EXPLORING THE KEY FACTORS DRIVING THE ADOPTION OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN IN AFFORDABLE ENVIRONMENTS: PERSPECTIVES FROM EXPERTS AND DESIGNERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v23i39.1925Keywords:
Biophilic design, Low-Cost settings, Influencing factors, Residents’ well-being, Sustainable developmentAbstract
Financial constraints and developers' and designers' ignorance of the advantages of biophilic design, among other creative and sustainable design approaches, frequently impede its implementation. This study aims to evaluate the factors that influence the implementation of biophilic design in a low-cost context through the views of experts and designers. Biophilic design, which integrates elements of nature into the built environment, is increasingly recognised as essential for enhancing user well-being. In this context, this study is significant because it supports efforts to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly design, especially in developments that are limited by financial resources. The main objective of this study is to identify and analyse the factors that influence the implementation of biophilic design in low-cost settings. This study involves nine experts who are within the fields of architecture, green technology, sustainable design, and interior design. A qualitative approach was employed through in-depth interviews, utilising thematic analysis to identify themes related to biophilic design, including designers’ awareness and knowledge regarding its implementation in low-cost settings. Although this study provides valuable insights, it has several limitations, including a small sample size and a restricted geographic focus. The main findings show that awareness of the benefits of biophilic design, support from authorities, and financial constraints are the main factors influencing its implementation. While the implementation of biophilic design in low-cost housing and the opinions of professionals like architects and designers are still understudied, prior research has concentrated more on commercial buildings and user perspectives. This study closes this gap by evaluating important aspects of low-cost housing from an expert perspective while accounting for design, policy, and cost. The implications of this study highlight the necessity of enhancing awareness and education regarding biophilic design, as well as advocating for policies that foster innovation in a cost-effective manner. Consequently, this study not only sheds light on the challenges encountered in the implementation of biophilic design but also presents recommendations to encourage more sustainable practices within the framework of sustainable development.
Downloads
References
Adua, L., Asamoah, A., Barrows, J., Brookstein, P., Chen, B., Coleman, D. R., Denzer, A., Desjarlais, A. O., Falconer, W., Fernandes, L., Fisler, D., Foley, C., Gaillard, C., Gladen, A., Guzowski, M., Hill, T., Hun, D., Kishore, R., Klingenberg, K., … Walker, A. (2024). Ambient energy for buildings: Beyond energy efficiency. SoCom, 11, 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solcom.2024.100076
Adabre, M. A., Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., Osei-Kyei, R., Abidoye, R., & Adjei-Kumi, T. (2020). Critical barriers to sustainability attainment in affordable housing: International construction professionals’ perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119995
Acar, E., & Yalçın, N. (2019). Task-related pro-environmental behaviours of architectural designers: LEED-based evidence from Turkey. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1552114
Awada, M., Becerik-Gerber, B., Liu, R., Seyedrezaei, M., Lu, Z., Xenakis, M., Lucas, G., Roll, S. C., & Narayanan, S. (2023). Ten questions concerning the impact of environmental stress on office workers. Building and Environment, 229, 109964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109964
Azeem, S., Naeem, M. A., & Waheed, A. (2020). Adoption of green building practices in Pakistan: Barriers and measures. In Green energy and technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24650-1_11
Bartczak, C., Dunbar, B., & Bohren, L. (2013). Incorporating biophilic design through living walls: The decision making process. In A. J. Hoffman & R. L. Henn (Eds.), Constructing green: The social structures of sustainability (pp. 309–310). MIT Press.
Bramayusa, I. G. G., & Adi, T. J. W. (2024). Study of green building incentives in Indonesia. AIP Conference Proceedings, 3026(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0199846
Browning, W., Ryan, C., & Clancy, J. (2014). 14 patterns of biophilic design: Improving health & well-being in the built environment. Terrapin Bright Green.
Clark-Havron, H. (2023). Biophilic homes: Analyzing biophilic design in the residential setting (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://libproxy.utem.edu.my/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/biophilic-homes-analyzing-design-residential/docview/2827214134/se-2?accountid=34984
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
de Souza, M., Lee, A. B., & Cook, S. (2023). Healthy patients, workforce and environment: Coupling climate adaptation and mitigation to wellbeing in healthcare. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20227059
Hall, C., & Knuth, M. (2019). An update of the literature supporting the well-being benefits of plants: A review of the emotional and mental health benefits of plants. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-37.1.30
Ibrahim, I., Khairuddin, R., Abdullah, A., Amin, I. M., & Wahid, J. (2021). Analysis of biophilic design in communal space of an office building. Case study: Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) centre. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2347, 020299. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0052824
Islam, M. A., & Aldaihani, F. M. F. (2021). Justification for adopting qualitative research method, research approaches, sampling strategy, sample size, interview method, saturation, and data analysis. Journal of International Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.37227/jibm-2021-09-1494
Javed, N., Thaheem, M. J., Bakhtawar, B., Nasir, A. R., Khan, K. I. A., & Gabriel, H. F. (2020). Managing risk in green building projects: Toward a dedicated framework. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2018-0060
Kellert, S. R. (2008). Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design. In S. R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
Kellert, S. R., & Calabrese, E. F. (2015). The practice of biophilic design. Retrieved from www.biophilic-design.com
Larsson, D., & Krishnaraj, D. (2023). Assessing the affordability of biophilic designed apartments (Master’s thesis). University of Gävle, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science.
Lei, Q., Liu, S., Yuan, C., & Qi, Y. (2022). Post-occupancy evaluation of the biophilic design in the workplace for health and wellbeing. Buildings, 12(4), 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040417
Liberalesso, T., Oliveira Cruz, C., Matos Silva, C., & Manso, M. (2020). Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy, 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693
Nguyen, V. T. (2023). Integrating the 14 patterns of biophilic design into the convenience and comfort of apartments in Ho Chi Minh City. E3S Web of Conferences, 403. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202340303009
A. O, U., J. B, E., O. C, M., C. P, U., & T. N, A. (2023). Bio-inspired architecture for energy-efficient homes: Blending nature and innovation. Journal of Energy Engineering and Thermodynamics, 32. https://doi.org/10.55529/jeet.32.56.66
Sabar, R., Anuar, N. K., Mutazam, M., Nifa, F. A. A., & Lin, C. K. (2018). Awareness of green building design in Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055528
Sadick, A.-M., Kamardeen, I., & Vu, X. P. (2023). Challenges for implementing biophilic strategies in Australian building design. Journal of Building Engineering, 74, 106849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106849
Saka, N., Olanipekun, A. O., & Omotayo, T. (2021). Reward and compensation incentives for enhancing green building construction. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100138
Schneider-Marin, P., & Arendt, R. (2024). The cost of mitigating climate change by building with renewable materials. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1363(1), 012111. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1363/1/012111
Shakhshir, K., & Sheta, W. (2023). The assessment of biophilic features in residential buildings: A case from Dubai. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-03-2023-0064
Shamsi, I. H., Jin, X., Zhang, X., Feng, Q., Ibrahim, Z., Adil, M. F., Karim, M. F., & Ullah, N. (2023). The dynamics of phytoremediation of heavy metal: Recent progress and future perspective. In A. K. M. Z. Hossain, M. Fujita, M. A. Hossain, O. P. Dhankher, P. Haris, & S. Bourgerie (Eds.), Heavy metal toxicity and tolerance in plants: A biological, omics, and genetic engineering approach (pp. 565–566). Wiley.
Soyombo, D. A. (2024). The role of policy and regulation in promoting green buildings. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 22(1), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.22.1.1047
Tadesse, A. (2024). Study of environmental education programs and behavior change in Ethiopia. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 7(3), 1–11. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bdu/ojijes/v7y2024i3p1-11id2739.html
Tambe, E. B., Essaghah, A. E. A., Ikegbunam, F. I., Mbuka-Nwosu, I. E., Okafor, N. M., & Ekpe, I. N. (2023). Inspirational influence of nature in architectural design – A review on the scope of application in Nigeria housing policy. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.3126/josem.v2i4.61028
Tracada, E., & Sorensen Allacci, M. A. (2023). Evaluating design features to support inclusive, self-directed, and active healthy living behaviours. Frontiers in Built Environment, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1232248
Welch, J. K., & Patton, M. Q. (1992). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/330063
Wilson, E. O. (2018). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In D. J. Penn, I. Mysterud, D. Ehrlich, & N. C. Stenseth (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792650-18
Wiradimadja, D. D., Mori, H., & Rizkiah, R. (2023). Six years evaluation in recycling behaviors after implementation of governmental environmental awareness programs (Study case in Bendungan Village, Indonesia). Technium Sustainability, 4. https://doi.org/10.47577/sustainability.v4i.10198
Yin, J., Yuan, J., Arfaei, N., Catalano, P. J., Allen, J. G., & Spengler, J. D. (2020). Effects of biophilic indoor environment on stress and anxiety recovery: A between-subjects experiment in virtual reality. Environment International, 136, 105427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105427
Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright & Creative Commons Licence
eISSN: 0128-0945 © Year. The Authors. Published for Malaysian Institute of Planners. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
The authors hold the copyright without restrictions and also retain publishing rights without restrictions.
