Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 1 Identifying Opportunities and Constraints for the Implementation of Biophilic Design Patterns in UK Landscape Architecture Joseph Oliver Clancy Presented as part of the requirement for the award of the MA Degree in Landscape Architecture at the University of Gloucestershire December, 2014
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 1
Identifying Opportunities and Constraints for the Implementation of Biophilic
Design Patterns in UK Landscape Architecture
Joseph Oliver Clancy
Presented as part of the requirement for the award of the
MA Degree in Landscape Architecture
at the University of Gloucestershire
December, 2014
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 2
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 3
(i) Declaration
This Dissertation is the product of my own work and does not infringe the ethical
principles set out in the University’s Handbook for Research Ethics.
I agree that it may be made available for reference via any and all media by any
and all means now known or developed in the future at the discretion of the
University.
Signed
Joseph Oliver Clancy
5th December 2014
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 4
(ii) Abstract
This dissertation aims to identify the opportunities and constraints for the
implementation of biophilic design patterns and assess its need/importance in
UK landscape architecture. This dissertation has utilized various sources,
including peer reviewed academic journal articles, recent publications, online
sources and personal communications with leading experts in the field of
biophilic design, including William Browning, Catie Ryan, Timothy Beatley, Gayle
Souter-Brown, Stephen Kellert, Val Kirby and Nick Grayson. The methodology
of this dissertation has included a literature review, professional work experience
with Terrapin Bright Green (a company specialising in biophilic design in the built
environment), interviews with professional UK landscape architects and biophilic
design experts, two online surveys of UK based landscape architects and an
educational workshop on biophilic design for UK based landscape architects.
The main findings of this dissertation have been: a knowledge deficit exists
among UK landscape architects on biophilic design; no direct references to
biophilic design exist in either local or national planning policy and; clients do not
envision biophilic design as being important or necessary in their developments.
It is the recommendation of this dissertation to: incorporate biophilic design into
landscape architecture university curricula; establish biophilic design CPD
events; produce individual guidance documents for each project type on biophilic
design; incentivise developers to incorporate biophilic design in their projects to
increase acceptance and awareness; incorporate biophilic design into local and
national planning policy and; found a national, multi disciplinary professional
body for biophilic design in the UK, to oversee and help implement these
recommendations.
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 5
(iii) Acknowledgements
The author of this dissertation would like to thank the following:
Timothy Beatley, Teresa Heinz Professor of Sustainable Communities at the
University of Virginia School of Architecture, founder of the Biophilic Cities
Project;
David Booth, Postgraduate Programme Director, Landscape and Environment at
the University of Gloucestershire and the author's mentor for this dissertation;
Gayle Souter-Brown of Greenstone Design UK;
Nick Grayson, Climate Change and Sustainability Manager at Birmingham City
Council, head of Birmingham's Biophilic City initiative;
Stephen Kellert, Tweedy Ordway Professor Emeritus of Social Ecology and
Senior Research Scholar at the Yale University School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies;
Val Kirby of the Landscape Institute;
Barry Lupton of Blackrock Further Education Institute;
The staff at Pegasus Planning Group Ltd, and finally;
William Browning and Catie Ryan of Terrapin Bright Green, for taking me under
their wing since the Summer of 2013 and inspiring me to pursue my curiosity
To be accessible for designers by using a familiar term of design language
(Alexander et al, 1977).
Patterns have the potential to offer solutions to almost universal problems
across a variety of scenarios, settings and user groups (Alexander et al, 1977). A
suitable solution results from a pattern being applied in a manner that responds
to the local conditions appropriately. Due to each solution responding to local
conditions and context, no two applications will yield the same result (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1998).
However, biophilic design is dependant among a number of factors
(Soule, 1993) and as such, emphasises the need for guidelines on implementing
biophilic design patterns in landscape architecture. This is why patterns are
better suited than metrics, as they are less rigid and respond to the local
conditions with an appropriate response (Alexander et al, 1977). While this
offers an opportunity in terms of adaptability and wide ranging applications, it
may present a constraint in the terms of unpredictable consistency and even
reliability of its application.
2.1 Terrapin Bright Green's 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design
The patterns (see appendix B) discussed throughout this dissertation and applied
to the profession of landscape architecture within the context of the UK, were
developed by Terrapin Bright Green in their publication "14 Patterns of Biophilic
Design: Improving Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment" (Ryan et al,
2014) (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014). This dissertation offers an example of
how Terrapin Bright Green’s work can be adapted in scope to suit the
parameters of a built environment design profession, located in a specific
geographic context, serving a certain population demographic user group.
Three Overarching Pillars of Biophilic Design
The 14 design patterns discussed in this paper fall under three pillar categories. These three broad categories help explain how spaces can be designed to be restorative, in terms of their content, spatial configuration and semantic representation.
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 19
Nature in the Space
This is the presence and diversity of plant life, water, animal and insect
species and other natural elements within the built, natural and designed
environment (Browning and Cramer, 2008). The strongest responses are
provided by direct connections with nature (Kahn et al, 2008) with spaces
that are rich in diversity (Fuller et al, 2007).
Nature of the Space
This category encompasses the various psychological and physiological
responses triggered by different spatial configurations (Ryan et al, 2014).
Natural Analogues
This category covers natural and synthesized objects, materials and
patterns that evoke nature (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014). These can
be representational artworks of nature, biomorphic forms and natural
materials (Kellert, 2008). Natural analogues mostly consist of non-direct
connections to nature (Green, 2010). While they register less effective
responses compared to direct contact with nature (Salingaros, 2012), they
offer strategic potential in spaces that offer limited resources for nature to
thrive.
2.2 Compatibility and Feasibility of Biophilic Design Patterns with UK Landscape Architecture Projects
Patterns that fall under the categories of Nature in the Space and Nature of the
Space are perhaps more compatible and more likely to be feasible in outdoor
landscape environments, than interior environments. This is due to the spatial
and area requirements of patterns such as prospect (Hildebrand, 1991), refuge,
mystery (Herzog and Bryce, 2007) and connection to natural systems (Browning,
Clancy and Ryan, 2014).
Patterns within the category of Natural Analogues do have their uses
within landscape architectural projects, but are more likely to be superseded by
patterns of actual nature, as landscape projects have greater capacity for
sustaining living organisms and natural processes, than interior environments do,
in general. With actual, natural stimuli triggering a greater restorative response
than representational or symbolic nature (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003) (Kahn et
al, 2008), it would make sense to utilise patterns of actual nature over
representational nature, where conditions allow. However, Natural Analogues do
have their role to play in landscape architectural projects, especially in projects
with restrictions on space, soil depth, irrigation and daylight, making the inclusion
of living nature, such as vegetative species, unfeasible.
Another key factor to establish when implementing biophilic design
patterns, is at what scale, frequency and quantity is necessary to illicit a
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 20
restorative response from the potential users of the designed space and how a
designer may do so. This of course is dependent upon a number of factors
outside of the designer's control (Ryan et al, 2014). However, the following will
provide some guidance to the designer to make an informed design decision, by
helping to identify potential constraints and opportunities to biophilic design
patterns on site. In turn, this will help inform which patterns are suitable and/or
suitable.
Scale
While certain patterns such as prospect and mystery will require uninterrupted
views of 30m (Hildebrand, 1991) (Herzog and Bryce, 2007), the space itself does
not necessarily have to be 30m in length, as prospective views can exist external
to the site and can be framed from within the site itself.
Visual and non-visual connections to nature, access to natural systems
and non-rhythmic stimuli depend to a degree on wildlife and the presence of
living organisms and living processes (Wilson, 2008). This can be achieved on
smaller sites by integrating into surroundings natural sites. If none exist, simpler,
less complex ecosystems may be more suitable, such as aviaries, apiaries and
fish ponds.
Specific to the pattern of presence of water, bodies of water should
occupy no more than 60% of a visual scene or space. Excessively more than
this and the presence of the body of water can trigger feelings of isolation. 60%
has been found to be the preferred amount for water to occupy within a space,
following studies on landscape preferences and specifically water (Mador, 2008)
(White et al, 2010).
It is important to note that psycho-physiological benefits of green space do
not increase as land area increases. Interestingly however, it has been recorded
that psycho-physiological benefits from green space increase with higher levels
of biodiversity (Fuller et al, 2007). This is important, as it means small spaces
can be biophilic and thus, biophilic design is achievable within high density built
environments where land is scarce (Wall and Waterman, 2010).
Frequency
As previously discussed, large scale biophilic design endeavours are not always
possible, with restrictions on developing within the green belt (DCLG, 2014a) and
space within high density urban centres becoming scarce (Wall and Waterman,
2010). Another factor to consider is the distances people will travel themselves
or allow their children to travel alone to nature, which is often less than 300m
(Natural England, 2010). Given, as the previous paragraph explained that small
spaces can trigger biophilic responses (Fuller et al, 2007) the answer lies in
creating small, high frequency biophilic spaces/environments along key routes
(to work, school, shopping) (Joye and van der Berg, 2013).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 21
Quality and Quantity
It should be remembered that one high quality biophilic design pattern is better
than several low quality biophilic design patterns. This is due to biophilic spaces
being greater than the sum of their parts, as they interact with one another to
trigger a restorative response (Hunter et al, 2010).
As regards patterns, their proportion and ratio can also influence their
efficacy. Material connections to nature and biomorphic/fractal forms should be
limited to known preferences, as excessive ratios/frequencies can lead to
negative, even toxic effects (dizziness, nausea) (Tsunetsugu et al, 2007) (see
appendix B). The quantity of mystery and peril patterns should also be limited,
depending on the scale of the site, to avoid creating a perception of danger or
sense of fear (Herzog and Bryce, 2007) (Petherick, 2000).
Adaptability and Resilience
With variability in the built and natural environments to be discussed in greater
detail in section 5, it is important to discuss the adaptability and resilience of
patterns to change. These changes in the built and natural environment can be
due to numerous factors, such as gentrification, change in local demographics
and climate change.
Changes in these factors can affect the efficacy of biophilic design
patterns and the responses they engender in individuals. For instance,
landscape preferences vary among cultures and demographics (Buijs, Elands
and Langers, 2009), especially for patterns such as: visual connection to nature;
connection to natural systems; prospect; mystery and; refuge (Forsyth and
Musacchio, 2005). However, generally speaking, there are universal landscape
preferences that can be implemented. While still being capable of triggering a
restorative response, its efficacy could be greater if designed to a specific
demographic. However, given the dynamic nature of the urban fabric, it is not
feasible for a designer to prepare for every scenario (Browning, Clancy and
Ryan, 2014). The inclusion of universal landscape preferences (Kopec, 2006)
and climate change resilient plant species and materials (Kieran, 2008) can help
ensure the adaptability and efficacy of patterns.
2.3 Section Conclusion: Are the 14 Biophilic Design Patterns, Formulated by Terrapin Bright Green Suitable, for Implementation in UK Landscape Architectural Projects?
It must be stressed, that the 14 biophilic design patterns put forward by Terrapin
Bright Green (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014), are wide ranging in scope and
are not specific to any geographic location, demographic or climatic region. The
patterns are also not specific to any one profession, although there is a distinct
bias towards architecture and interior environments. However, this may be due
to people now spending up 90% of their times indoors (Louv, 2012), with the
benefits of biophilia having greater impact on stressed individuals in indoor
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 22
environments, than on individuals who regularly visit actual nature (Heerwagen
and Hase, 2001). This means that for many reasons (to be examined further in
section 5), specific patterns will not be applicable to certain professions for
successful implementation into the built environment.
In terms of adopting the 14 patterns, research (outside the scope of this
dissertation) should look into modifying and even developing new patterns
specific to landscape architecture in a UK context. From the literature review
and examination of the patterns, it can be argued that not all of the patterns are
directly applicable to landscape architecture. The only pattern, examined in this
dissertation, that is to a large degree incompatible with implementation in
landscape architecture, is the pattern of dynamic and diffuse day lighting (see
appendix B). This is due to the interior architectural bias of the pattern
(Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014) and the outdoor, open character (in
comparison to many interior environments) of landscape (van der Berg, Joye and
de Vries, 2013). The effects of the pattern would be negligible in landscape
projects, as the pattern only exists to bring daylight into buildings that have (in
the last century) primarily depended on artificial light (Loftness and Snyder,
2008). The outdoor environment does not suffer from the same predicament.
However, it is still an important pattern for landscape architects to understand,
especially when designing around/near existing buildings. This is due to the
possibility of introduced vegetation blocking daylight from entering existing
buildings or introducing excessive artificial light pollution and negatively affecting
the health and well-being of the building's occupants/users (Chepesiuk, 2009).
But, for the most part, the 14 patterns developed by Terrapin Bright Green are
suitable for applications in the built environment by landscape architecture
professionals in the UK.
Section 3: UK & Global Context
While the dawn of modern man begun 200,000 years ago, it is only in the last
two hundred years that the majority of humanity began the shift to being urban
dwellers (Heerwagen and Orians, 1993). A relatively short period, considering as
that only as recent as 2007 has the majority of the global population become
urban (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010). Humanity has spent 95-99% of
its history adapting and evolving in natural environments (Kellert, 1993). 200
years is too short a timeframe to adapt to such a drastic change in environments
that urbanisation has brought (Juniper, 2013).
Currently, over 50% of the world’s population lives in urban centres and
this is expected to rise to 60% in 2030 and 70% by 2050 (WHO, 2010). Added to
this, 80% of the built environment in America and Europe standing today will be
standing in 2050, while 80% of the built environment in China and India standing
in 2050 has yet to be constructed (Doyle, 2013). Less and less time is being
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 23
spent in natural environments that have restorative properties, with people
spending up to 90% of their time indoors (Louv, 2012).
Another issue to consider is the global phenomenon, known as
Environmental Generational Amnesia (EGA). EGA describes the shifting
baseline for what is considered a normal environmental condition (Kahn et al,
2008). As environmental degradation continues, the baseline continues to shift
with each ensuing generation, each perceiving this degraded condition as the
non-degraded condition; what they perceive as the baseline for what nature
should be (Kahn, 2002). This shifting baseline varies across cultures, geographic
regions and sub-groups (Kopec, 2006).
The phenomenon of EGA is being accelerated by factors such as climate
change (Hipp and Ogunseitan, 2011) and the continued migration of populations
to urban environments (Kahn, 2002). Today, it is estimated that people in
western societies spend up to 90% of their day indoors, decreasing opportunities
for contact with nature (Kahn, 2009). Other factors, such as concerns over child
safety and the erection of physical and psychological barriers in urban
environments have reduced the distance or 'roaming range' of children
(Derbyshire, 2007). One study showed a decreased roaming range over 4
generations, from 8km to 300m (Bird, 2007). This has reduced opportunities for
interaction with nature among children.
However, it is important to note important developments in the field of
biophilic design, with the launch of the Biophilic Cities Projects (Beatley, 2014),
the founding of the International Society for Biourbanism (Serafini et al, 2010)
and the increasing frequency at which publications, research papers and
conferences are being released/held, with publications from Kellert (1993, 2005,
2008), Terrapin Bright Green (2012) (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014), and
Beatley (2008), spreading awareness of biophilic design globally.
3.1 UK Context
The percentage of the UK population living in urban areas is set to hit 92.2% in
2030 (Brown, 2013). However, it should be broken down to clarify what is meant
by urban, built and natural. Following the completion of the UK National
Ecosystem Assessment, the total land areas of the following have been broken
down (Watson and Alban, 2011):
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 24
% of UK Land Area Classed as Urban 7% (16,089 km2)
England 10.6% (13,822 km2)
Scotland 1.9% (1,489 km2)
Northern Ireland 3.6% (498 km2)
Wales 4.1% (852 km2)
It is interesting to note that urban and built-on are not the same thing. For
instance, 54% of land in England classed as ‘urban’ is green space (broken
down to include parks, allotments and recreational green space). On top of this,
private domestic gardens (18%) and water bodies (6.6%) make up 24.6% of
urban land area (Easton, 2012). This means that 78.6% of urban areas in
England are classed as being ‘natural’. Further breakdown of the figures reveals
that only 2.7% of England’s land area is in fact ‘built on’. These figures may be
slightly skewed as they do not take into account the quality of the space, its
accessibility, ownership, function and location in relation to major population
centres or the fact that some cities are more/less urban than others. While these
figures may be relieving to some to see only 7% of the UK being classed as
‘urban’, they are in fact a lot more worrying. This is due to the challenge of trying
to retrofit new and improve access to, existing natural spaces into less than 4%
of the land area (that is not built on) where 92% of the UK population live (Brown,
2009).
These constraints will only lead to an exacerbation of environmental
stresses (Bilotta and Evans, 2013). The stresses of urbanisation and
displacement of connections to nature from the built environment (Orr and Pyle,
2008) is costing the UK population its wealth and perhaps more importantly, its
health (Marmot, 2010). For instance:
Stress is now the biggest cause of sickness in the UK
Stress related illnesses cost 105 million working days each year
Stress affects 1 in 5 of the working population
Cost of stress related illnesses annually: £105 billion
Cost of maintaining 27,000 green spaces annually: £630 million
(Source: UK Health and Safety Executive, as appears in Juniper, 2013)
But why do we need to reduce stress? Chronic stress occurs throughout
our days and lives and originates from numerous factors, i.e. quality of life at
home, relationship with others, financial income and expenses, etc (Bird, 2013).
But environmental stressors, such as those in urban areas (traffic, crowds,
thermal discomfort, and perception of danger) also trigger and exacerbate
chronic stress (Bilotta and Evans, 2013).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 25
It needs to be understood, that chronic stress is related to chronic
inflammation, which in turn is the fundamental root cause of major disease
burdens, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, anxiety and
dementia. This is due to chronic stress triggering an increase in unhealthy
behaviours (alcohol, nicotine, fatty/sugary foods) in individuals as a coping
mechanism (McEwen, 2000). In tandem, not only do these behaviours damage
cell mitochondria, chronic stress has a direct effect on cell mitochondria, causing
the release of cortisol, a stress hormone. Damage to the mitochondria makes
individuals more susceptible to developing heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
Chronic stress also causes physical inactivity, which in turn leads to sedentary
mitochondria producing oxidative phosphorylation (oxidants), which can increase
risk of developing cancer (Bird, 2013).
Yet, despite the figures stated above, problems posed by chronic stress,
cost comparisons and the fact that a recent report by CABE found that 85% of
people feel the quality of a public space “has a direct impact on their lives and on
the way they feel” (Carmona et al, 2004), cuts to funding across municipalities in
the UK for parks and recreational green space continue (Abbott, 2014). For
instance, Liverpool City Council, in 2014, cut funding for the city's parks by 50%
(Cosgrove, 2014a), despite cuts of £1million in 2012 and reductions of 20% in
2011 (Abbott, 2012). While over the next four years, Birmingham City Council,
Europe's largest municipality, plans to cut £10.4 million from green space funding
(Cosgrove, 2014b). Wigan Council meanwhile have frozen council tax levels in
exchange for citizen stewardship of green spaces, in an attempt to make ends
meet and uphold quality of public green space after their budget was slashed by
£14 million (Appleby, 2014). In total, £60 million has been slashed from park and
green space budgets since 2010 under the conservative government, with the
north and midland regions being hit hardest (Ellis, 2014). These cuts have taken
place; despite recent evidence pointing to UK cities with the lowest life
expectancies had a fifth less green space than areas with the highest life
expectancies (Roberts-Hughes, 2013). These are steps in the wrong direction for
heavily urbanized UK cities with growing populations and increasing rates of
stress related illnesses. From the sources reviewed, a clear north-south divide is
appearing in terms of investment in green space, as the City of London is in the
midst of a new pocket parks programme worth £2 million across thirty projects
(Bloomfield, 2013).
Another factor to keep in mind is the recent release by the Department of
Communities and Local Government, a prospectus on 'Locally-Led Garden
Cities' (DCLG, 2014b) and the subsequent Wolfson Economics Prize
competition, with the winning entry calling for forty garden cities to be built over
the next three decades, housing 150,000 people (Hope, 2014).
In terms of biophilic design in the UK, the release of the Birmingham
Green Living Spaces Plan (Birmingham City Council, 2013a), the Trees, People
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 26
and Built Environment II Conference and perhaps most importantly, the
admission of Birmingham City to the Biophilic Cities Project (Beatley, 2014), all
show growing support and political will to enhance the human-nature connection
and incorporate biophilic/restorative experiences into the UK built environment.
3.2 Section Conclusion: Are Biophilic Design Patterns Needed in the UK?
“Better health is related to green space regardless of socio-economic status.”
- Fair Society, Healthy Lives (Professor Sir Michael Marmot, 2010)
With current trends, over 70% of the world's population will be urbanized by
2050, with that number standing at 92.2% for Britain in 2050 (Brown, 2013). An
ageing, multicultural, urbanized population, with higher rates of depression and
stress related illnesses, exacerbated by the effects of climate change, living in an
ageing built environment (World Health Organisation, 2010). That is the scenario
presented. By discussing, developing, integrating and implementing biophilic
design patterns into national planning policy and the built environment,
landscape architects and other built environment professionals can help reduce
and eliminate the negative effects of living in a heavily populated urban
environment, while reducing pressure on an already struggling NHS (Juniper,
2013). Education on landscape preferences and the efficacy of biophilic design
patterns across cultures, ethnicities and demographics will also help create an
inclusive society that has equitable access to restorative environments and green
space. Again, this justifies the need for this dissertation.
By providing opportunities for restoration of cognitive, physiological and
psychological capacities at appropriate and regular intervals (Joye and van der
Berg, 2013), the negative effects of chronic stress can be dealt with at the
source, as a preventative, rather than a curative strategy (van der Berg, Joye
and de Vries, 2013). It must be remembered that reductions in stress and
elevated moods can occur within five minutes of visual engaging natural stimuli
or being present in a natural environment (Ulrich, 1999) and within twenty
minutes, concentration levels improve for children with attention deficits (Faber
Taylor and Kuo, 2009). As discussed before, access to and interaction with,
natural stimuli triggers these restorative responses. Strategies to reduce a user’s
level of chronic stress through the use of biophilic design is two-fold: firstly by
providing restoration (Hartig, Bringslimark and Patil, 2008) and reducing stress
levels through interaction with natural stimuli (Green, 2009) and; secondly, due to
reductions in stress, levels of physical activity will increase, due to chronic stress
acting as deterrent to physical activity (Bird, 2013) and the fact that individuals
and are more likely to visit and exercise if they live near a natural green space,
thus further reducing occurrences of chronic stress and inflammation in the local
population (Nielson and Hanson, 2007) (Kaczynski and Henderson, 2007).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 27
“The conditions of the physical environments in which residents are living greatly
influence this chronic stress—by creating conditions that inadvertently foster it or
alternatively help to diminish or control it. Nature and greenery are key stress-
reducing elements in cities.”
– Timothy Beatley (Beatley, 2014)
It is becoming evident that escalating costs and austerity are crippling
some sectors of the NHS (Chorley, 2014). This is where biophilic design can
create restorative environments to mitigate against, reduce or eliminate
environmental stressors from the environment (Joye and van der Berg, 2013).
Biophilic design could be integrated into the exterior built environment to help
create a 'natural health service' (Juniper, 2013) by triggering stress reduction,
mental restoration, improving mood and lowering blood pressure (Steg, 2013).
In addition, nearly two thirds of the world's population will be urbanized in
the next 15 years (Brown, 2009) and that psychological disorders in Western
Europe are set to rise from the current level of 10% to 15% by 2020 (Juniper,
2013). These numbers are accompanied by the fact that depression, a stress
related illness, is expected to be the number one disease burden worldwide,
overtaking cancer and heart disease, by 2030 (Whooley and Wong, 2013).
Biophilic design patterns offer health, well-being, and economic,
environmental and social benefits to the population of the UK. Due to the degree
of overlap in the aims of biophilic design and the Garden City Movement, the
recently published prospectus on Garden Cities (DCLG, 2014b) offers an
opportunity to biophilic design. With strong political support and emphasis on
health, well-being and equitably distributed accessible green spaces within the
Garden City movement (Howard, 1902), 'Locally-Led Garden Cities' could
provide a suitable mechanism for implementing biophilic design patterns in the
built environment.
Section 4: European, National and Local Planning Policy
The links between planning policy and biophilic design are not as clear as the
long established links between planning and health (Landscape Institute, 2013b).
However, there is a degree of overlap and relevancy between planning and
biophilic design, seen in the UK context with events such as: the rise of
importance placed on green infrastructure (Landscape Institute, 2009); the
release of guidance for Garden Cities by the DCLG (2014b); the release of a
position statement by the Landscape Institute (2013b) on the role of landscape in
health and well-being; and the release of 'Green Living Spaces Plan' by
Birmingham City Council (2013a).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 28
4.1 European Landscape Convention
The European Landscape Convention (ELC) is the first international convention
to focus specifically on issues relating landscape and was introduced by the
Council of Europe. The convention seeks to protect, maintain and enhance the
landscape through management, planning, restoration and co-operation between
European member states on landscape issues, especially those of a trans-
boundary nature (Council of Europe, 2000). The convention applies to all
landscapes (whether designated or not), their typologies, characters, forms and
conditions (Ahern and Cole, 2009a).
4.2 The Localism Act 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)
The Localism Act decentralised planning powers from national and regional level
to local authorities, giving them greater power over local planning decisions and
development (DCLG, 2011). Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) developed
by local authorities and guided by adherence to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), which carries the central theme of "presumption in favour of
sustainable development" (DCLG, 2012). This translates into not hindering
development, as long as it is sustainable nor violates local environmental
protection orders. The key understanding of sustainable development, put
forward by the government under the NPPF, must integrate three pillars of
sustainability:
Economic: Enhancing and creating a resilient, adaptive and competitive
economy
Social: Supporting and enhancing vibrant, resilient and healthy
communities
Environmental: Enhancing and conserving our natural, built and historic
environments for now and future generations
There are no direct references to biophilic design in the NPPF or NPPG
(see appendix C). However, many of the paragraphs of the NPPF can be utilised
as policy mechanisms for implementing biophilic design, as green space and
access to nature is recognized within the NPPF as a key health resource,
especially in urban areas (DCLG, 2014a). However, the lack of direct references
to biophilic design in the NPPF demonstrates the knowledge deficit and lack of
awareness of biophilic design and its benefits among policy makers and built
environment professionals.
4.3 Health and Social Care Act 2012
In 2012, the Health and Social Care Act transferred responsibility for public
health to local authorities, an important development given the shift in national
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 29
planning policy to 'localism'. This act has given communities greater control over
how health services are run and delivered within their own community, leading to
actions that respond to the local environmental and socioeconomic conditions, in
tandem to resources available to the local authority (Department of Health,
2012).
4.4 Local Plans
Upon the abolishment of Local Development Frameworks in 2010, the NPPF
states that every local planning authority in England must have a clear, concise,
up to date Local Plan. Local plans must operate within the NPP framework,
while meeting the needs of the local population, local development and reflect
the local community’s and stakeholder’s vision of how the area should develop
(DCLG, 2012). No local plan to date makes any direct references to biophilic
design. The closest exception is Birmingham City Council's supplementary
planning document (SPD), 'Green Living Spaces Plan' (2013a), but it is not
statutory.
4.5 Community Infrastructure Levy
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new levy that was introduced under
the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012) and can operate in
conjunction with Section 106 agreements. The CIL allows local authorities the
choice over whether or not to charge new developments in their area. When
enacted, the CIL results in land owners and developers paying charges to the
local council, which are in turn used to fund services within the local authority
and community (most likely in relation to communities affected by the nearby
development that is being levied). These charges are determined by the local
authority by assessing the size, type and land area of the new development
along with its environmental impact (DCLG, 2013). Following clarification by the
Department for Communities and Local Government, the CIL can be used to
fund existing green spaces, an important development given the current austerity
measures and their impact on local authority green space budgets (Anderson,
2014).
4.6 Section Conclusion
Biophilic design, with its aims and benefits, directly ties in with the NPPF's aim of
creating healthy communities, through the reduction of health inequalities by
increasing opportunities for access to and interaction with natural environments
and natural stimuli, a strategy recommended by Marmot (2010) and Natural
England (2014). The NPPF also recognises the importance of green space in
delivering health and well-being to communities (DCLG, 2014a), thus making
biophilic design a key medium for achieving sustainable development, a role for
biophilic design that has been discussed previously by Kellert (2005).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 30
The introduction of the Health and Social Care Act (2012) has lead to the
creation of Health and Wellbeing Boards, allowing healthcare professionals from
local communities to co-operate together to improve health and wellbeing, while
reducing inequalities in terms of access and delivery of health services among
the local population (Landscape Institute, 2013b). Health and Wellbeing Boards
potentially offer a go to point for landscape architects to consult on the current
baseline conditions, needs and inequalities of a local population, who would be
directly affected by a new landscape development.
The CIL is a significant opportunity, as a suitable policy mechanism, for
the implementation of biophilic design patterns in the built environment.
Publications such as The Marmot Review (Marmot et al, 2010) and
Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment 2
(Natural England, 2014) could be used as part of an evidence base for justifying
the levy charge and its subsequent use for funding biophilic design. However,
the charged amount and its determined use are all dependent upon the baseline
needs of the local population and the local plan (DCLG, 2013).
Overall, on a national basis, biophilic design is not accommodated in the
NPPF, but this could be enhanced to further encourage the use of increasing
access to nature and natural stimuli through policy. As regards the transition
from national to local policy; local plans do conform to the framework set out by
the NPPF, but each plan varies across each local authority. This is due to many
factors, such as demographics, culture, character, density, typology, etc, to be
discussed in greater detail in Section 5. As such, no existing local plan to date
makes any direct references to biophilic design.
Section 5: Variability in the Built and Natural Environment
Variability in the built and natural environment can be defined, in the context of
this dissertation, as describing the varying styles of architecture, character, age
of built environment, climate, geography, ecology, socioeconomic demographics
and local cultural traditions and how all these factors interact with one another to
produce a sense of place. This variability in the environment can affect, to
differing degrees, the efficacy of and responses triggered by biophilic design
patterns (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014).
In a UK context, variability in the built and natural environment is vital to
address wherever a designer seeks to implement biophilic design patterns. This
is due to numerous factors, such as:
The UK has an ageing building stock, with 80% of the buildings
standing today will still be standing in 2050 (Doyle, 2013);
The UK is one of the culturally diverse countries in the world, with
London being the most culturally diverse city in history (Benedictus,
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 31
2005) and Birmingham being the second most culturally diverse
city in Europe (Birmingham City Council, 2014b)
Climate change has triggered increased flooding and visible
changes within the landscape (IPCC, 2014)
The current housing shortage puts pressure on maintaining the
character of existing communities with new developments (Policy
Exchange, 2014)
Increases in prevalence of chronic stress related illnesses among
UK demographics and pressure on the NHS (Bird, 2013)
5.1 Climate & Ecology in the UK and how it Impacts Upon Biophilic Design Patterns
Traditionally, the built environment has been constructed of locally sourced
materials and vegetation that reflect the contextual landscape and ecology. This
strengthens local identity and has been utilised for centuries (Bender, 2008).
However, factors such as climate change, invasive non-native species a, shifts in
plant species ranges (Harvey, 2011) (Gray, 2011) and shifts in thermal comfort
baselines (Muller et al, 2014) have made certain material choices and plant
species unfit for purpose (Gill et al, 2007). This obstacle has become more
pronounced in high density urban areas, such as London, where the effects of
the urban heat island have decision and policy makers looking into research on
tree species that can adapt and thrive within the urban heat island long enough
to become large established trees (Greater London Authority, 2005). This use of
new tree species may impact negatively on an area’s character and connection
to a region’s ecology, hindering attempts to trigger a biophilic response.
Climate change is also driving species across the world to change their
geographic ranges, moving around 18km further north every decade. In the UK,
the Comma Butterfly has moved 220km north over only two decades (Gray,
2011). These changes in geographic ranges will result in significant changes in
local ecosystems, with the added loss of an established sense of character and
place attached to built and natural environments associated with those
ecosystems (The Countryside Agency, 2002). It is important for designers to be
aware of this when establishing biophilic design patterns, to ensure efficacy of
the patterns utilised.
Aside from the previously described problems, varying climates and
ecologies across the UK offer unique opportunities for each project. One is
education. An inaccurate ideal of nature held by much of the population is that it
is always green; even what constitutes natural is often debated (Natori and
Chenoweth, 2008). By utilising local vegetative plant species, materials and
replicating natural ecosystems in coastal, moor, floodplain or highland locations,
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 32
designers can help improve the user of the spaces' ecological literacy. These
can be achieved by reflecting the local regions ecology and character, instead of
imposing an alien scheme which does not connect to the surrounding landscape
(Pilgrim, Smith and Pretty, 2007). Biophilic design patterns can still be integrated
into these locations, not just in character, but in terms of climate and ecology as
well.
The dynamic properties of climate and ecology also introduce a temporal
nature to biophilic design patterns that incorporate living materials/organisms.
Vegetation such as trees and flowering shrubs have seasonal qualities, which
can result in varying degrees of the quality of connection to nature established
(Nelson, 2001). While this can be seen as a constraint, the seasonality factor
can be utilised as an opportunity in establishing biophilic design patterns such as
'connection to natural systems' (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014) (see
appendix B). Recognizing this variability, designers must develop strategies to
maintain the efficacy and ability of biophilic design patterns to engender a
restorative response.
5.2 Culture & Demographics
While many landscape preferences and views of nature are, to a degree,
universal across human demographics, discrepancies in how people view,
appreciate, interact with, or how they are even affected by nature occur across
cultures (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013), ethnic groups (Forsyth and
Musacchio, 2005), genders, ages (Kopec, 2006) and various other factors, such
as one’s profession (Natori and Chenoworth, 2008) or education level (Pilgrim et
al, 2008). It must be stressed however, that this does not mean that one group
values or appreciates nature or that the need/right to have restorative nature
nearby is any less significant than another’s; all it means is that differing
demographic groups interact with nature in different ways (Zube and Pitt, 1981).
The primary difference between evolutionary (innate) and cultural
(learned/conditioned) responses to nature is that cultural responses are the
result of an intentional cognitive evaluation of functions available from the natural
environment to individuals and communities; while evolutionary responses are
passive, immediate affective experiences (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013).
Cultural Theories
Topophilia
Topopihlia is an emotional connection to a place that has a distinct natural
and/or built character unique to that region. As a theory, it states that
people seek out and place attachment to what one knows (Tveit, Sang
and Hagerhall, 2013). The term was first used by W.H. Auden as a
'special love for peculiar places' and was applied as an architectural and
cultural theory by Gaston Bachelard, in his 1958 publication, 'The Poetics
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 33
of Space'. This is an important theory to understand in terms of biophilic
design, as it states that experience and learned, conditioned responses
are the deciding factor for one’s landscape preferences. This theory is
evident among immigrants from far and Middle Eastern cultures, who
have low participation/user rates of public green space in western
countries (Buijs, Elands and Langers, 2009). This is due to differing
landscape preferences. The response from many immigrants is to create
and design in landscape styles within their own communities,
demonstrating the topophilic desire to seek out what one is familiar with.
This theory links in with the Aesthetics of Care theory and the
phenomenon of Environmental Generational Amnesia, which can be
thought of as a ‘temporal topophilia’.
Aesthetics of Care
This theory, prevalent in Middle Eastern and agrarian
cultures/communities, emphasizes the importance of direct and visually
evident influence of human activity on natural environments. Landscapes
that seen to be managed, manicured and maintained are preferred over
unkempt, naturalistic nature (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013). This
‘aesthetic’ is valued over ecological function, and clashes with current
landscape preferences in western countries for ‘wild’ nature, again
complicating the problem of low user rates of green space among
immigrants to western countries (Buijs, Elands and Langer, 2009).
Ecological Aesthetic Theory
In contrast to the Aesthetics of Care, the Ecological Aesthetic Theory puts
forward a preference for natural and wild settings. The theory states that
ecological literacy and knowledge of the natural environment leads to
greater preference for natural developing landscapes, absent of visual
human intervention (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013). Initial research
into this area found that higher income groups (thus those who had better
access to education) had greater preferences for naturalistic settings in
contrast to lower socioeconomic groups (Yu, 1995) (Pilgrim, Smith and
Pretty, 2007). However, recent research has shown a decline in
ecological literacy, in western countries, correlating with increasing rates
of urbanisation and rising standards of living, while in poorer, undeveloped
countries, ecological literacy and appreciation for nature remains high,
due to a greater, obvious dependency on natural resources (Pilgrim et al,
2008).
Savannah Hypothesis
This theory proposes to explain why humans from different cultural,
geographic and ethnic backgrounds have “an odd cross-cultural
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 34
uniformity” when it comes to landscape preferences (Wypijewski et al,
1997). The theory states that this is due to modern humanity’s evolution
taking place in the East African Savannah. Having preferences for certain
landscapes over others (i.e. a lush savannah over a void desert) to create
a habitat in would give an individual a greater chance of survival. This
move to the savannah and out of the forest may have also built in our
deep seated fear of heights, in turn encouraging more Homo sapiens to
leave the forest and settle on the savannah (Hartmann and Apaolaza-
Ibanez, 2010). Spatial and contextual characteristics of the African
savannah are still present inhumanity’s landscape preferences today
(Heerwagen and Orians, 1993). This theory forms the basis for biophobia
and prospect-refuge theory (Ulrich, 1993).
Biophobia
Biophobia is the polar opposite of biophilia yet is an integral part of it as a
concept. Biophobia is a fear of or aversion to nature, natural
environments and associated stimuli (Ulrich, 1993). Biophobia is
hypothesised to be genetic to varying degrees, but it is essentially a
learned/conditioned response. It is hypothesised, like biophilia, to have
been an evolutionary trait to avoid danger and enhance survival. This is
evident in typical biophobic responses occurring to the sight of blood,
spiders and snakes (van der Berg and Heijne, 2005). Yet, biophobic
responses are not always negative, with patterns of peril and mystery
engendering a biophilic response, through a biophobic experience
(Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014).
Prospect-Refuge Theory
This theory, first proposed by Appleton in 1975, and later built on by
Hildebrand (1991), sets out that humanity is attracted to landscape scenes
that have certain conditions, including: broad prospective views; visible
locations of refuge; presence of water; plant life and; other living non-
threatening species (Heerwagen and Orians, 1993). This theory also
states that humanity has a deep seated need to be on the edge of defined
spaces, for security and to ease perception of fear/danger. The need for
overhead cover as well is preferred, as it allows the restriction of views
into the space, but allows external views from within the space, while
providing a degree of protection to the surveyor (Hildebrand, 2008).
Ethnicity
As described in the preceding paragraphs, variations among various ethnic
groups as regards landscape preferences can be explained through cultural
theories, demonstrating that there is a learned/conditioned response to biophilic
experiences and landscape preferences (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013).
These learned, in combination with evolutionary, responses are conditioned and
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 35
modified by social, cultural and life experiences, as explained through the theory
of topophilia.
When considering this subject, it must be remembered that ethnicity
cannot explain all issues to do with green space use and ethnic groups. Other
factors, such as crime, psychological barriers, planning policy, social justice and
inequalities in green space distribution all contribute to skewing the figures of
park usage. The differences between ethnic groups are focused mostly on
landscape preferences and how they use the space and interact with nature in
ways that are compatible with their needs and cultural background (Forsyth and
Musacchio, 2005).
The previously explained theories show how landscape preferences can
affect usage and differ across ethnic groups. Yet, these low participation rates
among Middle Eastern immigrants to western countries do not occur to the same
extent in 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, but still remain lower than the rest of
the comparable, non-immigrant descendant population (Buijs, Elands and Langer
2009).
Age
Desired uses of space or how people use a space and interact with nature varies
considerably over one’s lifetime (Scopelliti and Giuliani, 2004). Younger age
groups prefer spaces with present patterns of prospect, mystery, risk, access to
natural systems and presence of water (Castonguay and Jutras, 2009), while
teenagers prefer spaces with more refuge (Chawla et al, 2014) and elderly age
groups seek spaces with refuge, clear lines of sight and manicured vegetation
and absence of mystery/risk (Takano, Nakamura and Watanabe, 2002).
In terms of effects, younger age groups benefit the most from contact with
nature, in terms of self-esteem, with this response of an enhanced state
decreasing with age. While both the very young and elderly, in terms of
improved mood, benefit the least from contact with nature (Berto, 2007).
Gender
Even across cultures and ethnic groups, there are similarities in the differences
between the genders and how they respond to natural stimuli. The reasons for
these differences are proposed to be due to our cultural evolutionary history, with
men as hunter gatherers and women as domestic carers (Kopec, 2006).
The differences are significant and can strongly influence design decisions
for the built environment and who will ultimately use the space for restoration of
capacities. In terms of how the genders use the space, compared to men,
women prefer spaces with high density crowds of people; with little or no
personal space. The reversal of these conditions, spaces with low spatial
density, has been shown to lead to a higher occurrence of negative moods in
women. The difference between the sexes and their preferences are further
shown by the fact that men report much higher restorative responses from
patterns of refuge with low overhead cover (ceilings, tree canopies, etc).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 36
Conversely, men’s cognitive functionality has greater resistance to becoming
depleted due to noisy conditions, unlike women’s’ (Petherick, 2000) (Kopec,
2006).
In terms of need for nature, women report higher levels of daily stress
than men, yet, they are much less likely to use nearby outdoor natural spaces
(Richardson and Mitchell, 2010), in contrast to men, who will travel greater
distances to visit green space (Cohen et al, 2007). The reasons for why this is
may be due to women regarding vegetative areas with danger and possibility of
attack, most likely a result of cultural conditioning (Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan,
2001).
In regards to the effects of nature following a restorative response being
engendered, still, differences remain. For instance, following a walk in a forest,
natural killer cell activity (vital for destroying cancer cells) was enhanced in both
genders; but the timeframe duration of enhanced natural killer cell activity
differed significantly (30 days for men, 7 days for women). The reasons why are
unknown (Li, 2010) (Park et al, 2009).
5.3 Character, Density and Landscape Typologies
The character and density of the built and natural environments will strongly
influence what patterns can be implemented and the degree to which a
restorative response can be engendered. The two extremes of character and
density can be shown by comparing low density rural and high density urban
environments.
“In medicine, where the body is really matters, health is essentially place-based”.
– Dr. Richard Jackson (Green, 2012)
Within rural environments, which typically have higher levels of
biodiversity and less visual obstructions, there are fewer obstacles for
engendering a restorative experience, in comparison to urban environments.
This is due to a phenomenon known as perceptual fluency; the demand on
cognitive resources required for perceiving and processing a specific stimulus
(Joye, 2007). Natural environments and stimuli are perceptually processed with
ease by a user, thought to be the result of our species familiarity with how visual
information is structured, layered and arranged in natural environments, due to
our evolution taking place in such environments (Parraga, Troscianko and
Tolhurst, 2000). With lower demands placed on cognitive functions for
perceptually processing environmental stimuli, attentional resources are given
the opportunity to be replenished, allowing for a restorative response to occur
(Joye and van der Berg, 2013).
On the other hand, when it comes to typical, high density urban
environments, people are perceptually inarticulate, due to unfamiliarity with
processing the sensory information present in urban environments (Song and
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 37
Schwars, 2009). Sensory overload is a common occurrence in urban
environments, as users’ cognitive resources are being continually depleted by
having to process excessive stimuli (Ulrich et al, 1991) (Bonnes et al, 2013). For
example, checking for traffic, waiting for lights to change, avoiding other
pedestrians, checking signs, way finding and being aware of your surroundings
all deplete cognitive resources and increase stress. Such demands are absent
from restorative environments (Karmanov and Hamel, 2008).
It is interesting to note, as previously mentioned in the sub section on
gender preferences, that clear sights lines and low density, large spatial
environments are generally preferred (Bilotta and Evans, 2013). These qualities
do not commonly occur together in high density urban environments. This poses
a problem; as such qualities quite often require large parcels of land, which is
limited and fragmented within urban cores (Wall and Waterman, 2010).
Van der Berg, Koole and Wulp (2003) stated that high levels of stress
were correlated by a greater preference for natural over urban environments.
This has positive and negative implications for biophilic design in urban
environments. In terms of positive effects, people with higher stress levels
respond with greater levels of restoration to biophilic stimuli, in comparison to
non-stressed subjects (Barton and Pretty, 2010). Thus, this factor may
compensate for the lower responses that occur when experiencing
representational nature (in comparison to real nature) (Kahn et al, 2008), which
can be more feasible to implement in urban environments than resource
demanding vegetative/natural features.
5.4 Project Types and Scope
Strategies for implementing biophilic design patterns have already been broken
down to examine variable elements that can affect it in a UK context, but this is
still a wide scope. The following, is a brief section that deals with the scope and
projects types that landscape architects operate in a design role for. This section
will only skim the surface, as investigations into the applications and
opportunities for biophilic design in these areas are deserving of their own
publications to be dealt with in adequate depth. This section will:
How to implement biophilic design patterns in each respective project type
Identify the most appropriate patterns for each project type
Identify opportunities and constraints for implementing biophilic design
patterns in each project type
New build
New build projects, in some respects, have the greatest potential for biophilic
design, with fewer space constraints. However, new build projects need greater
investment in terms of time, money and resources to integrate/implement new
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 38
and existing services, while existing spaces and retrofit projects would most likely
have these services already in place (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011).
New build projects allow for the establishment/introduction of biophilic patterns
that can turn a source of environmental stress, into a restorative space. They
also allow for a much greater degree of enhancement of biophilic
attributes/qualities that exist in the surrounding context (Browning, Clancy and
Ryan, 2014), like Eastside City Park (Figure 1). While retrofit projects are more
likely to be shaped by their surrounding context, new build projects (of an
adequate scale and area) have the ability to influence their surrounding context.
Figure 1 (5.4.1) Clancy (2014) Eastside City Park [Photograph] in possession of: The author: Birmingham, UK.
New build projects, developed on either open brownfield land or atop a
demolished site, like Eastside City Park (Birmingham City Council, 2013a) have
fewer restrictions in terms of having to accommodate existing built form on site.
This allows for a complete re-configuration of spatial conditions, an introduction
of a new material palette and natural stimuli to occupy the space. Operating with
essentially a blank slate (not always the case), a designer can effectively
spatially configure the space to enhance (visual and non-visual) connections to
nature, internal and external to the site by effectively responding to the
surrounding contexts’ typology, character and spatial form.
Due to the opportunity of total spatial re-configuration of a space and how
it responds to the surrounding context, the most space demanding biophilic
design patterns can be implemented, including: prospect; mystery, peril and
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 39
connection to natural systems. New build projects offer the opportunity (where
site conditions permit) to establish or restore ecosystems within the space,
effectively ensuring the implementation of the connection to natural systems
pattern (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014) (see appendix B).
Retrofit
Retrofit projects are essentially the introduction of new elements that did not exist
at the time of original construction into spaces with a set spatial configuration,
consisting of existing built form and features (Dunham-Jones and Williamson,
2011). Retrofit, for the purpose of this dissertation, does not mean significant
removal of existing features within in the space, but rather introducing
complimentary patterns to those already existing. The inclusion of new elements
must successfully respond to and enhance existing features within the space, i.e.
enhancing natural elements with the introduction of biophilic patterns to the point
where they induce a restorative response to users of the space. Retrofit
projects; aim to enhance the existing character of the space and surrounding
environment (example shown in Figure 2).
"Retrofitting is one of the key methods for introducing these biophilic principles
and projects in cities around the world, as practitioners are working with a built
landscape, envisioning a new green layer on top of the grey one." -Katherine
Forster (2013)
Retrofitting biophilic design patterns into existing green and public spaces
provides a cheaper alternative to biophilic new builds; however, it does have its
limitations. The most apparent of these are (Dunham-Jones and Williamson,
2011):
Space/Area
Spatial configuration
Surrounding built form
Planning restrictions
Soil quality and depth
While it has been previously discussed that small spaces can be biophilic
(Joye and van der Berg, 2013), as restorative responses rise with increases in
biodiversity, rather than increase in land area (Fuller et al, 2007); restrictions on
space (common in retrofit projects) can affect the spatial quality of a space,
hindering restorative responses.
These space restrictions translate into limitations on the levels of
vegetation that can be installed and effectively reducing access to actual nature,
further exacerbated by poor soil quality in urban areas and restrictions on root
growth (Wall and Waterman, 2010). The set spatial configuration of the space,
due to its existing built form and features on site, significantly influences whether
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 40
or not certain patterns, such as prospect, mystery and refuge can be successfully
implemented (Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014) (see appendix B).
Figure 2 (5.4.2) ‘West Green Road Tropical Park’ (2013) [Photograph] at: http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2013/11/17/west-green-road-tropical-park/ (Accessed on 01.11.14)
With restrictions on space and a set spatial configuration ruling out
significant elements of vegetation and prospective views of actual nature,
landscape architects can utilize natural analogues; representational nature, to
implement biophilic design patterns (Salingaros, 2012). This can be down
through the use of natural materials (material connection to nature), biomorphic
forms (biomorphic forms and patterns) and fractal geometries (complexity and
order) (Browning and Cramer, 2008) (see appendix B). Retrofit projects can
possibly implement patterns such as prospect and visual connection to nature by
framing and creating prospective views to nature that are external to the site
boundary, lying within the surrounding visual context.
Renovation
This project type lies in between on the scale of ‘retrofit’ to ‘new build’.
Renovation implies the removal of significant amounts of existing built form and
features to the point where the spatial configuration of the space has changed
(unlike retrofit projects), yet its spatial relationship to the surrounding context has
not (unlike new build projects) and; then introducing new built form and elements
into a space to a new set spatial arrangement. Renovation projects may
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 41
enhance an existing character or develop to the point where the prescribed
character of the space is longer suitable or recognizable (like Thames Barrier
Park, shown in Figure 3). Renovation projects can and should connect to the
history and past use of the site through the design, to create a greater sense of
place attachment and character. While the character of the space may change,
the renovation project should aim to respond and reflect the character of the
surrounding context (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011).
Renovation projects (depending on their scale, scope and area) may be
restricted by space requirements, as regards to suitable/feasible biophilic design
patterns. However, unlike retrofit projects, this project type results in the
elimination of the existing spatial configuration and content within the space
(Browning, Clancy and Ryan, 2014). Generally, this means that the only
restriction in terms of area is the site boundary (and relevant local planning
policy).
Figure 3 (5.4.3) Thames Barrier Park (2012) [Digital photograph] at: http://ericbwongderivatives.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/thames-barrier-park.html (Accessed on 01.11.14)
Renovation projects are essentially only limited by their surrounding
context. Thus, projects of this nature should aim to reflect the surrounding
character by using vegetative species and materials present in the existing
context. The project should also aim to create visual connections to nature
within the site from external viewpoints (visual connection to nature/prospect).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 42
By making nature visible from exterior built environments, it will signify the site as
a place of refuge, enticing users into the space (Hildebrand, 1991).
Restoration
Restoration is a mixture of the previous three project types. These projects can
be degraded, neglected or abandoned spaces, i.e. community gardens, historic
parks and gardens. These spaces often have a strong, if degraded, character, a
sense of place. Many may have pre-existing biophilic attributes or conditions
existing, but have become damaged. Other restoration projects may focus on
restoring an ecosystem or landscape, such as river, that no longer exists or has
lost its original character. The aim of such projects is to restore the
ecosystem/landscape to its previous state (Busquets et al, 2011).
Figure 4 (5.4.4) The Lost Gardens of Heligan (2014) [Digital photograph] at: http://www.torrhousecottages.co.uk/special-houses-gardens/ (Accessed on 01.11.14)
In some ways these projects are retrofit in nature due a strong existing
spatial configuration and on site character. While in other ways a restoration
project is like a renovation project due to the fact that many elements have
become so degraded, that they need to be replaced with a new spatial
arrangement. New build may be incorporated into this project type to ensure the
space has a relevant purpose and is able to meet the needs of the local
population. Elements of restoration to the sites’ previous condition and form are
also included to ensure the previous character is not overpowered by the
introduction of new elements (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 43
In terms of limitations, choice of vegetative species and materials should
match the present or previous character of the site, in an effort to repair and
enhance the sense of place within the site (Busquets et al, 2011). Due to the
aged, damaged or weathered features of the site and the possibility of
established, overgrown vegetative communities, a connection to natural systems
may be possible to establish, like in the Lost Gardens of Heligan (Figure 4).
5.5 Section Conclusion
As biophilic design utilises natural elements directly affected by climate change,
such as wildlife and vegetation; species choices must be robust, resilient and
adaptive in the face of climate change. Otherwise, changing weather patterns,
shifts in species’ ranges and environmental degradation, due to climate change,
could lead to existing biophilic design patterns becoming less effective or useless
at engendering a restorative response (Hipp and Ogunseitan, 2011).
The combining of several patterns which have permanent and/or
overlapping/alternating seasonal/temporal qualities can overcome the seasonal
obstacles posed by climate. This combination and overlapping of biophilic
design patterns can lead to even greater restorative responses by engaging a
larger proportion of the brain (Liu, Wu and Berman, 2012) (Hunter et al, 2010).
Indeed, seasonal patterns can be implemented to further strengthen the
connection to the surrounding environment of the region, through its climate,
ecology and character (Kellert, 2008). Such a strategy and understanding of the
dynamics of biophilia will help establish a year round biophilic space, resilient
and adaptive in the face of climate change.
The importance of taking into account cultural values and social
demographics cannot be understated. The UK is becoming an increasingly
diverse society, with London being the most ethnically diverse city in the history
of the world (Benedictus, 2005) and Birmingham being the second most diverse
city in Europe (Birmingham City Council, 2014b). The differing landscape
preferences and degree of responses to nature poses an obstacle to
successfully implementing biophilic design. This is due to the dynamics of the
urban fabric and its demographics, which are in a constant state of flux, due to
the rise and fall and regeneration of neighbourhoods (Wall and Waterman,
2010), making it impossible to design a long term restorative environment, solely
for one demographic group. Indeed, designing a space that doesn’t meet the
needs of a specific demographic group, could lead to gentrification of urban
areas (Forsyth and Musacchio, 2005), effectively creating inequalities in access
to green space, despite green space being in reachable distance. However,
applying broad and universal landscape preferences can negate this from
happening.
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 44
When designing spaces, it is important to create inclusive environments
for both genders. For women, nearby, manicured, non-threatening nature, with
noise mitigation and clear lines of sight (prospect) are recommended. While for
males, several locations for refuge, allowing personal space and wide open
spaces with prospective views, connecting to wider landscape, are preferred
(Kopec, 2006). As with responding to tangible, physical elements of the natural
or built environments, it is important to consider the effects of these
environments on the populations that occupy them. Populations from areas of
differing character and densities will have their own respective baselines, as a
result of the reciprocal influences the population and the environment exert on
one another. This will lead to local demographics and Health and Well-Being
Boards being consulted (Landscape Institute, 2013b), to establish a baseline,
identify the needs of the population and produce a desired response to
implement that will meet those needs. Otherwise, the efficacy of biophilic design
patterns and their responses can be affected or even negated (Browning, Clancy
and Ryan, 2014).
As regards to incorporating large scale patterns into dense urban cores
that require large land areas, the solutions to creating a restorative environment
in such as typology lie in developing a design strategy that allows for multiple,
brief sensory interactions with nature across several locations, which promote a
sense of well-being. This strategy is known as micro-restorative experiences
(Joye and van der Berg, 2013). These strategies are widely utilised in Japanese
garden design and in the use of parklets in cities such as San Francisco, where
the urban core is deficient in green space (Byrne and Rupprecht, 2014). When
employing such a strategy, opportunities for micro-restorative experiences need
to be located along known routes of high footfall and intersect routes adjacent
other opportunities for nature interaction. Across several micro-restorative
experiences, the desired response can be achieved.
When it comes to character of a natural and built environment, it is
important to integrate new patterns introduced through design with the existing
biophilic patterns of the surrounding natural, built and historic environment. This
can mean reflecting scales, forms, materials and species used in the existing
context (Kellert, 2008). This will help strengthen the local character of the
environment and incorporate landscape preferences of the local population, as
previously explained through topophilia (Tveit, Sang and Hagerhall, 2013) and
perceptual fluency (Joye and van der Berg, 2013).
In rural environments, where conditions and land requirements are more
appropriate, biophilic patterns implemented will more likely be actual nature,
whereas urban environments, with numerous constraints, will be more likely to
incorporate biophilic patterns that are representative and symbolic of nature
(Joye, 2007). This again emphasizes the difficultly in creating biophilic
environments in high density urban areas, as actual nature is preferred to
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 45
representational nature, and it registers a stronger biophilic response and effect
(de Kort et al, 2006) (Kahn et al, 2009).
The varying types of projects landscape architect's encounter will also
pose constraints to the implementation of biophilic design in the built
environment. Existing character, spatial configurations and site context all have
to be taken into account (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011). These factors
may mean some patterns are less suitable than others and vice versa. However,
each project type offers its own opportunities, with new build project types
offering fewer spatial restrictions, while restoration projects offer unique,
established characters (Busquets et al, 2011).
Section 6: Evaluation of Current Knowledge among Landscape
Architects in the UK
To make recommendations at the conclusion of this dissertation, and indeed to
help shape the development and identify opportunities, it is necessary to engage
with landscape architecture professionals in the UK. This is required to gain an
understanding of the current level of knowledge on biophilic design in the UK and
to establish a baseline to work from.
6.1 Method
An initial online survey of landscape architecture professionals (all levels) was
conducted to gauge the current level of awareness and knowledge of biophilic
design, as well as the profession's general attitude to this design ethic. Surveys
were sent, via email, to over 63 landscape architecture firms across the UK, with
instructions to forward the survey on to each of the firm's landscape architects for
completion. A total of 41 completed responses were received (Clancy, 2014b).
These surveys were conducted through the online survey tool, Survey Monkey.
Following this survey, another was issued. This time to a smaller sample
group of 13 landscape architects, who would later take part in a workshop on
biophilic design. This second survey would be used, in conjunction with the
initial survey, to gain an understanding of the current baseline knowledge and to
help determine what level of information should be presented in the workshop
(Clancy, 2014c). Following the second survey of the sample group, an
educational workshop on biophilic design was conducted, working from the
established baseline, in terms of existing level of knowledge, awareness and
misconceptions of biophilic design. The intention of this workshop was to clarify
the role of biophilic design, explain its benefits, how it can be implemented and
marketed to existing and potential clients. A small sample group was chosen for
feasibility reasons, due to time and logistical constraints, and also to facilitate
and encourage active discussion (Clancy, 2014d).
Joseph Oliver Clancy s 1108080 Page 46
6.2 Results
Initial Survey of Practicing Landscape Architects in the UK
To garner a wider ranging view of landscape architects in the UK, more varied
than would be offered by the small sample group at the Pegasus Birmingham
Office, a survey was emailed to 60+ Landscape Institute registered landscape
architecture firms and practices across the UK, with a response rate of approx
60%. The survey was conducted from September 1st 2014 to September 24th
2014 (Clancy, 2014b). This was in an attempt to gain a more representative
view of the industry in the UK on biophilic design. The results of this survey
would be used in conjunction with the results of the survey and workshop
conducted with the small sample group at Pegasus Planning Group, in
Birmingham, to identify constraints and opportunities for biophilic design in UK
landscape architecture, and from this, concluding recommendations.
The survey began with an introductory paragraph, explaining biophilia and
the benefits of biophilic design, to frame the context of the survey for those