Biophilic Approach to Design for Children

Nihan Ünal; Esin  Sarıman Özen

doi:10.15320/ICONARP.2021.187

Authors

Nihan Ünal Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7996-0383
Esin Sarıman Özen Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-117X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2021.187

Keywords:

biophilic design, design for children, nature

Abstract

Purpose

In recent years, design approaches that offer sustainable solutions have been preferred widely. Although these sustainable design approaches provide solutions for physical context, they are not able to solve the problems on psychological side of this situation. These psychological problems have been observed both on adults and children. This research aims to examine the benefits of enabling children who spend their time in built environments to experience nature through Biophilic Design.

Methodology

140 children between the ages of 3 and 5 from two different pre-school institutions participated in the study. Participation criteria were to be volunteer, a pre-school student, and accessible. The pictures drawn by the children in reply to the question ‘What is nature like?’ were analysed by using content analysis and cognitive mapping method. The data obtained from the study were analysed and the results were presented as median, mean values ± standard deviations (SD), numbers, and percentages. The compliance of the total score to normal distribution according to age and gender independent variables was examined by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Non-parametric tests were used in the analysis, p<0.050 was considered statistically significant. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the teachers of the participants.

Findings

According to the age groups, the scores of the older age group were found to be significantly higher than the younger age group (p=0.000). When the relationship between total score and gender was examined, no statistically significant difference was found (p=0.074).

Research Limitations/Implications

In the study, even though the necessary permissions were obtained to carry out planned studies with preschool students, due to the prejudices of teachers and administrators, the work that was wanted to be carried out with children was made difficult in some cases.

Originality

Study originality; in the context of Biophilic Design, is owed to the age range of the chosen focus group, and with the help of this study, the emphasis on what biophilic design can add to the lives of children.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Nihan Ünal, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi

Nihan Ünal is a PhD graduate in the Department of Interior Architecture at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University. She got his bachelor’s degree in Interior Architecture and Environmental Design from Bilkent University in 2011 and her MSc degree in Interior Architecture from Çankaya University in 2014.

Esin Sarıman Özen, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi

Esin Sarıman Özen has been working at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture since 2008. During this time, she organized and managed various workshops as well as national and international projects. Sarıman Özen conducts research on Adaptive Reuse, Industrial Heritage, Sustainability, Micro Space and Highrise Buildings.

References

Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.

Berg, B. L. & Howard, L. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (136-139). Eğitim Yayınevi.

Berg, M. & E. Medrich. (1980). Children in four neighbourhoods: the physical environment and its effect on play and play patterns. Environment and Behavior, 12(3), 320-348.

Berman, B. G., Jonides, J. & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19,1207-1212.

Browning, B., Garvin, C. & Ryan, C. (2012). The economics of biophilia-why designing with nature in mind makes financial sense. https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/the-economics-of-biophilia/

Burns, G. W. (2005). The Science of Well-being. Oxford Scholarship Online, (pp. 405–434).

Burrows, R. M. & Corragio, M. A. (2011, November 30- December 2). Living walls: integration of water re-use systems. Cities Alive. [Conference presentation]. 9th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

Çorakçı, R. E. (2016). İç mimarlıkta biyofilik tasarım ilkelerinin belirlenmesi (Publication No. 444471) [Doctoral dissertation, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University].

Day, C. (2007). Environment and children: Passive lessons from the everyday environment. Architectural Press.

Demircioğlu, N. & Yılmaz, H. (2005). Işık kirliliği, ortaya çıkardığı sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 36, 117-123.

Derr, V. (2001). Children’s sense of place in northern new mexico. Journal of environmental psychology, 22(1-2), 125-137.

Derr, V. & Lance, K. (2012) Biophilic Boulder: Children’s Environment That Foster Connection to Nature. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(2), 112-143.

Downton, P., Jones, D., Zeunert, J., & Roös, P. (2017). Biophilic design applications: Putting theory and patterns into built environment practice. KnE Engineering, 2(2), 59.

Faber, T., Kuo, A. & Kuo, F. E. (2006). Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? state of the evidence. Cambridge University Press, 124-140.

Fan, M., & Y. Jin. (2013). Obesity and self-control: Food consumption, physical activity, and weight-loss intention. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36, 125–45.

Fromm, E. O. (1964). The Heart of Man. Harper & Row.

Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1): 182-191.

Hand, K. L., Freeman, C., Seddon, P. J., Recio, M. R., Stein, A., & Heezik, Y. van. (2017). The importance of urban gardens in supporting children’s biophilia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(2), 274–279.

Hare, T. A., C. F. Camerer, & A. Rangel. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the PFC valuation system. Science, 324, 646–48.

Hildebrand, G. (2000). The origins of architectural pleasure. University of California Press.

İslamoğlu, A. H. & Alnıaçık, Ü. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş.

Joye, Y. (2012). Restorative environments in environmental psychology: an introduction. Jhon Wiley & Sons.

Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: biophilia in human evolution and development. Island Press.

Kellert, S., Heerwagen, J.H. & Mador, M.L. (2008). Biophilic design: the theory, science & practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.

Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.

Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan W.C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city-does vegetation reduce crime? Environmental Behaviour, 33, 343-367.

Ostendorf, M. & Retzlaff, W. & Thompson, K. (2011, November 30- December 2). Storm water runoff from green retaining wall systems; Cities alive. [Conference presentation]. 9th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

Park, S.H. & Mattson, R.H. (2008). Effects of Flowering and Foliage Plants in Hospital Rooms on Patients Recovering from Abdominal Surgery. Horttechnology, 18, 563-568

Park, S. J., & Lee, H. C. (2019). Spatial design of childcare facilities based on biophilic design patterns. Sustainability, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102851

Roös, P.B. (2016). Regenerative-adaptive design for coastal settlements: a pattern language approach to future resilience [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Deakin University.

Sayuti, A., Montana-Hoyos, C. A. & Bonollo, E. (2015). A study of furniture design incorporating living organisms with particular reference to biophilic and emotional design criteria. Academic Journal of Science, 04(01):75–106

Schroll, E., Lambrinos, J. & Righetti, T. (2011). The role of vegetation in regulating stormwater runoff from green roofs in a winter rainfall climate. Ecol Engineering, 37, 963-969

Sever, İ., A. (2020). Covid-19 Pandemisi sonrası normalleşme sürecinde mobil mekânların mimari tasarım ölçütleri ve bir çözüm önerisi. Mimarlık ve Yaşam Dergisi, 5(2), 477-485, https://doi.org10.26835/my.751807.

Söderlund, J. & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. Environmental Science, 2(4), 950-969, doi: 10.3934

Thomson, G. & Newman, P. (2021). Green infrastructure and biophilic urbanism as tools for integrating resource efficient and ecological cities. Urban Planning, 6, 75-88. DOI: 10.17645/up.v6i1.3633

Wells, N. M. & Evans G.W. (2003). Nearby nature: a buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311-330.

White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D. & Depledge, M. (2010). The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol, 30, 482–493

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Harvard.

Yamane, T. (2009). Temel örnekleme yöntemleri. Literatür Yayınları.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.