Biophilic Design Thesis_PaulRamoie_2014

Biophilic Design:

Bridging The Gap Between Nature & the Built Environment

A Thesis Presented

by

PAUL A. RAMOIE

Submitted to The Illinois Institute of Art – Chicago

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF FINE ARTS – INTERIOR DESIGN

December 2014

Interior Design Program

Gerald Brennan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iv.

Part One

1. Introduction 1

2. History of Architecture 1

3. Harms of the Built Environment 2

4. Origin of the biophilia hypethesis 3

5. Defining Biophilic Design 3

6. Biophilic Design vs. Green Design 4

7. Psychophysiological Health and Well-Being 6

Part Two Biophilia in the Built Environment 7

8. Stephen Kellert’s 9 elements of biophilic design 8

9. Organic Design 8

10. Vernacular Design 10

11. 14 Biophilic Patterns 12

Part Three Implementation of Key Biophilic Design Patterns 14

12. Visual Connection with Nature 14

13. Thermal & Airflow Variability 14

14. Dynamic & Diffuse Light 15

15. Material Connection with Nature 15

Conclusion 16

Works Cited 18

ABSTRACT

Biophilic Design: Bridging The Gap Between Nature & the Built Environment

December 2014

Paul A. Ramoie

The Illinois Institute of Art – Chicago

Since the Industrial Revolution, the built environment and urban areas have exploded at

an unprecedented rate not seen in any other time in human history. Where we once evolved and

developed in natural settings, today we spend over 90% of our time indoors surrounded by

drywall, concrete, wood, and steel. Biophilic design aims to remedy this modern disconnect with

nature and fulfill the longing that humans have to be immersed in the natural environment. This

thesis will examine biophilia, the theory that we are innately and evolutionarily programmed to

respond positively to nature, and that maintaining this connection is crucial to human health and

well-being. This thesis will explore and emphasize key research of biophilic design,

implementation, how it goes beyond “green” design or being a “fad”, reduces stress, increases

productivity, creativity, and improves over-all health.

© Copyright by Paul Ramoie 2014

All Rights Reserved

Paul Ramoie

1

Biophilic Design: Bridging The Gap Between Nature & the Built

Environment

Part 1

For over two millennia, humans have been immersed in the wild, tangled

complexities of nature where we both thrived and evolved into the intelligent species that

we are today. In our present day, most humans are enthralled with nature and gravitate

toward it, and justifiably so. It is in this environment and scenery that our prehistoric

ancestors inhabited throughout evolutionary development, and became ingrained in our

psyche, physical DNA and brain adaptation. Evolutionary studies show that early humans

banded together in hunter-gatherer groups in the Savannahs of East Africa, before

migrating elsewhere. (Journal of Happiness Studies, 2000). In this natural landscape, we

were provided with all of the necessities crucial to growth, such as access to water for

food and navigation, warm sunlight contrasted with a cool night breeze, animals and

other organisms, eatable vegetation, fire, and shelter provided by trees and rocks.

(Heerwagen, 2008). Each of these combined enhanced the survival of our species and

created a genetic predisposition to natural scenery. Humans depended on this knowledge

of the environment to survive various predicaments. To place this in context, the brain

evolved in a biocentric world, not a machine-regulated world, in which we now live.

(Beatley, 2009).

It was around 6,000 years ago that dwellings and buildings appeared on the

evolutionary scene. (Heerwagen, 2008). These ancient builders and architects were much

attuned to their culture and the earth, mimicking forms they observed in nature and

creating amazing structures that still awe us today. (Molthrop, 2009). Stylized animals

and plants were used for decorative and symbolic ornamentation, such as the Egyptian

Paul Ramoie

2

sphinx, courtyard gardens, the Japanese intrigue with the bonsai tree, and fishponds. This

shows us that while biophilia may be a relatively novel concept, it is not a new

phenomenon, and stems from human intuition and neural sciences. (Browning, W.D.,

Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014).

Since the Industrial Revolution in the past 100 years, we have witnessed both

unprecedented growth in human populations and the built environment while greatly

degrading our environment. We have moved from thriving in the wild to living in

structures devoid of any life at all, surrounding ourselves with brick, stone, and drywall

often with little to no sunlight and ventilation. (Molthrop, 2009).

Scientific and controlled studies are increasingly showing that our modern

industrialized lifestyle with obsessive technology and changing cultures has been

detrimental to our psychological well-being. This discrepancy is most-likely linked to the

increases of psychopathology evidenced today. It is quite naive and dangerous on our part

to assume or expect that our brains would be able to adapt and evolve to such

extraordinary changes in a minute amount of time at an unlimited rate or capacity when

compared to our ancestors. Biophilia integrated into the built environment brings to light

this disconnect and seemingly missing link of recent decades. (Gullone, 2000).

Some of our most fond memories are those that were made outdoors in the natural

environment, however tamed by human hands it might have been. In our modern society,

most people are oblivious to the delirious stresses that the built environment has on our

minds and bodies. We have become comfortable, accustomed to and even complacent

towards our new habitats, leading to the chronic stress, depression, and other physical and

psychological ailments common in this contemporary society. Nature combats these

Paul Ramoie

3

symptoms, providing us with amazement, awe, knowledge, understanding and both

physical and mental stimulation. This visceral engagement offers the sense of deeper

meaning and purpose in life. (Beatley, 2009).

The term ‘biophilia’ was first coined by social psychologist Eric Fromm and later

popularized by the biologist Edward Wilson. (Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O.,

2014).

Biophilia is the theory that humans have an innate or evolutionary-based affinity

for nature. It is the belief that we have a connection and a reliance on nature that has been

passed along throughout evolution (Wilson, 1984). According to Edward O. Wilson, a

Harvard myrmecologist and conservationist, contact with nature is essential to human

health and well-being. Based on this theory, a framework has been developed that will

reconnect humans and nature within the built environment. This framework is biophilic

design, which incorporates organic design and vernacular design principles to interior

and exterior architecture. Biophilic design seeks to create a positive connection between

people and the environment as well as promoting health and well-being (Kellert, 2008).

In his 1984 book entitled Biophilia, Wilson described his biophilia hypothesis as a

human “innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes.” Edward Wilson is the

founder of sociobiology, and believes the natural environment is central to human history

as social behavior itself. (Wilson, 1984). He argues that social scientists should be aware

of human actions and behavior trying to erase or diminish such an ingrained part of

human evolutionary experience. (Wilson, 1984).

Wilson describes biophilia as "the innately emotional affiliation of human beings

to other living organisms.” Innate means hereditary and this complex affinity took

Paul Ramoie

4

hundreds of thousands of years of constant human-nature immersion to come to fruition.

(Beatley, 2009).

According to Wilson’s hypothesis, it is inconceivable that our environment has

not shaped our cognitive and emotional apparatus. Our modern brains are the direct

product of this evolving process, allowing us to be attuned to nature. The end-goal of

implementing biophilic design is to reduce the stresses and harms of the built

environment on humans, and working hand-in-hand with sustainable design principles to

avoid impacting the natural environment. Working together in tandem, sustainable design

and biophilic design bridges the severed gap between humanity and nature. (Molthrop,

2009).

It is, however, important to note that biophilic design is not an architectural style

or limited aesthetic. It is a theory compromised of scientific facts, evidence-based design

research, and key principles and elements in a space. Biophilic design does not advocate

tree houses or cave-dwelling, but it does provide nature-based features that prompt

complex thinking in humans. We will explore these features in detail below. (Molthrop,

2009).

Green design as we know it has often failed its occupants over long periods of

time because they are more concerned with water and energy conservation while lacking

the emotional appeal to humans. Stepehen R. Kellert, professor emeritus, Yale

University, is highly critical of LEED standards, and once compared our environments to

inhumane barren animal cages.

“In our attempt to create a more sustainable environment, we attack the negative

consequences of our artificial life on the natural world, but we have done nothing

Paul Ramoie

5

to bridge the widening gap between humans and nature itself,” he says. “We give

them a computer with a nice screen saver and maybe a poster of a potted plant,

and if it’s energy efficient, we call it ‘Gold.’” (Ruiz, 2012).

Kellert continues, saying, “People don’t live by efficiency alone. By ignoring the

human need to connect with nature and place, low-impact designs are often

experientially and aesthetically deficient.” (Ruiz, 2012).

LEED standards must transition to acknowledge new research that calls for

positive physical and mental well-being in buildings occupants.

“[Human] performance and well-being… depend not only on the absence of

significant [environmental] problems but also on the presence of particular kinds

of features and attributes in buildings… The challenge of green design is… to

integrate into buildings the positive biophilic features of our evolved relationship

with nature and to avoid biophobic conditions.” – Judith Heerwagen, PHD.

psychologist. (Kellert, 2008).

To prevent ambiguity, the term “nature” in environmental research as related to

biophilic design and discussed in this thesis, refers to anything that is not created by

humans or exists apart from humans. This includes natural sunlight, water, animals,

vegetation, mountains, and various landscapes, including manicured lawns. (Costino,

2013).

Psychophysiological Health and Well-Being

Our current understanding of biophilia and its implementation, as we will review

in the third portion of this thesis, has been immensely influenced through scientific

research in psychology, neuroscience and endocrinology and its relation to our

Paul Ramoie

6

psychophysiological health and well-being. Empirical research shows that exposure to

natural environments greatly increases a person’s psychological health when it comes to

emotional restoration, decreases cases of anxiety, fatigue, tension, anger, and mood

swings. Physiological health is impacted by our aural, musculoskeletal, respiratory,

circadian systems and physical comfort. Each of these responds to nature and determines

muscle relaxation and the lowering of diastolic blood pressure and stress hormone (i.e.,

cortisol) levels in the blood stream. (Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014).

By lowering stress, a person’s self-esteem is enhanced and over-all mental health

is influenced positively. Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk for heart attack and

obesity. Biophilia also aids in recovering from ill health, improves cognitive skills,

academic performance, the development of social skills, and moderates the effects of

ADHD, autism and other illnesses common in children. (Blair, 2012).

In fact, biophilia in the built environment and exposure to nature is crucial for a

child’s development. Like adults, nature assists improvement in children’s attention

functioning, social well-being, and psychological health. Nature helps offset a child’s

stress levels and maintain positive mental health, whether through immersion in nature

through frequent outdoor play or scenic window views. More time spent outdoors has

also been shown to lower sickness rates, improve motor development, fitness, creativity,

social skills and lowers the risk of being overweight. From a young age, we need to be

mindful of the built environment from homes, to schools, to childcare centers. (Kellert,

S.R.; Heerwagen, J.H.; Mador, M., 2008).

Paul Ramoie

7

Part 2

Biophilia in the built Environment

By implementing key aspects of biophilia in the built environment, we can

increase the recovery time from ailments, greatly reduce or eliminate stress, improve our

cognitive skills and work performance, and assist in the effects of autism and ADHD in

children. In doing so, we can save architecture from haphazard artistic designs that are

devoid of the biological life surrounding them. (Beatley, 2009).

“...the enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises

it, tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind

over the body, gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole

system.” - Frederick Law Olmsted, American landscape architect, 1865.

(Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014).

Stephen Kellert has come up with six elements to standardize biophilic design,

and nine elements that describe humans’ relationship with nature, which he codifies as

Restorative Environmental Design. (Ruiz, 2012). These six elements include

environmental features, natural shapes and forms, natural patterns and processes, light

and space, place-based relationships, and evolved human relationships to nature. (Ruiz,

2012). The nine perspectives include utilitarian, naturalistic, ecologistic scientific,

aesthetics, symbolic, humanistic, moralistic, dominionistic, and negativistic. (Gullone,

2000).

VALUE DEFINITION FUNCTION

Aesthetic An emotional response to the physical beauty and attraction of nature.

Inspiration, harmony, peace and security

Dominionistic The tendency to control and manipulate nature.

Mechanical skills, physical power.

Paul Ramoie

8

Humanistic An emotional response to care for and become attached to nature.

Bonding, sharing, and companionship.

Moralistic Moral and spiritual connection to nature. Emphasizes right and wrong behavior toward the natural environment.

Order and ethics.

Naturalistic The satisfaction we obtain from direct experience with nature.

Curiosity, outdoor ability, physical well-being.

Negativistic The fear and dislikes we have with nature.

Security, safety and protection.

Scientific The study of biological processes and observation of nature.

The imperative want to obtain knowledge, observation.

Symbolic The tendency for humans to use nature to communicate thoughts metaphorically.

Communication, psychological development.

Utilitarian The material gain that humans benefit from the exploitation of nature, either for desire or need.

Physical sustenance and security.

Adapted from (Kellert, 1993, 2005).

In his 2008 book, Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing

Buildings to Life, Stephen Kellert describes two types of biophilic design, organic design and

vernacular design. He describes organic design as any shapes or forms that directly, indirectly

or symbolically represent nature. This includes forests, landscapes, water streams, natural air

and sunlight. Organic design is a term that was originally coined by the famed architect Frank

Lloyd Wright. Wright was ahead of his time when it came to incorporating nature into his

architectural creations, such as falling water (Bear Run, Pennsylvania), Taliesin East

(Spring Green, Wisconsin), Taliesin West (Scottsdale, Arizona) and the Emil Bach home

(Chicago, Illinois). It was important to Wright that his buildings encompassed organic

qualities, and the symmetry and harmony found in nature. He did this by implementing

Paul Ramoie

9

an abundance of natural lighting, views of the surrounding landscape, and high ceilings

that provoked a sense of spaciousness. (Kellert, 2008).

Emil Bach Home, Chicago Il.

“Nature is a good teacher. I am a child of hers, and apart from her precepts, I

cannot flourish. I cannot work as well as she, perhaps, but at least I can shape my

work to sympathize with what seems beautiful to hers… Any building… should

be an elemental, sympathetic feature of the ground, complementary to its nature-

environment, belonging by kinship to the terrain.” – Frank Lloyd Wright. (Kellert,

2008).

Other examples of organic design include Neoclassical details with its simplistic

geometric shapes and symmetry, Baroque and Gothic architecture columns that display

shapes of animals and plants, high vaulted ceilings reminiscent of forests, and Art

Paul Ramoie

10

Nouveau with its intrinsic organic details. This symbolic depiction is referred to as

“biomorphic” architecture. (Kellert, 2008).

“Many of the world’s most revered buildings contain biomimetic features….

They draw on design principles of natural forms. They have intricate fractal

patterns in their spatial layouts and surface materials. They contain small, random

variations in key elements rather than making exact replicates of forms, visual

patterns, and spaces.” (Kellert, 2008).

In contrast, vernacular design focuses on buildings and places themselves, and

how the built environment is formed to the particular cultures where people live and

work. Vernacular design connects people and nature to a particular cultural and

ecological setting. (Kellert, 2008).

Paul Ramoie

11

Organic & Vernacular Design. (Blair, 2012).

Terrapin Bright Green, an environmental consulting and strategic planning firm,

recently published the most comprehensive compilation of research to date in “14

Patterns of Biophilic Design”. Decades of research from theorists, scientists, and

designers are combined to reveal the impact nature and the built environment have on

humans, including the science behind each pattern and strategies for design

implementation. This research stems from verified laboratory and field studies, focusing

mainly on the mind and body - cognitive, psychological and physiological. (Browning,

W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014).

For brevity, we will only review in-depth several key patterns and their

Paul Ramoie

12

implementation and the impact of particular design decisions. These 14 biophilic patterns

are divided into three subcategories. The first is Nature in the Space, which oversees 7

patterns. These seven patterns are as follows:

1. *Visual Connection with Nature. A view to elements of nature, living

systems and natural processes.

2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature. Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory

stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems

or natural processes.

3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli. Stochastic and ephemeral connections with

nature that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

4. *Thermal & Airflow Variability. Subtle changes in air temperature, relative

humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural

environments.

5. Presence of Water. A condition that enhances the experience of a place

through seeing, hearing or touching water.

6. *Dynamic & Diffuse Light. Leverages varying intensities of light and shadow

that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature.

7. Connection with Natural Systems. Awareness of natural processes, especially

seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem.


The second sub-category is Natural Analogues, which oversees 3 patterns. These

patterns are often described as “biomimicry”.

Paul Ramoie

13

8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns. Symbolic references to contoured, patterned,

textured or numerical arrangements that persist in nature.

9. *Material Connection with Nature. Materials and elements from nature that,

through minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or geology and create a

distinct sense of place.

10. Complexity & Order. Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial

hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature.


And lastly, the third sub-category is Nature of the Space, which concludes the 4

remaining patterns.

11. Prospect. An unimpeded view over a distance, for surveillance and planning.

12. Refuge. A place for withdrawal from environmental conditions or the main

flow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead.

13. Mystery. The promise of more information, achieved through partially

obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper

into the environment.

14. Risk/Peril. An identifiable threat coupled with a reliable safeguard.

When it comes to applying these 14 patterns into a design project, it’s important

for the designer to use good judgment and strategize ways to keep the space integrated.

Overloading the occupant with too many diverse patterns could have a negative impact if

the design is not unified. These patterns are also not scientific formulas to be followed

verbatim, but rather used as tools in the design process to inform and guide designers to

consider how the pattern impacts a space, the scientific evidence that links biology,

Paul Ramoie

14

nature and the built environment and the relation between each pattern. Successful

applications of these patterns has been shown to lead to better building performance,

including the area of thermal comfort, acoustics, energy and water management, and

biodiversity. Natural air flow, ventilation and indoor vegetation eliminate sick building

syndrome, the impact of asthma and reduces harmful air particles, while day lighting

reduces energy use. (Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014).

Part 3

Implementation of Key Biophilic Design Patterns

For the third and final section of this thesis, we’re going to review 4 biophilic

design patterns and examples of how they can be implemented into various spaces. The

patterns we’ll study are Visual Connection with Nature, Thermal & Airflow Variability,

Dynamic & Diffuse Light and Material Connection with Nature.

The Visual Connection with Nature makes a space feel whole, stimulating and

calming. It gives a person a sense of time, weather, and living biodiversity. This visual

connection stimulates the visual cortex in the brain, which triggers pleasure receptors,

heart rate and stress recovery. Implementation examples include aquariums and koi

ponds, views of vegetation, terrain, animals and bodies of water, green walls, water

fountains, and artwork with a prioritization of real over simulated nature and that can be

experienced a minimum of 5-20 minutes per day. Spatial and furniture layouts should not

block or impede on the visual access. In hospitals and urban environments, simulated

nature and digital mediums are key for beneficial micro-restorative effects. (Browning,


Thermal & Airflow Variability creates a refreshing, invigorating and

comfortable space that offers flexibility and a sense of control. Research shows that most

Paul Ramoie

15

folks prefer sensory variability, including a variation in light, sound, and temperature. An

environment without sensory stimulation and variability causes passivity and boredom.

This variability improves concentration, performance, comfort, and even short-term

memory. Thermal comfort is subjective from person to person, so it is important to allow

a person a sense of control, such as access to windows, shades, fans, heaters or

thermostats. Thermal comfort is a key area where sustainable design and biophilic design

overlap, and has the potential to reduce one’s energy costs as the average person typically

finds temperatures two degrees above and two degrees below conventional standards

comfortable. (Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O., 2014).

Dynamic & Diffuse Light fluctuation has an important impact on our circadian

system. Throughout the day, the sun goes through three color stages including yellow,

blue, and red. Our bodies respond to these colors, from changes in our body temperature

to our heart rate. Blue light, similar to the sky, is what produces our serotonin. At night,

we produce melatonin. The harmony between melatonin and serotonin determines our

mood, quality of sleep, and even depression. Providing lighting that stimulates the eye

and catches ones attention leads to prolonged psychological or physiological health while

maintaining a person’s circadian system. Uniform distribution of light in a space is

boring, and can create extreme discomfort (such as glare). A designer can accomplish

pleasing visuals through diffuse lighting on the ceiling or surfaces, accent lighting or

layering light sources for depth and interest, and lastly flexible task lighting. (Browning,


A space that is designed with a Material Connection with Nature in mind

creates feelings of warmth, authenticity with rich stimulation both visually and to the

Paul Ramoie

16

touch. Research shows that a room with moderate wood coverage was observed as

significantly decreasing diastolic blood pressure. The objective for this pattern is to

implement natural materials that engender positive cognitive or physiological responses,

such as the fractals that are seen in stones or wood grains. These natural materials can be

both decorative and functional, such as interior granite countertops or reclaimed wood

used on a wall. When designing a space with this pattern in mind, it is important to think

about the intent of the design and how it will ultimately function, such as a restorative

design or a stimulating design. This will help you determine the quantities of natural

materials and colors used. Real materials are always favored over synthetic versions

because human receptors can sense the difference. Materials such as bamboo, cork and

leather can be used as veneer or décor. (Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O.,

2014).

Conclusion

Once biophilic design has been explained to people, many are perplexed and

think, haven't we been designing this way all along? The principles and scientific

evidence presented in this thesis make biophilia feel intuitively obvious, but the reality

and the focus of this thesis, is that we haven't been designing our buildings this way, with

only a select few renowned architects stepping outside of the box and doing what feels

innately right to them.

It is predicted that 70 percent of the world’s population will migrate to cities

within the next few decades. As the interior design and architectural profession continues

to evolve, it is imperative that both seasoned and emerging designers begin applying the

principles of biophilia to the built environment, even if it means stepping outside of our

Paul Ramoie

17

comfort zones or outside of the status quo of 'how it's always been done'. It is sufficed to

say that the empirical scientific evidence is pointing us in that direction. Biophilic design

is not a luxury, and we shouldn't need any other studies to show that our innate

relationship and affinity to nature is crucial to our health and well-being. As interior

designers, we have an ethical responsibility to respond to profound knowledge and the

ability to dramatically transform people’s lives. That makes for a beautiful ending.

“Man is an outdoor animal. He toils at desks and talks of ledgers and parlors and

art galleries but the endurance that brought him these was developed by rude

ancestors, whose claim to kinship he would scorn and whose vitality he has

inherited and squandered. He is what he is by reason of countless ages of direct

contact with nature.” James H. McBride, MD, 1902 Journal of the American

Medical Association


Paul Ramoie

18

Works Cited

Blair, Matthew. "ENHANCING HUMAN HEALTH AND RECOVERY THROUGH

BIOPHILIC DESIGN." Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst,

2012. Web. 2014.

Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New

York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.

Costino, Erin. "Biophilia and Corrections: Bringing Nature into Correctional

Environments." Academy of Architecture for Justice (2013). The American Institute of

Architects. Web.

<http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek_members/documents/pdf/aiab101434.pdf>.

Gullone, Eleonora. "THE BIOPHILIA HYPOTHESIS AND LIFE IN THE 21st

CENTURY: INCREASING MENTAL HEALTH OR INCREASING PATHOLOGY?"

Journal of Happiness Studies (2000). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2014.

Heerwagen, Judith. "Biophilia, Health, and Well-being." Restorative Commons (2008).

J.H. Heerwagen & Associates. 2014.

Journal of Happiness Studies (2000). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2014.

Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.H.; Mador, M. 2008. Biophilic design: Theory, science, and

practice. Hoboken, N.Y.: Wiley.

Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O. 1993. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island

Press.

Molthrop, Elizabeth. "Biophilic Design A Review of Principle and Practice."

Environmental Sciences (2009). Dujs.dartmouth.edu. 2014.

Ruiz, Fernando. "Biophilia Becomes a Design Standard." Eco Building Pulse. 2012.

2014.

Timothy Beatley, Biophilic Urbanism: Inviting Nature Back to Our Communities and

Into Our Lives, 34

Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. (2009),

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol34/iss1/6

Documents

Biophilic Design Thesis_PaulRamoie_2014