assessment
Please complete the following post assessment survey.
Post1 When might you use the above list of features? Select all that apply.
o Conceptual design (1)
o Programming (2)
o Design development (3)
o Post occupancy (4)
o All of the above (6)
o None of the above (5)
Post2 Please explain how you see yourself using this list of features (BDM) in the future if
available?
Post3 Do you see biophilia as being important to interior design now that you have used the
BDM assessment?
Definitely
not (42)
Probably not
(43)
Might or
might not
(44)
Probably yes
(45)
Definitely
yes (46)
Biophilia is a
design aid (1)
o
o
o
o
o
125
Post4 Please describe after having used the BDM any change in your knowledge of biophilia.
Post5 If any, please describe what biophilic features listed earlier are being requested by clients?
Post6 Please describe how you include biophilia through color, light and materials into your
projects?
Post7 When trying to include color, light or materials in biophilic features, please describe what
issues you have come across?
Post8 How would you rate the quality of the BDM as an interior design tool in the following
categories (5 stars being the highest and a strength of the tool and one being the lowest and a
weakness of the tool)
Clarity of
instructions (2)
Clarity of attribute
definitions (3)
Clarity of the
attribute names (4)
Answer options (5)
Comprehensiveness
of 54 choices (6)
Overall clarity (1)
Helpfulness as a
design tool (9)
Post9 Please describe any way the BDM can be improved for designing an interior environment.
Thank you for participating in testing the Biophilic Design Matrix, please leave any additional
comments you might have here:
126
APPENDIX C
COGNITIVE INTERVIEW MANUAL
Cognitive testing round #, Date, Time, Location, Time start______ stop______
1. Introductions
Introduce yourself, thank the interviewee for coming, and show him/her where to sit.
2. Rapport building
Establish rapport with the interviewee to ease anxiety that s/he may have about participating in the
pre-interview and cognitive interview.
3. Purpose overview
Remind the interviewee about the purpose of the project and tell him/her you are interested in
hearing what s/he has to say about the materials.
4. Start time recording
5. Authorization consent sheet noted. Is audio recording this ok?
6. Answer any questions
7. Intro
“Thinking aloud may be new and unfamiliar to you, but please know there are no wrong answers. I
am only interested in knowing what is going through your mind. Any information you provide
during this pre-interview will not be used in the project; this session is merely to help you
become familiar and comfortable with the ‘think aloud’ process.”
8. Warm-up
“Before we begin the actual pre-interview, I’d like to ask you a ‘warm-up’ question to introduce you
to the think aloud process.”
“Try to visualize the place where you live and think about how many windows there are in that
place. As you count the windows, tell me what you are seeing and thinking about.” (Willis,
1994) Proceed to the pre-interview instructions after the interviewee has completed the warm-up
question.
127
If without difficulty respond “That’s great. Thinking out loud like this is just what I need.”
“Good. Your comments help me understand what you’re thinking about.”
If there is difficulty ask “Tell me what you are thinking.”
“What thoughts are going through your mind right now?”
9. Probe suggestions:
• “Tell me what you’re thinking.”
“What are you thinking about right now?”
• “I see you hesitate. Can you tell me why?”
• “Is that question clear?”
• “Does that definition make sense to you?”
• "What specifically are you thinking about right now?”
• “What thoughts came to mind just now?”
Other notes:
128
10. Intro: I need help to make sure this thing will "work" for participants -- that the order is
right, the topics make sense, etc. Please feel free to be candid and open to saying
whatever pops into your head, good or bad. It is all helpful.
11. Pre and Post survey will be completed if time available, or asked to be completed outside
of this interview
Connect to survey and follow prompts
Pre-survey notes
Survey responses noted per section
12. Instructions
13. Demographics
14. Pre-Assessment Survey
15. Pictures
16. Environmental Features
17. Natural shapes and forms
129
18. Natural patterns and processes
19. Light and Space
20. Place-base relationships
21. Human-nature relationships
22. Scoring/ Post Assessment Survey/ Conclusion
Pre-survey notes
Closing “Thank you for taking time to develop this instrument with me. What questions do you
have? Answer any questions, record the stop time on the beginning of this recording form.
Additional Notes
130
APPENDIX D
DESIGNER’S CHECKLIST
131
APPENDIX E
EMAIL INVITATION
Please try out a new design tool to help make nature-based design easier for interior design.
TIME: ~½ hour
LINK: Biophilic Design
(https://ufl.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80sYXrYHIUSaD65)
SHARE: Please forward to anyone you know who is an interior designer or architect in the
USA.
QUESTIONS: Contact me with questions or comments, Beth McGee, Ph.D. candidate
m.s. | leed ap | ncidq #24263
The University of Florida
College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Phone: 616-340-8706
132
APPENDIX F
FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Study
type
n
Population
type/building
Qualitative
Measurement
Quantitative
Measurement
Results
Limitations
1
case study/
longitudinal
12
office workers
interviews,
observation,
photographs
and video
footage
n/a
enhanced collaboration
amongst staff, including
across teams, improved
morale, and mitigation against
stress
Short term,
involvement
with initial
worker bee,
subjective
measures only
2
creative
product
design
44
college
students
interviews
n/a
students were able to create
nature inspired stools and
changed their perceptions
about design and nature
no detailed
methods or
explanation of
results
3
case study
n/a
n/a
n/a
HOK measured
Lavasa
biomimetic
designs
HOK using
biologize in design
process and other products,
show interior design should
include it in design process
measurements
not detailed, no
reliability
measures
noted
4
exploratory
42
college
students
pattern
elements
PCA method
analysis of
number of
components of
abstract design
color changes reactions to
patterns, variety of color
important to patterns, color
more impactful than the other
design elements
who rated the
patterns not
specified with
inter rater
reliability
5
Instrument
developme
nt
n/a
n/a
Light
calculations
Colour Quality
Assessment
Tool (CQAT)
n/a
Regardless of the luminaire
colour temperature, the blue
interior finishes have a
greater effect on the
biorhythm of an observer than
that of the red finishes.
Daylight effect
not calculated
8
experiment
97
not color blind
bipolar
semantic
differential
rating scales
n/a
red lighting least comfortable
and least spacious, white light
most spacious, higher quality,
green and red more aesthetic
CRI of the
lights varied
133
Study
type
n
Population
type/building
Qualitative
Measurement
Quantitative
Measurement
Results
Limitations
6
quasi
-
experiment
282
rehab patients,
lung and heart
self-report
measures
of
health,
subjective well
-
being, and
emotion.
n/a
subjective wellbeing in
pulmonary patients improved
pre-existing
differences
between the
group could exist
7
experiment
97
not color blind
bipolar semantic
differential
rating scales
n/a
red lighting the
space was
perceived to
be least comfortable and least
spacious, white light most
spacious,
higher quality,
green
and red more aesthetic
CRI of the lights
varied
8
simulation
251
college
students
architectural
design
n/a
design included a range of
biophilic features for wellbeing
no analysis of
design or
interviews or user
feedback
9
exploratory
65
young adult
millennial
students
n/a
9-point bipolar
scales
plants and posters and tidiness
seen as more positive, females
had a stronger reaction
details about
poster contents
not included
10
case study
3
schools,
41
teachers
daylit schools,
teachers
n/a
overall room
-light
estimation,
readability by
figure to ground
value contrast,
Munsell hue
notations
older adults perceived the
higher color
temperature light
source as less cool than
younger adults, older adults
rated comfort and preference
higher than younger, higher
color
-rendering light sources
provide better readability, older
adults have more difficulty with
warmer lighting when value
contrasts were reduced
controlled setting
limits
representing field
conditions, older
adults with longer
exposure to
condition may
affect visual tasks
134
Study
type
n
Population
type/buildi
ng
Qualitative
Measurement
Quantitative
Measurement
Results
Limitations
11
exploratory
30
college
students
photo
documentation
of good design
photo documentation
with list of design
elements
education was needed
regarding natural light and high
reflectance surfaces specified
12
experiment
82
42 older
adults and
40 younger
adults
end-user Likert
scale surveys
field study
natural light and views
satisfaction parallel classrooms
satisfaction, control of daylight
key need, blinds were closed
more for south facing
reason behind
classroom
arrangement
neutrality not
explored
13
experiment
77
college
students
10-item bipolar
adjective scale, stress
arousal checklist,
participants
perceiving less stress in the
room with the indoor plants
actual user
perceptions
missing
14
exploratory
25,
28
students
questionnaire
window
occlusion:
Foster and
Oreszczyn’s method,
sunshine index
light shelf zone led to a lower
window occlusion and energy
savings
questionnaire
during full
daylight not
included
15
experiment
98
not color
blind,
adults, 49
Caucasian
-
American
subjects
and 49
Korean
subjects
questionnaires
n/a
four lighting conditions: arousal
varied by culture (Americans
more) and higher color
temperature more arousing,
color rendering varied by
culture, 3k more pleasurable
but less approachable
did not include
emotional
state
of arousal
and the color
quality of light
in a
retail store
environment
patients, not
blind or
mentally
(1) length of stay, (2)
BP,
(3) digestive condition,
(4) acute stress, (5)
state
anxiety, (6) pain
intensity, (7)
sleep
quality, and
need to extend
135
Study
type
n
Population
type/building
Qualitative
Measurement
Quantitative
Measurement
Results
Limitations
16
experiment
18
1
patients, not
blind or
mentally
compromised
n/a
(1) length of stay, (2)
BP, (3) digestive
condition, (4) acute
stress, (5) state
anxiety, (6) pain
intensity, (7) sleep
quality, and (8)
environmental
satisfaction.
Salutogenic benefits of
photographic sky
compositions
need to
extend
patient
population
type
17
exploratory
60,
20
college
students, high
school students
Q sort
The Torrance Test of
Creative Thinking
greater perceived creativity:
(a) complexity of visual
detail, (b) view of natural
environment, (c) use of
natural materials,
(d) with
fewer cool colors used,
and (e) less manufactured
materials.
diverse
populations
need to be
studied
18
case study
62
residents 15 yr.
Hamedan, Iran
actual
recording,
surveying and
questionnaires
correlation through
investigating the case
studies
it is recommended that in
addition to including green
spaces in the built
-up
areas, rooted norms,
natural elements and
contextual features of place
should be also taken into
considerations
demographics
not included
19
focus group,
randomized
and quasi
-
experiment
12
9,4
8,4
8
four age groups
of students,
four age groups
of pediatric
patients and
parents
art
discussion/inter
view
De-stress, emotional
state, Parent Proxy
Report, heart rate and
respiratory rate
Representational nature art
was clearly indi
cated as the
highest preferred art
image for all age groups
time with
intervention
and non
-
chronic
patients may
have
impacted
results
136
APPENDIX G
GUEST EXPERIENCE ASSIGNMENT
IND 4226
ADVANCED ARCHITECTURAL INTERIORS II
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
COLLEGE OF DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION and PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DESIGN
PROJECT 1:
Designing the Guest Experience
Individual
10 weeks: January 8 - March 25
THE PROJECT
The project entails the rebranding and renovation of a boutique hotel located at 55
Wentworth Street in Charleston, South Carolina. The 4-story building completed in the summer
of 2015 was originally designed by Reese, Vanderbilt and Associates and is situated within
Charleston’s historic downtown. Currently, this building houses a 4-star boutique hotel that
operates under the umbrella of Marriott’s Autograph Collection. Along with 50 guestrooms, the
hotel features a variety of venues that include retail, food and beverage, as well as rentable
meeting spaces. The restaurant on the fourth level is undergoing a mild renovation to better
compete with the Charleston market.
For the purpose of this studio project, you are tasked with reimagining the entire hotel
along with developing your own brand, guest experience, and original design. Your hotel should
align with the overall values of Marriott’s Autograph Collection and reflect the characteristics
that they look for in their collection of boutique hotels.
You will need to consider the local culture and context of the historic downtown as well
as how to develop venues that will compete well within the Charleston market. Examine
precedent to identify components and characteristics of successful venues in the hospitality
market in order to develop functional spaces within your original and creative designs. As you
develop your hotel, also reflect on biophilia and sustainability issues and how to thoughtfully
incorporate these topics into your final design solutions.
THE CLIENT
Marriott Autograph Collection Hotels
https://autograph-hotels.marriott.com/about-autograph/
The Autograph Collection Hotels became a part of Marriott’s extensive portfolio in 2010
and includes a collection of highly original boutique hotels from around the world. Marketing for
the franchise includes the catch phrase, “Exactly like nothing else.” The Autograph Collection
looks for independent boutique hotels that reflect strong and original personalities, relate to the
local context, and incorporate human-centered design with close attention to the details.
137
METHODS OF WORKING
To simulate the actual design process the project will be divided into 3 phases:
Phase 1: Pre-Design Research (2 week)
Phase 2: Design Development Completed (4 weeks)
Project Review with Juries: Friday, February 16, 2018
Phase 3: Final Design Presentation (4 weeks)
Project Presentations with Juries: Monday and Wednesday, March 26 – 28,
2018
Through the use of story boards, animation, rapid visualization and/or perspectives your
designs should tell a story of a guest stay. Design shall include primary spaces that a guest
encounters including check-in/ lobby, food and beverage venues, meeting spaces, guest room
corridor, and guest room. You must execute a dynamic, creative, cutting edge design utilizing
the very best products and technologies which encompass appropriate products/materials and
construction practices.
138
APPENDIX H
HOSPITALITY STUDIO PRE AND POST SURVEYS
Pre-Project Assessment Survey
Please complete the following survey regarding your personal experience. Your
responses are voluntary and anonymous and not part of your grade for the class.
Definition: Biophilia is an innate (inherent) human need for nature so biophilic design is
the deliberate attempt to translate that affinity for natural systems and processes into the built
environment.
• Pre1 How did you first learn about biophilia?
• Pre-2 Discuss your approach to using nature inspired features (biophilic features).
• Pre-3 How would you like more help with biophilic integration?
• Pre-4 Do you see biophilia as an approach that can aid you in making design decisions? 1-7
scale, strongly agree to strongly disagree
• Pre-5 Do you feel confident in designing with biophilia? 1-7 scale, strongly agree to strongly
disagree
• Pre-6 Describe how you approach adding color, light and materiality in a project.
Post-Project Assessment Survey
Welcome! You are about to help further develop the Biophilic Design Matrix (BDM). This
survey has four parts and should take around 30 minutes to complete. It will automatically save
your answers and you can start and stop as often as you would like. Due to the length, it is
recommended you take your time and take breaks as needed. You can move forward and
backwards as needed.
INSTRUCTIONS
Viewing the Survey Photographs
The following survey contains photographs of a lobby/waiting room. It will be important for you
to have a clear, enlarged view of the site images so that you will be able to notice the specific
and unique details of each space. Please complete the electronic survey on a full-size laptop or
desktop computer. Please do not attempt to complete the survey using a tablet or smartphone, as
the screen size will be too small. For optimum viewing of the site, we recommend that you
consider one or more of the following to zoom in when you are viewing the electronic
survey: On a PC, this can be done by pushing the CONTROL key and + on the
keyboard. On a MAC, this can be done by pushing the COMMAND key (⌘) and + on the
keyboard. This step can be repeated until the view is enlarged enough.
Completing the Survey
There are three parts to the survey. Part 1 is the pre-survey about your own views and opinions.
Part 2 is the BDM assessment. You will reference your studio project and then complete the 54-
item survey related to that specific project. Please select the perceived amount of the attribute in
139
regard to the space if found at all in the interior. If you have any suggestions for modification of
the attribute name or description provided, please make note of them and then include this in
the modifications/suggestions question at the end of the survey. No need to add up the scale just
submit, and you will see your results at the end. Part 3 is the post-survey and you will review
your thoughts and opinions on the matrix and your experience with designing with nature. For
technical help please email me at bl[email protected]. Thank you!
By continuing you agree to participate and share your findings with the researchers and any
future publications that may result. This is voluntary, and no personal identifiers will be
published. A copy of the consent form and study information is available: INFO SHEET.
Please include your name here to indicate your consent.
Please complete the following survey regarding your personal experience. Your responses are
not part of your grade.
Definition Definition: Biophilia is an innate (inherent) human need for nature so biophilic
design is the deliberate attempt to translate that affinity for natural systems and processes into the
built environment.
Start of Block: Pre-assessment survey
• Post1 Do you see biophilia as being important to interior design? Scale 1-5, definitely not, to
definitely yes
• Post2 How confident are you in using biophilia in your designs? Scale 1-5, none at all, to a
great deal
• Post3 How knowledgeable are you in biophilic design? Scale 1-5, none at all, to a great deal
• Post4 Please describe how you approached integrating biophilia into your project.
Specifically note three things: 1) how did you decide what features to include, 2) what did
you find the most helpful for including biophilia and 3) what was the most
challenging? Please use a minimum of 500 characters.
Start of Block: Pictures
Pictures
DIRECTIONS
Step 1) Review your Site Pictures
You can refer back as needed to review the space to identify if a feature is present or not.
For technical issues, please email [email protected] or call 616-340-8706.
Step 4) Refer to Site Pictures to assess the following 55 features of the Biophilic Design Matrix
(BDM).
Step 4) Assess Site for the Features: Assess those features that are in the Interior or viewed from
the interior- regardless of the perceived intention of the design team.
Then select the strength of the feature in the space from Weak (1) to Strong (3) or None if it
is not found.
Step 5) Get Started:
140
Go to the next page and use your project to assess if a feature listed is present and what strength
it is present.
Start of Block: Post assessment survey pt. 1
Please complete the following post assessment survey. Your responses are voluntary and not part
of your grade for the class.
• Q1 Do you see biophilia as an approach that can aid you in making design decisions? Scale
1-5, strongly disagree to strongly agree
• Q2 Describe any change you might make in your next design in how you approach adding
color, light and materiality since you are now familiar with the Biophilic Design Matrix and
will have access to it.
• Q3 How challenging was it to use biophilic features to fulfill your
design concept/strategy? Scale 1-5, none at all to a great deal
• Q4 Please explain further.
• Q5 How challenging was it to use biophilic features in the design development? Scale 1-5,
none at all to a great deal
• Q6 Please explain further.
• Q7 When might you use the BDM list of features: Select all that apply: Conceptual design,
Programming, Design development, Post occupancy, and None of the above
• Q8 Please explain how you see yourself using this list of features in the future if available?
• Q9 Do you see biophilia as being important to interior design now that you have used the
BDM assessment? Scale 1-5, definitely none to definitely yes
• Q10 Please describe after having used the BDM any change in your knowledge of biophilic
design.
• Q11 How do you see the BDM aiding your future design decisions?
• Q12 Please describe how you included biophilia through color, light and materials in your
project?
• Q13 How would you rate the quality of the BDM as an interior design tool in the following
categories? (5 stars being the highest and a strength of the tool and one being the lowest and
a weakness of the tool)
141
Clarity of
instructions (2)
Clarity of attribute
definitions (3)
Clarity of the name
of attributes (4)
Answer choices (5)
Comprehensiveness
of 55 choices (6)
Uniqueness of each
of the 55 choices
(7)
Clarity overall (1)
Helpfulness as a
design tool (9)
• Q14 Please describe any suggestions you may have regarding the BDM for its future use in
other studio projects.
• Q15 Thank you for participating in testing the Biophilic Design Matrix, please leave any
additional comments here:
* Additional questions for Group 1
• * Q16 How helpful was using the BDM for incorporating biophilic design into your
design concept/strategy? Scale 1-5, none at all to a great deal
• *Q17 Please explain further.
• *Q18 How helpful was the given list of biophilic features during design development? Scale
1-5, none at all to a great deal
• *Q19 Please explain further.
• *Q20 Please describe your experience using the BDM to assist you with including biophilic
design into your project.
142
APPENDIX H
INFORMATION SHEET (BID-R)
Biophilic Interior Design Reference Sheet
There are 6 feature groupings.
Group 1 of 6
The first group of features: Actual natural features- actual (not images) of real nature
characteristics in the interior
#1 Air
Natural ventilation.
(e.g., operable windows, inside/outside fresh air connections)
#2 Water
Any type of actual water feature in the interior.
(e.g., water fountain, sink, or fish tank
#3 Plants
Actual plants in any form (alive or preserved) in the interior.
(e.g., potted plants or dried leaves in a shadow box)
#4 Animals
Actual animals in any form (alive or preserved) in the interior.
(e.g., fish in a fish tank)
#5 Natural materials
Materials extracted from nature.
(e.g., wood, stone, or paper)
#6 Views and vistas
Exterior views of natural features such as vegetation.
(e.g., window view of Central Park)
#7 Habitats and vistas
The interior of buildings and their landscapes that possess a close and compatible relationship to
local habitats.
(e.g., views to locally appropriate landscape)
#8 Fire
Fire providing comfort and civilization when controlled, includes color, warmth and movement.
(e.g., fireplace)
Feature Group 2 of 6: The second group of features are Natural shapes and forms- nature
representations and simulations
#9 Botanical motifs
Representations of shapes, forms and patterns of plants and vegetative matter.
(e.g., painting of flowers)
#10 Animal-like
Representations of animals, may be highly stylized.
(e.g., animal forms, claws or heads)
#11 Shells & spirals
143
Representations of invertebrates.
(e.g., images or forms of shells and spirals, bees and their hives, butterflies, spiders and their
webs)
#12 Curves and arches
Representing curves found in nature like treelike shapes, ovals, semi curvilinear forms.
(e.g., egg and dart moulding, arching columns and domes)
#13 Fluid forms
Shapes resisting straight lines and right angles that are flowing; they act as if they are adapting to
forces found in nature.
(e.g., sinuous floor inlay)
#14 Abstraction of nature
A simulation rather than replication of natural form or function; forms are vaguely reminiscent of
those naturally found but use nature as a model.
(e.g., Monet painting of flowers, fleur de lis ironwork, Gaudi's Sagrada Familia)
#15 Inside-Outside
Interior spaces that appear connected to the outside environment, embracing inside what's nearby
outside near to the building.
(e.g., interior gardens, ocean motif used if located at the beach, same flooring used both inside
and outside)
Feature Group 3 of 6: The third group of features are Natural patterns and & processes-
properties derived from natural features and process
#16 Sensory richness
Information richness can include complexity in visual, sound, touch, smell and/or taste for a
sensuous & intellectually challenging environment.
(e.g., assortment of patterns, texture and color for sensory variety)
*Base this assessment upon the visual richness, typically in person observation would be needed
#17 Age, change and the patina of time
Showing age or change, such as in wear or growth, particularly by organic forms like wood but
even inorganics like stone.
(e.g., use of plants that have obviously grown over time and "taken over", farmhouse table of
weathered wood)
#18 Area of emphasis
An area of reference or interest in a space, central focal point.
(e.g., fireplace or grand staircase)
#19 Patterned wholes
Unique individual parts become organized in a pattern, variety united.
(e.g., tile floor mosaic inlay)
#20 Bounded spaces
A delineated space with clear boundaries or borders.
(e.g., walled room with a sense of enclosure)
#21 Linked series and chains
Spaces connected that bring you from one space to another in a series.
(e.g., coordinated design tying together a series of rooms, clear glass walls separating adjoining
spaces)
144
#22 Integration of parts to wholes
Individual similar components come together to create a greater whole.
(e.g., small wood planks can make up a wood floor, glass mullion pattern, subway tile
backsplash)
#23 Complementary contrasts
The blend of contrasting features or opposites.
(e.g., light and dark areas, open and closed space, high and low ceilings)
#24 Dynamic balance and tension
Shapes, forms or materials that are both balanced and show a degree of tension.
(e.g., symmetrically balanced ceiling mobile, view of a balancing sculpture)
#25 Natural ratios and scales
Patterns such as natural arithmetic or geometric ratios or scales.
(e.g., golden ratio, golden sections, golden proportion, golden spiral, and Fibonacci's sequence:
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34..., these can be highly complex patterns yet seem organized like a
sunflower patterned fabric or artichoke light fixture)
Feature Group 4 of 6: The fourth group of features are Color and Light- color, light and material
qualities & space relationships with nature
#26 Composition
Color, light and materials applied as a composition through unity &/or variety connecting with
nature.
(e.g., variety of natural materials used throughout with a unified color scheme)
#27 Communication
Color, light and materials used to connect people with the site or locale; concepts symbolize
identity to send a message.
(e.g., color selection coming from the site for communing with the surrounding nature)
#28 Preference
Color, light and materials reflecting the time, place, and circumstances in which we live.
(e.g., a designer/firm signature style, market trends such as the Pantone color of the year)
#29 Response
Natural inspired color, light and materials integrated for physiological, psychological &/or
behavioral responses.
(e.g., light fixtures that mimic sunrise/sunset patterns)
#30 Pragmatics
Color, light & materials selection based upon maintenance, life cycle cost, existing conditions,
external weather and or environmental choices.
(e.g., sustainable flooring choice for high traffic area)
#31 Natural light
Daylight/ sunlight access.
(e.g., window, clearstory, skylight)
#32 Filtered light
Modulated daylight, reduces glare.
(e.g., blinds, shades, tinted glazing)
145
#33 Reflected light
Light reflecting off surfaces.
(e.g., reflective surfaces that may provide sparkle)
#34 Light pools
Pools of connected light in a series on the floor or wall drawing you from one area to another,
often surrounded by darker areas.
(e.g., high contrast lighting environment)
#35 Warm light
Warm and inviting lighting, 2,000 to 3,000 K color temperature.
(e.g., incandescent lighting, candle light)
#36 Light as shape and form
Natural light manipulated to create stimulating, dynamic and/or sculptural form.
(e.g., light shaft)
#37 Spaciousness
Openness or feeling of large expanse.
(e.g., a high ceiling)
#38 Spatial variety
Variance in the interior space
(e.g., different ceiling heights or room widths)
#39 Space as shape and form
Space that is manipulated into a natural inspired form or shape.
(e.g., Sydney Opera House)
#40 Spatial harmony
Coherence in the interior space.
(e.g., repetition of design elements for coherence)
Feature Group 5 of 6: The fifth group of features are Place-Based Relationships- culture together
with ecology, rooted in geography
#41 Geographic connection to place
Emphasizing geographic features such as climates, countries, people and/or natural resources
within the interior environment.
(e.g., photograph of a well-known local natural landmark)
#42 Historic connection to place
Relation to the past through the marking of the passage of time, linking the past to the present,
fostering a culture's collective memory.
(e.g., historical portrait)
#43 Ecological connection to place
Emphasizing ecological features within the interior environment of forest, grassland, desert,
tundra, freshwater or marine.
(e.g., interior bamboo garden)
#44 Cultural connection to place
Integrating cultural identities.
(e.g., regional decorative craft)
146
#45 Integration of culture and ecology
A social center that fosters community building.
(e.g., sustainable artwork)
#46 Spirit of place
A metaphorical place given life, when a place becomes cherished by people it gives rise to and
sustains human culture and ecology over time.
(e.g., Mount Vernon, gothic cathedral)
Feature Group 6 of 6: The sixth group of features are Human-Nature Relationships- paired
biological needs with nature
#47 Prospect/Refuge
A place with the ability to survey the distance in a place of security/ a view of the entire space
AND a place of protection/ separated from spaciousness.
(e.g., view from an alcove to a larger space, interior view of spacious landscape)
#48 Order/Complexity
Designs that meld order AND stimulate the desire for variety in a controlled manner, a balance
of structured organization with intricacy of detail that together appears orderly.
(e.g., bookshelves)
#49 Curiosity/Enticement
Spaces that elicit exploration, discovery or mystery AND draws you farther in.
(e.g., space planning that draws you around the corner to view more)
#50 Mastery/Control
Respectful mastery of nature which expresses ingenuity and cleverness AND user ability to
manipulate the environment.
(e.g., occupant control of air, light or sound quality; furniture with ergonomic adjustments)
#51 Attraction/Attachment
Appealing natural designs AND affection for features together can create a lasting loyalty.
(e.g., beautiful wishing fountain)
#52 Exploration/Discovery
The desire for further inquiry AND revealing a sensory rich interior.
(e.g., nature themed play structure)
#53 Fear/Awe
Design integrating a feeling of peril AND feelings of wonder or delight.
(e.g., rock climbing wall, bridge with see-through flooring)
#54 Reverence/Spirituality
Affirming the human need for establishing meaningful relationships to creation AND reverential
feelings of connection vs. the aloneness of a single person isolated in space and time.
(e.g., tall stain glass windows)
147
LIST OF REFERENCES
About EDAC. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2012, from http://www.healthdesign.org/edac/about
Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and
quantitative research. The American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.
Alimoglu, M., & Donmez, L. (2005). Daylight exposure and the other predictors of burnout
among nurses in a university hospital. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(5),
549–555.
Almusaed, A., & Almusad, A. (2014). Natural lighting efficiency by means of sun- skylight-
tubes. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 3(3), 16–20.
Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013. https://doi.org/0022-
3514/82/4305-0997S00.75
Azhar, S., Khalfan, M., & Maqsood, T. (2012). Building information modelling (BIM): Now and
beyond. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12(4), 15.
https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v12i4.3032
Baker, T. (2012). Connectivism and Connected Knowledge: Participating in a MOOC (Kindle).
Amazon Digital Services LLC. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Connectivism-
Connected-Knowledge-Participating-MOOC-
ebook/dp/B0088DQMUS/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529081412&sr=8-1-
fkmr0&keywords=Connectivism+and+Connected+Knowledge%3A+Essays+on+meanin
g+and+learning+network
Bardenhagen, E., & Rodiek, S. (2016). Affordance-based evaluations that focus on supporting
the needs of users. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2), 147–
155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715599760
Barnes, J. (2010). Evidence-based design: An interior designer’s opportunity. In C. Martin & D.
Guerin (Eds.), The state of the interior design profession (pp. 129–135). New York:
Fairchild Books.
Beatley, T. (2008). Toward biophilic cities: Strategies for integrating nature into urban design. In
S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and
practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 277–296). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006
Bender, T. (2008). Bringing buildings to life. In S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.),
Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 313–
324). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
148
Benyus, J. (2002). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York, NY: Perennial.
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with
nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.
Beute, F., & Kort, Y. A. W. (2014). Salutogenic effects of the environment: Review of health
protective effects of nature and daylight. Applied Psychology: Health and Well
‐
Being, 6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12019
Biophilic Design Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2018, from https://living-
future.org/biophilic-design/
Blair, J., Conrad, F., Ackermann, A. C., & Claxton, G. (2006). The effect of sample size on
cognitive interview findings (p. 6). Presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Quebeck, Canada.
Bosch, S. J., Edelstein, E., Cama, R., & Malkin, J. (2012, October). The Application of Color in
Healthcare Settings.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J.:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G. G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants:
A critical review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
29(4), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.001
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (2001). In search of understanding the case for constructivist
classrooms: with a new introduction by the authors. Upper Saddle River, NJ [u.a.:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Browning, B., Garvin, C., Ryan, C., Kallianpurkar, N., Labruto, L., Watson, S., & Knop, T.
(2012). The economics of biophilia (p. 40). Terrapin Bright Green LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/economics-of-biophilia/
Browning, W., Ryan, C., & Clancy, J. (2014). 14 patterns of biophilic design (p. 64). Terrapin
Bright Green LLC.
Cama, R. (2009). Evidence-based healthcare design. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Cama, R. (2013). Nature-based design: The new green. (Nature-Based Design: The New Green
Research Summary) (p. 7). Zeeland, MI: Herman Miller. Retrieved from
http://www.hermanmiller.com/content/dam/hermanmiller/documents/research_summarie
s/wp_Nature_Based_Design.pdf
Campanelli, P. (1997). Testing survey questions: New directions in cognitive interviewing. BMS:
Bulletin of Sociological Methodology / Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, (55), 5–
17.
149
Campbell, D. E. (1979). Interior office design and visitor response. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64(6), 648–653.
Carmel-Gilfilen, C., & Portillo, M. (2010). Developmental trajectories in design thinking: An
examination of criteria. Design Studies, 31, 74–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.06.004
Castillo-Díaz, M., & Padilla, J.-L. (2013). How cognitive interviewing can provide validity
evidence of the response processes to scale items. Social Indicators Research, 114(3),
963–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0184-8
Center for Disease Control. (2003). Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care
facilities, 240.
Center for Health Design. (2010). An introduction to evidence-based design: Exploring
healthcare and design (2nd ed). Concord, CA: The Center for Health Design.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). London; Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage.
chd | The Center for Health Design. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2018, from
https://www.healthdesign.org/
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-J. (2017). Impact of interior colors in retail store atmosphere on
consumers’ perceived store luxury, emotions, and preference. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 35(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X16675052
Clemons, S. A., & Eckman, M. J. (2011). Exploring theories identified in the Journal of Interior
Design. Journal of Interior Design, 36(4), 31–49.
Coad, J., & Coad, N. (2008). Children and young people’s preference of thematic design and
colour for their hospital environment. Journal of Child Health Care, 12(1), 33–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493507085617
Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of
Life Research, 12(3), 229–238.
Council for Interior Design Education. (2018). CIDA professional standards 2018. CIDA.
Retrieved from https://accredit-id.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Professional-
Standards-2018_Final.pdf
CTI - Collaborative Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2018, from
https://www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/engaging-students/collaborative-learning.html
Dalke, H., Little, J., Niemann, E., Camgoz, N., Steadman, G., Hill, S., & Stott, L. (2006). Colour
and lighting in hospital design. Colour and Design in the Natural and Man-Made Worlds,
38(4–6), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2005.06.040
150
DeCleene Huber, K. E., Nichols, A., Bowman, K., Hershberger, J., Marquis, J., Murphy, T., …
Sanders, C. (2015). The correlation between confidence and knowledge of evidence-
based practice among occupational therapy students. The Open Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1142
Demarotta, J. (2015). Views of sustainable design leaders: Are entry-level interior designers
prepared for sustainable practice? University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Retrieved from
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/files/UFE0048905/00001/DEMAROTTA_J.pdf
Derr, V., & Kellert, Stephen. (2013). Making children’s environments "R.E.D.”: Restorative
environmental design and its relationship to sustainable design. In Healthy + Healing
Places. Providence, RI.
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (Fourth edition). Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Dijkstra, K., Pieterse, M. E., & Pruyn, A. (2008a). Stress-reducing effects of indoor plants in the
built healthcare environment: The mediating role of perceived attractiveness. Preventive
Medicine, 47(3), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.01.013
Dijkstra, K., Pieterse, M. E., & Pruyn, A. (2008b). Stress-reducing effects of indoor plants in the
built healthcare environment: The mediating role of perceived attractiveness. Preventive
Medicine, 47(3), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.01.013
Ding, L., Reay, N. W., Lee, A., & Bao, L. (2009). Are we asking the right questions? Validating
clicker question sequences by student interviews. American Journal of Physics, 77(7),
643–650. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3116093
Dittmar, M. (2001). Changing colour preferences with ageing: A comparative study on younger
and older native Germans aged 19-90 years. Gerontology; Basel, 47(4), 219–226.
D’souza, N. (2010). The metaphor of an ensemble: Design creativity as skill integration. In
Design creativity 2010 (1st ed). New York: Springer.
Du Plessis, C., & Brandon, P. (2015). An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative
sustainability paradigm for the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109,
53–61.
Edwards, Andres R. (2005). The sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift. Gabriola,
BC: New Society Publishers.
Edwards, Andrés R. (2010). Thriving beyond sustainability: Pathways to a resilient society.
Gabriola Island, BC (Canada): New Society Publishers.
Eisen, S. L., Ulrich, R. S., Shepley, M. M., Varni, J. W., & Sherman, S. (2008). The stress-
reducing effects of art in pediatric health care: art preferences of healthy children and
hospitalized children. Journal of Child Health Care, 12(3), 173–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493508092507
151
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on
psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 95–120.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115035
Elsheshtawy, Y. (2007). Creativity, science, and architecture: The role of research in the design
studio. In A. M. A. Salama & N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for
the future (pp. 75–90). Gateshead, U.K: Urban International Press.
Forsyth, A., Lu, H., & McGirr, P. (1999). Inside the service learning studio in urban design.
Landscape Journal, 18(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.2.166
Freihoefer, K., Guerin, D., Martin, C., Kim, H.-Y., & Kulman Brigham, J. (2013). Occupants’
satisfaction with, and physical readings of, thermal, acoustic, and lighting conditions of
sustainable office workspaces. Indoor and Built Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X13514595
Gesimondo, N., & Postell, J. C. (2011). Materiality and interior construction. Hoboken, N.J.:
John Wiley.
Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and
Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings, 5(3), 948–963.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948
Gliem, R. R., & Gliem, J. A. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in
Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344
Gray, T., & Birrell, C. (2014). Are biophilic-designed site office buildings linked to health
benefits and high performing occupants? International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 11(12), 12204–12222.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212204
Green, J., & American Society of Landscape Architects. (2012, May 23). Biophilic building
design held back by lack of data. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from
http://dirt.asla.org/2012/05/23/biophilic-building-design-held-back-by-lack-of-data/
Gürel, M. Ö. (2010). Explorations in teaching sustainable design: A studio experience in interior
design/architecture. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01649.x
Gurel, M. O., & Basa, I. (n.d.). The status of graphical presentation in interior/architectural
design education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 23(2), 192–206.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2004.00397.x
Hagerhall, C. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of
landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 247–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.004
152
Hamilton, D. K. (2004). The four levels of evidence-based practice. AIA Journal of Architecture.
Retrieved from
http://www.arch.ttu.edu/courses/2007/fall/5395/392/students/garay/Research/Research.pd
f
Hamilton, D. K. (2010). Evidence-based design: The highest form of professionalism. In C.
Martin & D. Guerin (Eds.), The State of the Interior Design Profession (pp. 121–128).
New York: Fairchild Books.
Hartig, T., Bringslimark, T., & Grindal Patil, G. (2008). Restorative environmental design: What,
when, where, and for whom? In Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of
bringing buildings to life (pp. 133–151). New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.
Hartig, T., van den Berg, A. E., Hagerhall, C. M., Tomalak, M., Bauer, N., Hansmann, R., …
Waaseth, G. (2011). Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social and
cultural processes. In K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. de Vries, K.
Seeland, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Forests, trees and human health (pp. 127–168).
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-
90-481-9806-1_5
Heerwagen, J. (2010, July). Biophilia. Haworth, Inc.
Heerwagen, Judith, & Hase, B. (2001, March). Building biophilia: Connecting people to nature.
Environmental Design and Construction.
Hensley, N. (2015). Cultivating biophilia: Utilizing direct experience to promote environmental
sustainability. Journal of Sustainability Education, 9. Retrieved from
http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hensley-JSE-
March-2015-Love-Issue.pdf
Hidayetoglu, M. L., Yildirim, K., & Akalin, A. (2012). The effects of color and light on indoor
wayfinding and the evaluation of the perceived environment. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 32(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.09.001
Hill, C. C. (2007). Climate in the interior design studio: Implications for design education.
Journal of Interior Design, 33(2), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-
1668.2007.tb00320.x
History of EBD. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2012, from
http://www.healthdesign.org/edac/about
Huber, A. (2016). Is seeing intriguing? Practitioner perceptions of research documents. Journal
of Interior Design. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joid.12067/full
Huber, A. (2018). Exploring interior designers’ research utilization strategies and information‐
seeking behaviors. Journal of Interior Design, 43. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12119
153
International Living Future Institute. (2014). Living building challenge 3.0: A visionary path to a
regenerative future (No. Living Building Challenge 3.0) (p. 81). Retrieved from
http://living-
future.org/sites/default/files/reports/FINAL%20LBC%203_0_WebOptimized_low.pdf
Ioannou, O. (2017). Design studio education in the online paradigm: In...: Find it @ UF Results.
Presented at the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, Athens, Greece.
Ireland, S. R., Warren, Y. M., & Herringer, L. G. (n.d.). Anxiety and color saturation preference,
2.
Jones, A. P. (1999). Indoor air quality and health. Atmospheric Environment, 33(28), 4535–4564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00272-1
Joseph, A. (2006, August). The impacts of light on outcomes in healthcare settings. The Center
for Health Design. Retrieved from
https://www.healthdesign.org/sites/default/files/CHD_Issue_Paper2.pdf
Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic
architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305–328. https://doi.org/0.1037/1089-
2680.11.4.305
Kahn, P. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation
with nature. Developmental Review, 17(1), 1–61.
Kahn, P., & Kellert, S. (Eds.). (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and
evolutionary investigations. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Kang, M., & Guerin, D. A. (2009). The state of environmentally sustainable interior design
practice. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(2), 179–186.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-
4944(95)90001-2
Kellert, S. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In E. Wilson & S. Kellert
(Eds.), The Biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kellert, S. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S. (2008). Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design. In S. Kellert, J.
Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of
bringing buildings to life. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
154
Kellert, S. R. (2004). Beyond LEED: From low environmental impact to restorative
environmental design. Presented at the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities
Conference. Retrieved from http://citiesalive.greenroofs.org/resources/kellert-2004.pdf
Kilmer, R., & Kilmer, W. O. (1992). Designing interiors. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
Kim, I. T., Choi, A. S., & Sung, M. K. (2017). Development of a Colour Quality Assessment
Tool for indoor luminous environments affecting the circadian rhythm of occupants.
Building and Environment, 126, 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.10.009
Kjellgren, A., & Buhrkall, H. (2010). A comparison of the restorative effect of a natural
environment with that of a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(4), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.011
Klepeis, N. E., Nelson, W. C., Ott, W. R., Robinson, J. P., Tsang, A. M., Switzer, P., …
Engelmann, W. H. (2001). The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A
resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11(3), 231–252.
Koranteng, C., & Simons, B. (2012). Pelagia Research Library An evaluation of natural lighting
levels in students ’ hostels in a suburb of Kumasi, Ghana. Advances in Applied Science
Research, 3(1), 548–554.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(5th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Kwallek, N., Woodson, H., Lewis, C. M., & Sales, C. (1997). Impact of three interior color
schemes on worker mood and performance relative to individual environmental
sensitivity. Color Research & Application, 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6378(199704)22:2<121::AID-COL7>3.0.CO;2-V
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Lankston, L., Cusack, P., Fremantle, C., & Isles, C. (2010). Visual art in hospitals: case studies
and review of the evidence. JRSM, 103(12), 490–499.
https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2010.100256
Lee, E., & Park, N.-K. (2011). Adapting to cultural differences in residential design: The case of
Korean families visiting the United States. Journal of Interior Design, 36(2), 1–19.
Livingston, J. (2014). Designing with light: the art, science and practice of architectural lighting
design. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder
(Updated and expanded.). Chapel Hill N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
155
Louv, R. (2011). The nature principle: Human restoration and the end of nature-deficit disorder
(1st ed). Chapel Hill, N.C: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Matteson, D. (2013). Learner perceptions of biophilia and the learning environment: A
phenomenological study. Walden University, Ann Arbor, MI.
Maureen. (2011, July 13). Green design versus restorative design. Retrieved October 4, 2016,
from http://www.luminous-spaces.com/tag/restorative-environmental-design/
McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The Potential Role of the Physical Environment in
Fostering Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 409–426.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1434_11
McCuskey Shepley, M. (2006). The role of positive distraction in neonatal intensive care unit
settings. Journal of Perinatology, 26(S3), S34–S37. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211584
McGee, B., & Marshall-Baker, A. (2015). Loving nature from the inside out: A biophilia matrix
identification strategy for designers. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design
Journal, 8(4), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715578644
McGee, Beth. (2012). An inventory of biophilic design attributes within child life play spaces.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC. Retrieved from
http://www.uncg.edu/iar/current-students/graduate/abstracts/mcgee.html
Meneely, J. (2010). Educating adaptable minds: How diversified are the thinking preferences of
interior design students? Journal of Interior Design, 35(3), 21–32.
Molthrop, E. (2011, June 3). Biophilic design: A review of principle and practice. Retrieved
February 25, 2015, from
Nanda, U., Eisen, S., Zadeh, R. S., & Owen, D. (2011). Effect of visual art on patient anxiety and
agitation in a mental health facility and implications for the business case. Journal of
Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2850.2010.01682.x
New Oxford American Dictionary. (2018). (Version 2.2.2 (203)). Retrieved from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/light
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive
change in school. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen, B. K., & Altan, H. (2011). Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems.
Procedia Engineering, 21, 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2029
Nyrud, A. Q., Bringslimark, T., & Bysheim, K. (2014). Benefits from wood interior in a hospital
room: A preference study. Architectural Science Review, 57(2), 125–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2013.816933
156
Odabaşioğlu, S., sodabasi@bilkent. edu. t., & Olguntürk, N. (2015). Effects of coloured lighting
on the perception of interior spaces. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 120(1), 183–201.
https://doi.org/10.2466/24.PMS.120v10x4
Okken, G. M. (2015). Designing in color: An investigation of color functions utilized by interior
design professionals in different market sectors to inform design education. [Gainesville,
Fla.] : University of Florida, 2015. Retrieved from
http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c
at04364a&AN=ufl.033653110&site=eds-live
Olguntürk, N., & Demirkan, H. (2011). Colour and design: From natural patterns to
monochrome compositions. Optics & Laser Technology, 43(2), 270–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2009.06.014
Park, J. G., & Park, C. (2013). Color perception in pediatric patient room design: American
versus Korean pediatric patients. Health Environments Research & Design Journal
(HERD), 6(4).
Park, N.-K., & Farr, C. A. (2007a). Retail store lighting for elderly consumers: an experimental
approach. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, (4), 316.
Park, N.-K., & Farr, C. A. (2007b). The Effects of Lighting on Consumers’ Emotions and
Behavioral Intentions in a Retail Environment: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of
Interior Design, 33(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2007.tb00419.x
Park, S.-H., & Mattson, R. H. (2009). Ornamental indoor plants in hospital rooms enhanced
health outcomes of patients recovering from surgery. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 15(9), 975–980. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2009.0075
Portillo, M. (2002). Creativity defined: Implicit theories in the professions of interior design,
architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering. Journal of Interior Design, 28(1),
10–26.
Portillo, M. (2009). Color planning for interiors: an integrated approach to designed spaces.
Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Presser, S. (Ed.). (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Quan, X., Joseph, A., & Nanda, U. (2017). Developing Evidence-based Tools for Designing and
Evaluating Hospital Inpatient Rooms. Journal of Interior Design, 42(1), 19–38.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12091
157
Raanaas, R. K., Patil, G. G., & Hartig, T. (2010). Effects of an indoor foliage plant intervention
on patient well-being during a residential rehabilitation program. HortScience, 45(3),
387–392.
Rose, J. F. P. (2008). Green urbanism: Developing restorative urban biophilia. In S. Kellert, J.
Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of
bringing buildings to life (pp. 297–306). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Rossin, K. J. (2010). Biomimicry: Nature’s design process versus the designer’s process, 559–
570. https://doi.org/10.2495/DN100501
Salingaros, N. (2011, August 22). Life and the geometry of the environment - Raise the hammer.
Retrieved August 22, 2011, from
http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1439/life_and_the_geometry_of_the_environment
Salingaros, N., & Masden II, K. (2008). Neuroscience, the natural environment, and building
design. In S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory,
science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Sanati, L., & Utzinger, M. (2013). The effect of window shading design on occupant use of
blinds and electric lighting. Building and Environment, 64, 67–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.02.013
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., … PRISMA-P
Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis
protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349. Retrieved from
http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA-P-checklist.pdf
Shepley, M. M., Gerbi, R. P., Watson, A. E., Imgrund, S., & Sagha-Zadeh, R. (2012). The
impact of daylight and views on ICU patients and staff. HERD: Health Environments
Research & Design Journal, 5(2), 46–60.
Smith, D., & Demirbilek, N. (2010). Shifting interpretations of interiors and buildings: The
impact of colour. Colour: Design & Creativity, 5, 1–12.
Sohoni, A. (2009). Cultural diversity and non-western course content in interior design
education. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X08330689
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications.
Tavsan, F., & Sonmez, E. (2015). Biomimicry in furniture design. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2285–2292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.255
Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0
158
The American Society of Interior Designers. (2018). ASID 2018 outlook and state of the industry
report (p. 80). Retrieved from https://www.asid.org/resources/resources/view/resource-
center/190?utm_source=chairsmessage&utm_medium=asid%20member%20email&utm_
campaign=SOS2018&utm_term=4.26.2018&utm_content=SOSreport
Theodorson, J. (2018). North v. South: The impact of orientation in daylighting school
classrooms. SOLAR 2008: Catch the Clean Energy Wave. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/8568609/North_V._South_The_Impact_of_Orientation_in_D
aylighting_School_Classrooms
Tillman, S. (2013). Composing collaborations: Multi-discipline integration within a design
curriculum. The International Journal of Design Education, 6(3), 97–105.
Ulrich, R. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment
and Behavior, 13(5), 523–556.
Ulrich, R. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F.
Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 6, pp. 85–125). New York
N.Y.: Plenum Press.
Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science,
224(4647), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.116/science.6143402
Ulrich, R. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and recent scientific research.
Journal of Health Care Interior Design, 3, 97–109.
Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H., Choi, Y.-S., … Joseph, A. (2008). A
review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. Health
Environments Research & Design, 1(3), 61–125.
University of Florida Clinical Translational Research Building. (2014, September 19). Retrieved
November 24, 2016, from http://www.archdaily.com/547264/university-of-florida-
clinical-translational-research-building-perkins-will/
US Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). An introduction to indoor air quality (IAQ):
Volatile organic compound (VOCs). Retrieved November 7, 2014, from
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, & Office of Air and Radiation. (1989). Report to
Congress on indoor air quality, Volume 2: Assessment and control of indoor air pollution
(No. EPA/400/1-89/001C). Washington, D.C.
van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and
restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135–
146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
159
Van den Born, R. J., Lenders, R. H., Groot, W. T. de, & Huijsman, E. (2001). The new biophilia:
An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation,
28(01), 65–75.
Varnelis, K. (2007). Is there research in the studio? Journal of Architectural Education, 61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00121.x
Vouchilas, G., & Ulasewicz, C. (2017). Millennial exploration of good design: Perceptions of the
elements of design through images and language. International Journal of the Image,
8(4), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8560/CGP/v08i04/39-50
Weinberger, N., Butler, A. G., McGee, B., Schumacher, P. A., & Brown, R. L. (2017). Child life
specialists’ evaluation of hospital playroom design: A mixed method inquiry. Journal of
Interior Design, 42(2), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12097
Weinberger, N., Butler, A., McGee, B., Schumacher, P., & Brown, R. (2016). Child life
specialists’ evaluation of hospital playroom design: A mixed method inquiry.
WELL v2. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2018, from https://v2.wellcertified.com/v2.1/en/overview
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Zadeh, R. S., Shepley, M. M., Williams, G., & Sung Eun Chung, S. (2014). The Impact of
Windows and Daylight on Acute-Care Nurses’ Physiological, Psychological, and
Behavioral Health. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD) (Vendome
Group LLC), 7(4), 35–61.
160
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Beth McGee received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the summer of 2018
from the College of Design, Construction and Planning in Interior Design. She also has an
Interior Architecture M.S. degree from the University of North Carolina Greensboro with a
concentration in product design and a B.F.A. from Kendall College of Art and Design. Each
included a focus on healthy environments. She is a LEED AP, has passed the NCIDQ exam and
is licensed to practice interior design in Florida. She was recently published in Health
Environments Research and Design Journal (2015) regarding her innovative Biophilic Design
Matrix (BDM), developed to facilitate interior nature integration for optimal wellness. There was
a further look at the BDM through the views of child life specialists regarding their perceptions
of optimal hospital play rooms in an article in the Journal of Interior Design (2017). Her PhD,
teaching and practice work include an interest in integrating biophilia with sustainable/
restorative design, communication, and organizational ecology.
