See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310047626

Biophilia in Urban Design – Patterns and principles for smart Australian cities

Conference Paper · November 2016

CITATIONS READS

3 1,856

4 authors, including:

Phillip Roös David Jones

Deakin University Deakin University
27 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joshua Zeunert
UNSW Sydney
27 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cities View project

The Routledge Handbook of Landscape and Food View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Zeunert on 09 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Biophilia in Urban Design: Patterns and principles for smart
Australian cities

Authors:
Paul Downton David Jones1, and Josh Zeunert1
2,
1
School of Architecture & Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
2
Paul Downton Architects, Parkdale, Australia.

Paper Presented at the

9th International Urban Design Conference
Canberra ACT, 7th – 9th November 2016
 Biophilia in Urban Design: Patterns and principles for smart
Australian cities
ABSTRACT: In the three decades or more since EO Wilson’s Biophilia (1984) hypothesis
was introduced to the scientific lexicon it has become widely accepted as a powerful way of
understanding and examining the bond that humans have with other species and living
systems, which Wilson suggests is fundamentally instinctive. The hypothesis has been
advanced and incorporated in the concept of Biophilic Design promoted by Kellert et al
(2008) and further interpreted and celebrated by Newman (2012) and others, particularly
Beatley in Biophilic Cities (2010). Biophilic design has been codified for commercial and
professional acceptance, notably by Terrapin Bright Green LLC (Browning et al 2014) with
14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (2014), and there is increasing applied exploration and
acceptance of the hypothesis in Australian planning and design applications. This paper
considers the position and adoption of biophilic urban design in Australia, identifies biophilic
patterns and principles found in extant and proposed examples of Australian urban design,
with reference to relevant international case studies, and explores the relevance of those
patterns and principles to the development of smart cities.

There has been little attempt, as yet, to examine the relationship of biophilia to the design and
operation of smart cities. This paper explores that relationship, based on a synthesis of
Terrapin’s 14 Patterns (2014), Beatley’s (2010) definition of biophilic cities, and the authors’
propositions for biophilic design parameters in their recent research engagements. The
presentation concludes with suggestions for incorporating biophilia in the urban design of
smart cities in Australia.

Keywords: Biophilia; Biophilic design; Australian cities.

Introduction
In the three decades or more since EO Wilson’s Biophilia (1984) hypothesis was introduced
to the scientific lexicon, popularising the nomenclature (that originated with Erich Fromm)
and exploring ‘the need for nature’ premise, it has become widely accepted as a powerful way
of understanding and examining the bond that humans have with other species and living
systems, and it is being proposed as the touchstone of:

… an emerging design principle capable of considering the multi-dimensional and

interdependent complexities of urban systems and infrastructure, including stormwater
management, electricity demand, urban heat island mitigation, air pollution, food
production, biodiversity preservation, congestion management, and place making
(Reeve et al, no date).

Wilson suggests that this inter-species relationship is fundamentally instinctive. In urban

design, the portmanteau of ‘green space’ has delivered a range of responses to the basic
concept of incorporating ‘greenery’ in the urban fabric, from the insertion of pocket parks to
larger public space. Requirements for green or ‘open’ space have long been de rigueur in
many city planning conditions. The reasons for incorporating these pieces of ‘nature’ have
ranged from ambitious goals of ‘creating lungs for the city’ to providing exercise space for
people trapped in the urban frame, to ideas about improving neighbourhood aesthetics or
minimising the visual impact of built form. With the advent of more scientific rationales
determined by research, biophilia can be seen as an underlying characteristic to all these
approaches, linking the small and the large scale of design. Although the goal of creating
environments that encourage human well-being informs at least part of the smart city agenda,
smart cities have yet to establish a metric for their biological components as nourishing
elements for that well-being. Biophilic design may provide useful strategies for linking
efficient urban systems management with individual and collective human well-being.

Biophilic design has been codified for commercial and professional acceptance, notably by
Terrapin Bright Green LLC with 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (Browning et al 2014), and
there is increasing applied exploration and acceptance of the hypothesis in Australian
planning and design applications. This paper considers the position and adoption of biophilic
urban design in Australia,

The Evolution of Biophilic Design

Biophilia supports the proposition that urban environments need to be integrated with ‘nature’
for reasons of psychological health as well as environmental fit:

Over thousands of generations the mind evolved within a ripening culture, creating
itself out of symbols and tools, and genetic advantage accrued from planned
modifications of the environment. The unique operations of the brain are the result of
natural selection operating through the filter of culture. They have suspended us
between the two antipodal ideas of nature and machine, forest and city, the natural and
artifactual, relentlessly seeking, in the words of the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan, an
equilibrium not of this world (Wilson 1984: 12).

Protagonists of biophilic design include theorists and practitioners. They believe that:

… the concept of biophilia can permeate every facet of planning and design, celebrating
the regional landscape, ecological restoration, appropriate horticulture, and buildings
that reach out and interact with the landscape. This approach will allow us to create
landscape designs that are far more beautiful, complex, and engaging than either
traditional or sustainable landscape architecture (ASLA 2010: 1).

There is now a substantial body of scientific research that indicates that humans need daily
contact with nature to be productive and healthy, that contact with nature informs human
evolved as part of wider nature, and that humans are interdependent and interconnected to
nature and other forms of life (Beatley, 2011). This connection to ‘nature’ can be defined as
comprising “… [an] innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms.
Innate means hereditary and hence part of ultimate human nature” (Kellert & Wilson, 1993).

Wilson defines biophilia as being “the inherent human inclination to affiliate with nature”
(Kellert & Calabrese 2015: 3). Wilson (1984) popularised this term (that originated with
Fromm) in exploring “the need for nature” premise as a hereditary human behavioural trait.
He perceived that because this relationship, between aesthetics and human comfort, had been
debated for millennia, that it could be objectified and explained with guidelines,
commentaries, codes and prescriptions that linked one or another part of human wellbeing to
visual and/or other stimuli. Thus, from Wilson’s perspective, the exploration and elucidation
of the connectivity between aesthetics and nature reached back to the ancient Greeks and
included the mysteries of sacred geometry and the divine proportion. Wilson has thus re-
awakened the concept of biophilia, reinvigorating this philosophical enquiry about nature and
aesthetics with a scaffold of scientific support for its validity.
The biophilia hypothesis has been advanced and incorporated in the concept of Biophilic
Design promoted by Kellert et al (2008) and further interpreted and celebrated by Newman
(2012) and others, particularly Beatley in Biophilic Cities (2010).

Codes and Patterns

Widespread application of biophilic design in practice requires some degree of codification
and the agreement of practitioners on which design elements produce particular, replicable,
biophilic results.

Browning et al (2014) proposed 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (Table I) within a framework

that relates human biological science and nature to the design of the built environment. Their
14 Patterns build upon the inquiries of biophilic researchers over a number of years

… developed from empirical evidence and interdisciplinary analysis of more than 500
peer-reviewed articles and books (Ryan et al 2014, 62).

It offers both tools for understanding design opportunities, and avenues for the application of
design as a way to enhance health and well-being at both the individual and societal level
(Ryan et al 2014). According to its authors the term ‘pattern’ is inspired by Alexander et al
(1977) and is used:

… to propose a clear and standardized terminology for biophilic design; to avoid

confusion with multiple terms (metric, attribute, condition, characteristic, typology,
etc.) that have been used to explain biophilia; and to maximize accessibility for
designers and planners by upholding familiar terminology (Ryan et al 2014)

Using this strategy, and Beatley’s reference framework that defines biophilic urban design
elements at a range of scales of intervention, it is possible to identify biophilic patterns and
principles found in extant and proposed examples of Australian urban design, with reference
to relevant international case studies.

The design principles proposed by Browning et al (2014) in the following (Table I) align with
‘biophilic patterns’ that can guide design decisions:

TABLE I: PRINCIPLES AND PATTERNS OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN

Biophilic Patterns of Biophilic Design
Design
Principles Nature in the Space Natural Analogues Nature of the Space

Design Visual Connection with Biomorphic Forms & Prospect

Narratives Nature Patterns Refuge
Non-Visual Connection with Material Connection with Mystery
Nature Nature Risk & Peril
Non-Rhythmic Sensory Complexity & Order
Stimuli
Thermal & Airflow
Variability
Presence of Water
Dynamic & Diffuse Light
Connection with Natural
Systems
There has been a common misapprehension, held by academics, professionals and the wider
community, that biophilic design is almost entirely about introducing vegetation (eg. green
roofs, green walls, water sensitive urban design) and providing views of something ‘natural’
in the built environment. But, this view is slowly changing and the view of biophilia in
relation to architectural practice, for instance, is becoming more nuanced (Wilson 2016).
What has been the less common perception, i.e., that biophilia responses may be elicited as
part of the overall experience of the built environment which includes elements that are not
plants, is entering practice mainstream as the 14 Patterns listed in Table I demonstrate.

Of particular relevance to the smart city concept is the realisation that some biophilia effects
can be achieved with no physical or tangible link to ‘nature’ or living systems at all (Downton
et al, 2016). Indirect experiences of ‘nature’ or living systems, which may include artistic
representations of nature, virtual reality and other illusions of nature can also generate
biophilic psycho-physiological responses. Biophilic effects are measurable in environments at
a distance from immediate interaction with nature, such as hospital rooms, when people are
exposed to images or illusions of nature such as artificial sky. These kinds of illusory, or
virtual, systems are part of a range of design tools available to the biophilic designer. They
may be particularly valuable for environments – such as rooms buried deep inside large
buildings – that cannot readily support real biological systems (Downton 2016). Smart cities
have the potential to exploit these kinds of tool to ameliorate the potential negative impacts of
an overly cybernetic approach to the development of efficient urbanism.

An example of the interface between biophilic design research and praxis includes research
into the application of biophilic design patterns as design and performance parameters for a
new underground railway system by Downton et al (2016), which concluded that an
additional ‘Pattern’ was required to address virtual biophilic effects (see Table II), and that
subterranean environments of railway stations can include places where biophilia generated
by a virtual connection with nature may contribute positively to psychological health and
well-being. Where Pattern 1 identifies a ‘Visual Connection with Nature’ that recognizes the
tangible visual connectivity “to elements of nature, living systems and natural processes”,
Downton et al (2016) concluded that an additional Pattern 15 could identify a ‘Virtual
Connection with Nature’ that acknowledges artificial or surrogate visual connectivity “to a
simulacrum of natural elements, living systems and natural processes”. They suggest that
“Pattern 15 recognises similar, albeit weaker effects to Pattern 1 that are generated by virtual
connections with nature viewed through mediated means or evoked by simulacrums of nature,
living systems and natural processes” (Downton et al (2016). Examples include, artificial
skies and portrayal of nature via virtual reality, including animatronics.

The validation of Pattern 15 is that human physiological and psychological evidence points to
stress reduction that lowers blood pressure and heart rate (Brown, Barton & Gladwell, 2013;
van den Berg, Hartig, & Staats, 2007; Tsunetsugu & Miyazaki, 2005); cognitive performance
improvements through mental engagement and attentiveness (Biederman & Vessel, 2006);
and emotions, moods and preferences that positively impact upon human attitudes and overall
happiness (Barton & Pretty, 2010).

TABLE II: PRINCIPLE 15 – IN ITALICS

Biophilic Patterns of Biophilic Design
Design
Principles Nature in the Space Natural Analogues Nature of the Space
Design Visual Connection with Biomorphic Forms & Prospect
Narratives Nature Patterns Refuge
Virtual Connection with Material Connection with Mystery
Nature Nature Risk & Peril
Non-Visual Connection with Complexity & Order
Nature
Non-Rhythmic Sensory
Stimuli
Thermal & Airflow
Variability
Presence of Water
Dynamic & Diffuse Light
Connection with Natural
Systems

Smart Biophilia?
Superficially, the appeal of biophilia may appear to be aesthetic, whereas the smart city
concept is very much about an appeal to the intellect. Stated in the vernacular, biophilia is
touchy-feely but the smart city is rational and organised. In this study we have queried
whether there is some common ground between these approaches and whether it is possible to
discern a relationship between biophilic design and the performance and operation of smart
cities that can inform practical planning outcomes.

Smart city thinking is fundamentally ‘digital’; it is about observation, measurement and

analysis being translated into practical, on-the-ground, measurable outcomes of improved city
performance in terms of energy, transport, water consumption, and crime rates. However,
although it is profoundly linked to emotional states, it is inappropriate to characterise
biophilia as something irrational. Evidence continues to mount that there is a ‘hard-wired’
aesthetic preference in the human psyche for nature, natural forms and proportions. Noting
that the experience of biophilia can be brought about by nonbiological elements (mountains,
clouds, etc.), Joye cautions that “It is worth mentioning that biophilia is not a ‘tidy’ theory,
nor is there one definite interpretation of what the term exactly stands for” (Joye 2011: 18).

Smart city theory is attracting proponents of digital, computer operated management systems.
These include monitoring systems that use algorithms to identify criminal activity in city
streets and alert police or security services. The biophilic design response might be ‘softer’,
aiming to create an environment that lessened the tendency for criminal activity.

Under the smart city agenda, sustainability is generally described in terms of resource and
energy consumption, eg. “It uses digital technology to reduce costs and optimize resource
consumption so that its current administration does not compromise its use for future
generations” (The Road towards Smart Cities: 38). It rarely refers explicitly to ecological
sustainability. Smart city agendas invariably refer to improving the quality of life of people
but rarely mention the need to maintain the quality of life for other denizens of the urban
environment whereas protagonists of biophilic design regard full acknowledgement of
biophilia through design as essential to providing an improved quality of life for people. In
turn, it demands that living systems are maintained in a healthy state; it effectively requires a
functionally interdependent relationship with all the nature that is not human.

Digital technology can elicit biophilic responses through ‘virtual’ means. In the digital sphere,
there is thus no conflict between smart cities and a biophilic design agenda, inasmuch as that
agenda is about human response to the environment and is not predicated on requiring aspects
of biological health that involve non-humans.
Smart cities are inconceivable without high speed data networks, sensors and mobile devices
(p.55). At least one city, Melbourne, has given some of its trees email addresses, linking them
to human data networks. This is a fascinating example of a digital bridge between humans
and non-human nature that links the well-being of both the trees and the people through
awareness that is mediated by electronic means. “Data networks and sensors are the
foundation upon which the whole structure (of the smart city) will rest” (p.55). These
electronic systems represent the strengths of a smart city, but they are also its core weakness.
Any kind of failure of the data systems can compromise data flows and when they happen, the
result can be catastrophic, or at least expensive glitches (Australian Census 2016). Despite the
distributed nature of many of their components, data networks tend to be constructed with
information flowing to centralised nodes.

In urban terms, biophilic design is a distributed system. Its components are distributed with a
similar level of interdependency to that which can be observed in biomes. In other words,
failure of any of its components is unlikely to result in the failure of the larger system.

Beatley and Newman (2013) are doubtless not the first to observe that “The green spaces of a
city offer important sites for residents to come together and to build a degree of cohesion and
trust”. Whereas there are smart city technologies being marketed on the basis of concerns
about personal security Beatley and Newman point to evidence that “…nature in the city can
have important civilizing functions” citing Kuo and Sullivan, for example, who found that
reported crime rates are lower in public housing projects with greater levels of greenery
(Beatley & Newman 2013). Systems put forward by the burgeoning security industry for
smart city crime mitigation target street crime – the lowest common denominator of crime,
exemplified by low income and general desperation amongst its targeted law-breakers.
System corruption and criminality at higher levels in the city’s socio-economic are not
targeted by the same sensors and systems.

The extent to which mediated reality has the capacity to change expectations of urban design
is hinted at with Pokémon Go, and its layering of an imaginary reality over the ‘real’ world,
and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (WWoHP) at Universal theme parks in Florida,
where

After purchasing a rather expensive wand containing an infrared reflector at the tip, a
visitor can wave the wand in a particular motion at predefined spots where concealed
infrared triggers and receivers lurk, thereby producing some kind of effect, like causing
a book in a shop window to open up and reveal its dark secrets, a magical umbrella to
rain down water, or invisible ink to reveal itself on a scroll (Varnelis, Kazys, 2016.
Architecture After the Event Horizon – in Volume #49: Hello World! September).

This may or may not be a ‘model for the future sentient city’, but it shows that if the urge was
there, the means exist to layer an otherwise mute or sensorily arid urban environment with
almost any conceivable effect. It becomes possible to imagine that the denizens of such a city
could experience a biophilia rush from jungles, densely flowering gardens, or exotic
waterfalls as a part of the city, all illusory and generated by computer technology.

Biophilia does not require living fauna or flora to take effect. Yet there remains the question
of the appropriateness of particular biophilic design techniques relative to the larger
environment, and the question of who is responsible for framing the question as to what is
appropriate: is this kind of biophilic design acceptable in the same way that images of the sky
are acceptable in MRI rooms?, should biophilic design be defined in relation to living
organisms and living systems?, does a biophilic connection with nature through vicarious
experience enhance or diminish the desire to experience the real thing? If biophilia is evinced
by energy and resource-consuming technology that ultimately has a negative impact on the
natural environment (e.g., through land clearance and damage from mining, release of fossil
carbon to the atmosphere, generation of toxic waste) should that technology be, in effect,
allowed to be part of any biophilic design strategy? Any suggestions for the incorporation of
biophilia in the urban design of smart cities in Australia needs to take the full range of
Patterns into account, not simply as a palette of techniques and possibilities but also as a
potential ethical minefield.

Whereas Downton et al (2016b) have concluded that there is a need for a Pattern 15 which
identifies a ‘Virtual Connection with Nature’ that recognizes surrogate visual connectivity “to
a simulacrum of natural elements, living systems and natural processes”, it was further
proposed that there needs to be a larger strategy in which “biophilic design, using the
Browning et al (2014) 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, with an additional 15th Pattern, offers
a pragmatic applied performative criteria upon which place-making and built environment
projects can be informed and measured in creating healthy places” – for humans and living
systems alike. (Downton et al 2016)

Smart, biophilic urban design – a proposal

The concept of smart city based, biophilic urban design is new enough that there are few, if
any, examples and there is limited evidence for a movement that incorporates both smart city
and biophilic design approaches. By way of contributing to a kind of rapprochement between
these key aspects of modern urban theory, this paper concludes with suggestions for
incorporating biophilia in the urban design of smart cities in Australia.

Biophilia is evidenced in human behaviour. Research suggests that, given the freedom to
choose the setting of their home or workplace, people favour environments with the following
characteristics (adapted from Wilson in Kellert et al 2008: 23):

• elevated position looking down (hill, upper slope)

• open, savanna-like terrain (scattered trees and copses)
• proximity to a body of water (river, lake)
• retreat in which to live
• a viewpoint with a generous prospect

These characteristics can be identified in a number of urban design and landscape projects

Whereas biophilia is a theory about how humans respond to the natural environment, based
on observation and testable hypotheses, biophilic design is praxis – an evolving set of ideas
about appropriate ways to respond, through conscious design, to the observations and
hypotheses of that theory. The basis of biophilic design is that it “seeks to create good habitat
for people as a biological organism in the built environment that advances people’s health,
fitness and wellbeing” (Kellert & Calabrese 2015: 6).

‘Green’, or ‘sustainable’ architecture and design seeks to lessen the impact of the built
environment on nature but, except in a broadly functionalist way, is relatively silent on
reconnecting humans with the natural world. The concept of biophilia, it is claimed,
complements sustainable design and biophilic design as advocated by Kellert et al (2008) and
Beatley (2010) offers a sustainable urban design strategy that incorporates the reconnection of
people with the natural environment.

The idea of biophilia supports the proposition that urban environments need to be integrated
with nature for reasons of psychological health as well as environmental fit. Beatley has been
accused of falling prey to the “fallacy of environmental determinism” (Szibbo 2011) but he
has evidenced at least some validity for this approach in Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature
Into Urban Design and Planning (2010), pointing to exemplars and precedents that can
enable the successful implementation of the biophilic design process. In Green Urbanism
Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Communities in Australia (2008) Beatley and
Newman, answered their question ‘what can Americans learn from Australians about
“greening” city life?’ by reviewing the current state of built environment ‘sustainability
practice’ in Australia and exploring what lessons that USA residents could learn from the best
Australian programs and initiative, however, although the text lacks specific reference to
smart cities.

Beatley has advocated putting the biophilia hypothesis into practice at an urban scale,
proposing the essential elements of a biophilic city, tying the concept to sustainable urbanism
and tabling examples and stories about cities that have successfully integrated biophilic
elements. Australian examples identified by the authors are included in this paper (Table III).

New research supports the measurable, positive impacts of biophilic design on health,
strengthening the empirical evidence for the human-nature connection and raising its priority
level within both design research and design practice; however, little guidance for
implementation exists. The theory and educational programs appropriate to advancing the
process that ‘joins the dots’ between sustainable design and biophilia have only just begun to
evolve.

The role of biophilia in design can be discerned historically by analysing examples of built
form and landscape design that demonstrate biophilic sensibilities or elicit biophilia
responses. The early protagonists of biophilic design made extensive use of historic examples
to illustrate their various contentions about the ways in which human artefacts, as well nature
itself, could create a positive sense of connection with nature and the natural processes, yet
biophilia remains a relatively new, if rapidly growing, field of study. An overview of the
literature indicates that by nurturing connections between people and their environment
biophilia might function as an educational tool for helping to build ecologically viable urban
environments. Clearly, there is substantial room for original research (Downton 2016a) and
substantial scope for including monitoring and study of the impact of biophilic design features
that seek to be integral to sustainable design and have direct relevance to smart cities.

As Beza et al (2015) noted,

Given that much of our provision of public open space and supporting infrastructure is
a result of a generally highly collaborative public-private partnership between state,
local government, non-government organisations and the private development sector, it
is essential that an ‘evidence based’ approach to the design and siting of facilities is
undertaken where possible. (Beza et al 2015)
The same applies to the facilitation of biophilic design – if it is to be a systematic,
comprehensive, well accepted part of smart city urban design, then it is essential that,
wherever possible, biophilic design is undertaken with an ‘evidence based’ approach to the
design and siting of biophilic facilities.

Australian Biophilic Design Projects

Beatley and Newman argue that there is a necessarily a strong relationship between biophilic,
sustainable and resilient cities. Whether or not it is consciously employed there is evidence
that biophilic design ‘works’.

Beatley (2011: 84) defines biophilic urban design elements at scales of intervention and these
commence at the individual building; extending to Block; Street; Neighbourhood;
Community; and finally, Region. Sub elements of these categories are listed and give a broad
range of possible project typologies that aim to reconnect people with ‘nature’ and living
elements.

Using Beatley’s reference framework as a basis (with the addition of both an initial category
‘small individual intervention’ and increased ‘Elements’), Table III provides realised
examples of Australian biophilia-rich projects. Many projects listed in Table III have not
consciously or explicitly expressed biophilic design intent, however, these project outcomes
demonstrate biophilic design elements. Many of these projects cross multiple ‘Element’
categories, however, they have been situated in the table commensurate to their primary
design element outcomes.

Instances of small individual biophilic design insertions can provide unexpected living
elements in ubiquitous hardscape environments and demonstrate the ability to incorporate
biophilia in challenging urban contexts. There are numerous examples and increasing
instances of Australian biophilic design projects at the building scale and increasing scientific
literature and discourse has documented the multiple benefits of providing biophilic design
elements for staff productivity and morale. There are many informal biophilic Australian
streetscapes occurring as a result of innate biophilic tendencies spurring direct action; local
residents ‘guerrilla gardening’ through planting street verges, median strips and even adjacent
green spaces with vegetation that might be decorative (flowers), indigenous or native, and
productive uses (fruit, nuts). These incidences occurs with or without official approval of
local councils. Many of these instances are strong examples of biophilic outcomes. Arguably,
examples of urban streetscape closures to vehicles are biophilic, as they intentionally
engender safer outdoor access for both people and other species.

At all scales—particularly the Neighbourhood, Community and Regional scales—although it

often challenges ‘traditional’ modernist architectural precepts, biophilic design is coincident
with long-established aims of the disciplines and practices of landscape architecture and
ecological planning. Accordingly, there is a rich historic legacy of relevant biophilic projects
in addition to an emerging groundswell of inner-urban projects that are demonstrating
increased attention to incorporating living elements and their ongoing care. Table III provides
a combination of these historic and recent projects.

TABLE III: BIOPHILIC DESIGN INFLUENCED EXEMPLARS IN AUSTRALIA – A STARTING POINT

Scale Biophilic Design Australian Project Location Key Contributors
Element
Small Urban Wetland Perth Cultural Centre Urban Perth Josh Byrne Associates
Intervention Wetland
 Vertical Green Wall Qantas Club international Patrick Blanc
departure lounge
Herbert Smith Freehill Office Sydney BVN Donovan Hill
Sundial / shading / Monash University Melbourne
light / patterns
Building Green Roof and Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital Brisbane Conrad Gargett Riddel
Gardens Roof Gardens
Burnley Demonstration Green Burnley, HASSELL with University of
Roof Melbourne Melbourne and Junglefly Pty Ltd
Venny Green Roof Kensington, University of Melbourne +
Melbourne Junglefly Pty Ltd
Freshwater Place Green Roof Southbank, Bates Smart Architects,
Melbourne Australand, Laurence Blyton
Landscape Architects and
Fytogreen
Minifie Park Green Roof Balwyn, Junglefly Pty Ltd
Melbourne
Kangan Institute Green Roof Docklands, ASPECT Studios, with Gary
Melbourne Puksand Architects & Robert
Bird Group
Napier Building Courtyard, Adelaide John Stevens
University of Adelaide
Sky Gardens and One Central Park Sydney Ateliers Jean Nouvel, PTW
Green Atria Architects Patrick Blanc, Oculus
and Aspect Studios
Medibank Building Docklands, Hassell with Fytogreen
Melbourne
Green Walls Adelaide Zoo Entrance Precinct Adelaide Hassell
Botanica Apartments South Brisbane Rothe Lowman White Architects
with Fytogreen
Triptych Apartments Southbank, Patio Landscape Architecture &
Melbourne Design with Fytogreen
Daylit Interior Spaces
Patterns, Forms, MONA Hobart Fender Katsalidis with
Images and Effects OCCULUS
CH2 Melbourne Mick Pearce with DesignInc
Block Green Courtyards Nova Apartments Courtyard Sydney McGregor Coxall
Clustered Housing
around Green Areas
Native Species Yards Native Garden Adelaide T.C.L.
and Spaces Botanic Garden
Street Green Streets Victoria Park Sydney Government Architect’s Office
and Hassell
Sidewalk Gardens Windsor Street Parkside, Oxigen
Adelaide
Urban Trees
WSUD/SuDS/LID Victoria Park Sydney Government Architect’s Office
and Hassell
Edible Landscaping Meridian Dandenong, Places Victoria
Melbourne
High Permeability
Neighbourhood Stream Daylighting & Jan Juc Creek Daylighting Jan Juc, Victoria Surf Coast Shire Council
Restoration
Urban Forests City of Melbourne Urban Forest City of City of Melbourne Council
Strategy Melbourne
Ecology Parks & Kevin Hoffman Walk Lara, Victoria Kevin Hoffman & local
Gardens community.
Community Gardens CERES Melbourne
Collingwood Childrens Farm Melbourne
Unley Community Garden Unley, Adelaide City of Unley Council
Neighbourhood Parks The Goods Line Sydney Aspect Studios with CHROFI
Campbell 5 Canberra Jane Irwin Landscape
Architecture, Hill Thalis
Architecture & Urban Projects,
and Cardno.
Greening Greyfields Ballast Point Park Sydney McGregor Coxall
and Brownfields
Former BP Park Sydney McGregor Coxall
Booyeembara Park Fremantle Ecoscape Fremantle
WSUD/SuDS/LID Sydney Park Water Re-Use Sydney Turf Design Studio,
Project (NSW) Environmental Partnership
(TDEP), Alluvium, Turpin
Crawford, Dragonfly and
 Partridge.
Community Urban Creeks and
Riparian Areas
Urban Ecological
Networks
Green Schools
City Tree Canopy City of Melbourne Urban Forest City of City of Melbourne Council
Strategy Melbourne
Ecology Parks & The Australian Garden Cranbourne T.C.L. with Paul Thompson
Gardens Melbourne
Community Forest Hobart City Farm Hobart Hobart City Farm and Good Life
and Community Permaculture
Orchards
Lyneham Commons Canberra Lyneham Commons
Greening Utility
Corridors
WSUD/SuDS/LID University of Sydney, NSW University of DesignFlow & T.C.L.
Sydney, NSW
Southport Broadwater Parklands Gold Coast, DesignFlow & AECOM
QLD
Blacktown Showground Sydney McGregor Coxall
Destination Parks and Sculpture Garden at National Canberra Harry Howard and Associates
Venues Gallery Australia
Playspaces Roma Street Parkland Brisbane Playscape Creations with Lat27
Playground & Children’s Garden
Rio Tinto Naturescape Perth Plan(E)
Ian Potter Foundation Children’s Melbourne Laidlaw & Laidlaw Design
Garden Botanic Garden Landscape
Car Parking Areas University of Melbourne Parkville, Ancher Mortlock Murray &
Underground Parking Area roof Melbourne Wolley, with Loder & Bayly in
plaza and gardens association with Harris, Lange &
Partners Engineers, and Stones &
Rayment Landscapes
Region River Systems and River Torrens Linear Park Adelaide Land Systems EBC with Hassell
Floodplains
Riparian Systems Salisbury Wetlands Salisbury, City of Salisbury
Adelaide
WSUD/SuDS/LID Waterproofing the South Onkaparinga, Onkaparinga Council
Adelaide
Regional Greenspace
Systems
Greening Major O-Bahn / River Torrens Linear Adelaide Land Systems EBC with Hassell
Transport Corridors Park

Put ‘the biophilic desire to harmonize with nature’ together with the design of the built
environment and, says Kellert, the result is ‘some degree of deliberate refashioning of nature
to satisfy human needs, but in ways that celebrate the integrity and utility of the natural world’
and thus ‘biophilic design can potentially enrich both nature and humanity’ (Kellert et al
2008:14). On health and wellbeing, Ryan et al (2014) has validated relevance of biophilic
design to humans whereby research in the neurosciences, endocrinology and other fields have
scientifically validated the positive psychophysiological and cognitive benefits afforded by
biophilia in design interventions.

Since the publication of The Biophilia Hypothesis in 1993 and Kellert’s ‘Typology of
Biophilia Values’ (Kellert & Wilson 1993), as noted by Söderlund, Newman and others, there
have been a number of attempts to summarise elements, attributes and patterns of biophilic
design in a tabulated form (Söderlund & Newman 2015: 953). Inherently oriented to practice,
this concern to provide a ‘toolkit’ for biophilic design has been persistent. As noted above, in
the USA, Terrapin Bright Green LLC (Browning et al 2014) have identified “14 Patterns of
Biophilic Design” within a framework for relating human biological science and nature to the
design of the built environment. They offer, in effect, series of tools for understanding design
opportunities, and avenues for design applications that may enhance individual and societal
health and well-being. An example of the nexus between research and praxis includes
Downton, Jones & Zeunert’s (2016) efforts to apply biophilic design patterns as design and
performance parameters for the new underground railway system in Melbourne and their
proposed addition of another ‘Pattern’ to cover virtual biophilic effects.

Smart Biophilic Cities

The time is ripe for suggestions about how to incorporate biophilia in the urban design of
smart cities in Australia. Biophilia is a well-documented phenomenon that is integral to
human experience. In a healthy human society it is part of daily life and professional concern.
All urban environments have the potential to be improved by biophilic design. Part of the
smart city agenda is to enhance well-being. Biophilia has been proven to enhance well-being.
There are parts of the urban environment where, even though it has been designed and built
with the intent to improve the quality of human existence, nature struggles to survive; in such
places, biophilia may be evoked by technological, rather than biological means. The urban
design of all cities can benefit from the incorporation of biophilic design. Because of their
strong bias towards technological innovation and their focus on utilitarian metrics, the design
of smart cities in particular would benefit from incorporating biophilic design principles.

Although there has been little or no focus on the biological imperatives of survival and
sustainability in mainstream smart city thinking, the incorporation of these aspects of modern
urbanism in the urban design of smart cities in Australia would seem to be imperative and can
be facilitated by embedding a biophilia ethos in the design process.

References
Alexander, C, S Ishikawa, M Silverstein, M Jacobson, I Fiksdahl-King & S Angel (1977), A
Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Beatley, T & K Manning (1997), The ecology of place: planning for environment, economy,
and community. Washington DC: Island Press.
Beatley, T & P Newman (2008), Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable
Communities in Australia. Washington DC: Island Press.
Beatley, T (1994), Ethical land use: principles of policy and planning. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Beatley, T (2000), Green urbanism: learning from European cities. Washington DC: Island
Press.
Beatley, T (2004), Native to nowhere: sustaining home and community in a global age.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Beatley, T (2010), Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Beatley, T (2010), Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Beatley, T (2012), Singapore: City in a Garden. Available: http://biophiliccities.org/blog-
singapore/. Web. 22nd July 2013.
Beatley, T (2014), Blue Urbanism: Exploring Connections Between Cities and Oceans.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Beatley, T; DJ Brower & AK Schwab (2002), An introduction to coastal zone management.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Beza, B.B.; Veitch, J; Hanson F. (2015) Improving the health of Australians by applying
evidence from behavioural epidemiology to urban design projects in Book of
Proceedings 8th International Urban Design Conference, Brisbane. November.
Browning, WD, CO Ryan & J Clancy (2014), 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving
Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. New York: Terrapin Bright Green.
Downton, P., Jones, D., Zeunert, J. and Roös, P. (2016) Biophilic Design Applications:
Putting Theory and Patterns into Built Environment Practice paper for DesTech
Downton, PF (2014), Graffiti on the Path and the Nature of Public Space, in
http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2014/03/09/graffiti-on-the-path-and-the-nature-of-
public-space/, The Nature of Cities, 19 March, accessed 9 July 2016.
Downton, PF (2016b), Ceci N’est Pas le Ciel: Biophilia Design and Illusions of Authenticity,
in http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/05/15/ceci-nest-pas-le-ciel-biophilia-design-
and-illusions-of-authenticity/, The Nature of Cities, 15 May, accessed 15 June 2016.
Downton, PF et al (2016a), Graffiti Roundtable, in
http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/03/23/graffiti-and-street-art-can-be-
controversial-but-can-also-be-a-medium-for-voices-of-social-change-protest-or-
expressions-of-community-desire-what-how-and-where-are-examples-of-graffiti-as-a-
posi/. The Nature of Cities, 23 March, accessed 9 July 2016.
Joye, Y. (2011) Biophilic Design Aesthetics in Art and Design Education in The Journal of
Aesthetic Education 45(2) University of Illinois Press. Summer (Northern Hemisphere).
pp 17-35.
Kellert, S & E Calabrese (2015), The Practice of Biophilic Design. www.biophilic-
design.com
Kellert, S & EO Wilson (eds.) (1993), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Kellert, S (1997), Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S (2005), Building for Life: Understanding and Designing the Human-Nature
Connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S (2012), Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Kellert, S, J. Heerwagen, M. Mador (eds.) (2008), Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science, and
Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Potteiger, M & J Purinton (1998), Landscape Narratives: Design Practices for Telling
Stories. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Reeve, A., Desha, C.; Hargroves, C.; Newman, P., Hargreaves, D. (no date). A basis for
inquiry into policy considerations for increasing the application of biophilic urbanism.
(Paper) Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, and Curtin University,
Perth.
Roös, PB & M Juvara (2012), Opportunistic Destinations: Transforming Railway Stations
into Sustainable Urban Centres. Proceedings of the 5th International Urban Design
Conference: Opportunistic Urban Design, AST Management Pty Ltd, Melbourne,
Victoria, September 2012
Roös, PB (2016), Regenerative-Adaptive Design for Coastal Settlements. Unpublished PhD,
School of Architecture & Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong.
Ryan, C.O., Browning W.D., Clancy J.O., Andrews S.L., Kallianpurkar N.B. (2014) Biophilic
Design Patterns: Emerging Nature-Based Parameters for Health and Well-Being in the
Built Environment in Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 8
(2) July (62-76)
Salingaros, NA (2013), Unified Architectural Theory: Form, Language, Complexity.
Portland: Sustasis Foundation.
 Szibbo, N. (2011) Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning by
Timothy Beatley (book review) in Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 23(1)
University of California, Berkeley. January
Wilson, EO (1986), Biophilia: the Human Bond with Other Species. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, K. (2016) The use of biophilic strategies in the workplace in People+Strategy, 39(2)
Spring (Northern Hemisphere)

View publication stats