Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Early Access

Biophilic gardens for enhancing urban ecosystems and reconnecting people with nature

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8565
Submitted
28 March 2025
Published
17-05-2025
Versions

Abstract

The rapid growth of cities and the shift toward highly urbanized lifestyles have distanced humanity from its innate connection with nature. This disconnection has taken a toll on mental health, physical well-being and overall quality of life. Biophilic gardens emerge as a revolutionary approach to reconnect people with nature by weaving natural elements into the fabric of urban environments. Rooted in the biophilia hypothesis, it emphasizes the profound psychological and physiological benefits of integrating features like greenery, natural light and organic forms into built spaces. This review explores the evolution of biophilic gardens, distinguishing it from sustainable design while underscoring its unique focus on nurturing human-nature relationships. Practical strategies, from incorporating green walls and water features in buildings to creating biodiverse urban landscapes, are discussed alongside compelling real-world examples. Projects like Singapore’s Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and Milan’s Bosco Verticale demonstrate how Biophilic gardens can transform spaces into vibrant, health-promoting ecosystems, enhancing well-being, productivity and environmental resilience. While the benefits are undeniable, challenges such as costs, maintenance and scalability remain hurdles. Looking ahead, the integration of smart technologies, biomimicry and regenerative practices could unlock new possibilities. Biophilic gardens offers a hopeful vision for the future, where cities become havens of harmony between humans and nature, fostering healthier, more sustainable communities.

References

  1. 1. Barbiero G, Berto R. Biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: An onto-and phylogenetic framework for Biophilic gardens. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:700709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700709
  2. 2. Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Brown T. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior. 1989;21(5):509-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
  3. 3. Ulrich RS. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 1984;224(4647):420-21. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
  4. 4. Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press; 1993.
  5. 5. Kellert SR. Nature by design: The practice of Biophilic gardens. Yale University Press; 2018.
  6. 6. Beatley T. Biophilic cities: integrating nature into urban design and planning. Island Press; 2011.
  7. 7. Browning W, Ryan C, Clancy J. 14 patterns of Biophilic gardens. New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC; 2014.
  8. 8. Kellert S, Calabrese E. The practice of Biophilic gardens. Terrapin Bright LLC; 2015.
  9. 9. Wu JT, Leung K, Bushman M, Kishore N, Niehus R, de Salazar PM, et al. Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China. Nature Medicine. 2020;26(4):506-10.
  10. 10. Surico P, Galeotti A. The economics of a pandemic: the case of Covid-19. Wheeler institute for business and development, LBS. London: London business school. 2020:1-93.
  11. 11. Mazuch R. Salutogenic and Biophilic gardens as therapeutic approaches to sustainable architecture. Architectural Design. 2017;87(2):42-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2151
  12. 12. Fittipaldi SE. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. By Erich Fromm. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. xvi+ 521 pages. $10.95. Horizons. 1975;2(1):153-. https://doi.org/10.1017/S036096690001210X
  13. 13. Wilson EO. Biophilia. Harvard university press; 1986.
  14. 14. Croeser T, Garrard GE, Visintin C, Kirk H, Ossola A, Furlong C, et al. Finding space for nature in cities: the considerable potential of redundant car parking. npj Urban Sustainability. 2022;2(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-022-00073-x
  15. 15. Louv R. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin books; 2008.
  16. 16. World Green Building Council. Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices: The next chapter for green building. World Green Building Council; 2014.
  17. 17. Elzeyadi IM. Daylighting-bias and biophilia: Quantifying the impact of daylighting on occupants health. University of Oregon-School of Architecture & Allied Arts; 2011.
  18. 18. An M, Colarelli SM, O'Brien K, Boyajian ME. Why we need more nature at work: Effects of natural elements and sunlight on employee mental health and work attitudes. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155614
  19. 19. Global Human Spaces Report. United States: Scribd; 2015.
  20. 20. Basics UH. Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. US EPA. https://ghhin.org/wpcontent/uploads/reducing_urban_heat_islands_ch_1.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2011). 2011 May.
  21. 21. Nowak DJ, Crane DE. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution. 2002;116(3):381-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7
  22. 22. Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LL. Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews. 2014;2:119-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
  23. 23. Perini K, Rosasco P. Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall systems. Building and Environment. 2013 ;70:110-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.012
  24. 24. Gou Z, Lau SS, Qian F. Comparison of mood and task performance in naturally-lit and artificially-lit environments. Indoor and Built Environment. 2015;24(1):27-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X13507792
  25. 25. Soderlund J, Newman P. Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science. 2015;2(4):950-69. http://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950
  26. 26. Rice J, Kozak RA, Meitner MJ, Cohen DH. Appearance wood products and psychological well-being. Wood and Fiber Science. 2006:644-59.
  27. 27. Alvarsson JJ, Wiens S, Nilsson ME. Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010;7(3):1036-46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7031036.
  28. 28. Grinde B, Patil GG. Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009;6(9):2332-43. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6092332
  29. 29. Standish RJ, Hobbs RJ, Miller JR. Improving city life: options for ecological restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature. Landscape Ecology. 2013;28:1213-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9752-1
  30. 30. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2010;25(2):90-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
  31. 31. Hussein H. Using the sensory garden as a tool to enhance the educational development and social interaction of children with special needs. Support Learn. 2010;25(1):25-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01435.x
  32. 32. Davis AP, Hunt WF, Traver RG, Clar M. Bioretention technology: Overview of current practice and future needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2009;135(3):109-17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)
  33. 33. Fjørtoft I. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children's play and motor development. Child Youth Environ. 2004;14(2):21-44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.14.2.0021
  34. 34. Ulrich RS. Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. InPaper for conference, Plants for People International Exhibition Floriade 2002 Apr 6 (Vol. 17, No. 5, p. 2010).
  35. 35. Ignatieva M, Stewart GH, Meurk C. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 2011;7:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y
  36. 36. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Green. 2006;4(3-4):115-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
  37. 37. Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, et al. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and urban planning. 2015;134:221-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
  38. 38. Demuzere M, Orru K, Heidrich O, Olazabal E, Geneletti D, Orru H, et al. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Management. 2014;146:107-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025
  39. 39. Newman P. Biophilic urbanism: a case study on Singapore. Australian Planner. 2014;51(1):47-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.790832
  40. 40. Beatley T. Handbook of biophilic city planning and design. Island Press; 2016.
  41. 41. Figueiro MG, Steverson B, Heerwagen J, Kampschroer K, Hunter CM, Gonzales K, et al. The impact of daytime light exposures on sleep and mood in office workers. Sleep Health. 2017;3(3):204-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2017.03.005
  42. 42. Madre F, Vergnes A, Machon N, Clergeau P. Green roofs as habitats for wild plant species in urban landscapes: First insights from a large-scale sampling. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;122:100-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.012
  43. 43. Chirisa I. Building and urban planning in Zimbabwe with special reference to Harare: Putting needs, costs and sustainability in focus. Consilience. 2014(11):1-26.
  44. 44. Depledge MH, Stone RJ, Bird WJ. Can natural and virtual environments be used to promote improved human health and wellbeing?. Environmental Science & Technology. 2011;45(11):4660-5.
  45. 45. Ghaffarianhoseini A, AlWaer H, Omrany H, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Alalouch C, Clements-Croome D, et al. Sick building syndrome: are we doing enough?. Architectural Science Review. 2018;61(3):99-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1461060
  46. 46. Kim KH. Beyond green: growing algae facade. InARCC Conference Repository 2013. https://doi.org/10.17831/rep:arcc%25y211
  47. 47. Lau SS, Gou Z, Liu Y. Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2014;3(4):452-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2014.06.006
  48. 48. Eick J. Showcase: The Bullitt Center. High Perform Build. 2013:37-46.
  49. 49. Giacomello E, Valagussa M. Vertical. 2015.
  50. 50. Mato BU, Sinha S. Environmental Impact of Biophilic Architecture on Human Health: Evidence from Residential Buildings Greater Noida, India.
  51. 51. Largo-Wight E, Chen WW, Dodd V, Weiler R. Healthy workplaces: The effects of nature contact at work on employee stress and health. Public Health Reports. 2011;126(1_suppl):124-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549111260S116
  52. 52. Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental health and preventive medicine. 2010;15:18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9n
  53. 53. Wolverton BC, Johnson A, Bounds K. Interior landscape plants for indoor air pollution abatement. NASA; 1989.
  54. 54. Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Hahn KS, Daily GC, Gross JJ. Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2015;112(28):8567-72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112
  55. 55. Heschong L. Windows and office worker performance. Creating the Productive Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK. 2006:277.
  56. 56. Atchley RA, Strayer DL, Atchley P. Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051474
  57. 57. Tanner CK. Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration. 2009;47(3):381-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955809
  58. 58. Skelhorn C, Lindley S, Levermore G. The impact of vegetation types on air and surface temperatures in a temperate city: A fine scale assessment in Manchester, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;121:129-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.012
  59. 59. Philadelphia Water Department. Green City, Clean Waters: The City of Philadelphia's Program for Combined Sewer Overflow Control. Philadelphia Water Department; 2011.
  60. 60. Zari MP. Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimicry. Routledge; 2018.
  61. 61. Liu K, Baskaran B. Thermal performance of green roofs through field evaluation. Proc North American green roof infrastructure conference. 2003:1-10.
  62. 62. Wolf KL. Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry. 2005;103(8):396-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/103.8.396
  63. 63. Yen TS. The practice of integrated design: The case study of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore. MSc Sustainable Building Design, BCA Academy, University of Nottingham; 2012.
  64. 64. Crompton JL. The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from the past two decades in the United States. Managing Leisure. 2005;10(4):203-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710500348060
  65. 65. Peck SW, Kuhn ME. Design guidelines for green roofs. Ontario Association of Architects; 2003.
  66. 66. Terrapin Bright Green. The Economics of Biophilia. Terrapin Bright Green LLC; 2012.
  67. 67. NASA. Growing Plants in Space. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/content/growing-plants-in-space. 2019.
  68. 68. Ozdemir H. Integrating Nature into Academic Spaces: Biophilic Campus. PLANARCH-Design and Planning Research. 2024;8(2):210-24. https://doi.org/10.54864/planarch.1491955
  69. 69. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1991;11(3):201-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
  70. 70. Berman MG, Jonides J, Kaplan S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological science. 2008;19(12):1207-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225
  71. 71. Thompson Coon J, Boddy K, Stein K, Whear R, Barton J, Depledge MH. Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environmental science & technology. 2011;45(5):1761-72. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102947t
  72. 72. Biophilic Approach Model for Urban Design, Lost Spaces - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Courtesy-of-international-living-future-institute-url-3-Nature-Of-The-Space_fig4_357097267

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.