Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’

perspectives
Fei Xue a, c, Zhonghua Gou b, c, *, Stephen Siu-Yu Lau c, Siu-Kit Lau c, Kin-Hung Chung c,
Jian Zhang b
a
Shenzhen Water Planning & Design Institute Co., Ltd, China
b
School Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Australia
c
School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper distills and examines 42 biophilic strategies ranging from immediate sensorial effects (Bio-
Received 11 November 2017 philia Design) to systematic urban life changes (Biophilia Urbanism). A Biophilia Workshop gathering
Received in revised form experienced biophilic project stakeholders (N ¼ 30) from Singapore was conducted to evaluate the
16 January 2018
selected strategies using multicores including Effectiveness, Cost, Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Voting
Accepted 28 November 2018
Available online 30 November 2018
Portio (VP). “Biophilic infrastructure”, “sensorial design” and “green space place-making” were the most
cost-effective strategies; “biophilic infrastructure” and “sensorial design” were the most favoured stra-
tegies. On the other side, “using natural elements as a decoration or ornamentation” would not be either
Keywords:
Biophilia
cost-effective or favored by stakeholders. Generally, Biophilic Design related strategies were more likely
Biophilic design to be agreed on by the majority of stakeholders since their impacts and benefits have been well docu-
Biophilic urbanism mented; while Biophilic Urbanism related strategies which set long goals to shape a new urban lifestyle,
Stakeholders might be associated with higher cost while the impact is less known.
Cost-benefit © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Singapore

1. Introduction Beatley (2016), nature is not optional, but an absolutely essential

quality of modern urban life. Newman et al. (2017) added that
Biophilia is defined as an inherent human inclination to natural Biophilia within the buildings and cities can also help in over-
systems and processes (Kellert, 2008) and it urges us to affiliate coming fossil fuel dependence and making a more resilient city. The
with other forms of life (Wilson, 1986). The concept of biophilia essential benefits of Biophilia urge us not only to conserve and
advanced the idea that the contact with nature plays a fundamental restore the considerable natural elements that already exist but
role in human physical and mental well-being. Numerous studies more importantly to find new ways to grow and insert new forms of
can be found on proving the benefits of Biophilia (nature) to nature for the twenty-first century.
restoration and healing in healthcare environments (Frumkin, Consequently, a number of allied concepts such as Biophilic
2001; Reeve et al., 2017). Biophilia, such as green space, also Design and Biophilic Urbanism attempt to translate the under-
plays an important role in social and family relationships in modern standing of Biophilia into the planning and design of buildings and
society (Chang and Bae, 2017) and is beneficial to office workers in cities (Kellert and Judith Heerwagen, 2008). Kellert (2016) clarified
high dense urban areas (Xue et al., 2016) and university students these concepts and pointed out that “the need for nature (Biophilia)
and staff for stress alleviation (Lau et al., 2014). Soderlund and can be achieved through design approaches in the built environ-
Newman (2015) examined the evidence for the innate human ment (Biophilic Design) and systemically throughout cities (Bio-
psychological and physiological link to nature and then assessed philic Urbanism)“. There are more and more argumentations for the
the emerging research supporting the multiple social, environ- business case of Biophilia Design and Biophilia Urbanism (Terrapin,
mental and economic benefits of Biophilia. As pointed out by 2012). Research on Biophilia started to pay attention to the role of
stakeholders and related policy in the planning and designing for
Biophilia architecture and urbanism (Reeve et al., 2013) and also
how to implement the concept through green infrastructure at
* Corresponding author. Griffith University G39, Gold Coast, QLD, 4215, Australia. different scales (Ignatieva and Ahrne
, 2013). Helene (2016)
E-mail addresses: z.gou@griffith.edu.au, [email protected] (Z. Gou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.277
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452 1445

discussed challenges and opportunities for the implementation of Design focuses on immediate human spatial experience, aiming to
Biophilia in urban green planning policy through a case study of the manipulate natural elements and ecological form and patterns into
Green living Spaces plan in Birmingham, UK. The potential oppor- buildings or intimate spatial experience of users to enhance the
tunity included positioning the city globally as a leading green city; sensory stimulation. Biophilic Urbanism focuses on a biophilic ur-
meanwhile challenges raised in relation to legal status, path de- ban management and programmes, which incorporates the
pendency and leadership. Baghdadi and Desha (2017) interrogated concept of work-live-play into mixed land use, enhanced public and
five successful biophilic cities e Portland, Chicago, Toronto, Berlin slow traffic system into transportation connectivity, and adapted
and Singapore, and indicated the explicit or implicit use of occupant engagement for the green space place-making. The two
ecological knowledge in decision making to inform Biophilic concepts are further categorized into different aspects, indicators
Urbanism. and relevant strategies. Based on an extensive literature review, 42
This paper investigates stakeholders’ perception and voting of a biophilic strategies are identified in relation to the two concepts
range of strategies in relation to Biophilic Design and Urbanism, (Tables 1 and 2).
based on which Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Voting Portio (VP) are Table 1 expands the Biophilic Design with three aspects, seven
calculated to understand how to effectively implement the concept indicators and twenty-five strategies. Under Biophilic Infrastruc-
of Biophilia in different scales. Particularly, this paper pushes the ture, there are biophilia ratio and biophilia management. As the
concept of Biophilia from immediate sensorial effects (Biophilia heading suggests, biophilia ratio is about the percentage or quan-
Design) to systematic urban life changes (Biophilia Urbanism). The tity of natural elements available to users. Factors include green
stakeholders, including government, developers, design pro- space coverage ratio (Barton and Pretty, 2010; Jiang et al., 2015),
fessionals and property managers, have very important roles in plants canopy configuration (Lin et al., 2017), native species ratio
introducing Biophilia into architecture and cities (Beatley, 2016). (Browning et al., 2014; Oldfield et al., 2015), biodiversity level
Therefore, understanding their perception is of great importance to (Maes et al., 2016; Nowak, 2010), and water area and appearance
understand challenges and opportunities of implementing and (Kellert et al., 2008; Kellert and Wilson, 1993). Biophilia Manage-
practicing Biophilia. This study focuses on building and urban ment, on the other hand, measures the quality of the elements,
development project stakeholders in Singapore, aiming to draw on such as how natural landscapes require minimal management
their rich experience to propose investigative planning and design (Fagerholm et al., 2012; Hwang, 2015; Hwang and Yue, 2015), the
implications. Singapore, as a city of garden, has been recognized for availability of permeable surfaces for stormwater management
her successful implementation of Biophilia (Newman, 2010, 2014). (Beatley, 2011; Stovin, 2009; USGBC, 2013), the use of natural
The developers and design professionals are strongly urged by the ventilation and airflow (Ignatius et al., 2015), as well as the pres-
government to adopt green and natural elements in their projects ence of daylight and shadow design (Hraska, 2015; Kim and Kim,
(Xue et al., 2017a; Yuen, 1996). The in-depth study of their expe- 2010). Under Sensorial Design, there are visual connection, non-
rience will produce important suggestions for the policy, planning, visual connection and thermal comfort and airflow. Visual con-
design and management practice all over the world. nections with nature are the most obvious methods of biophilic
design, and this can be achieved through having window views of
2. Literature review: defining key biophilic strategies natural landscapes (Ambrey and Fleming, 2014; Schweitzer et al.,
2004; Ulrich, 1984) and weather changes (Kellert et al., 2008), in-
Conventionally, the study of Biophilia is based on “ecology” door plants (Chang and Chen, 2005; Kim et al., 2011), and green
which addresses preserving and protecting nature “as it is”; while walls (Beatley, 2000, 2012) as well as observable artworks of nat-
from planning and design perspective, biophilic design and ur- ural scenes (Salingaros, 2003; Zbasnik-Senegae nik and Kuzman,
banism is really about “integration” or sometimes “manipulation” 2014). Non-visual connections with nature engage the other
of those natural elements or systems to create sense of “life” in senses such as through natural sound design (Alvarsson et al., 2010;
buildings and cities (Alexander, 2002). This research shows in- Pocock, 1989), aromatic plant design (Lee et al., 2011; Malnar and
clinations to the latter. Specifically, this research comprises of the Vodvarka, 2004) and urban farming where a hands-on experience
two concepts to embed, integrate and manipulate Biophilia into is promoted (Gibson, 1966; Gonzalez et al., 2009; Gonzalez and
man-made environments in different scales (Fig. 1). Biophilic Kirkevold, 2014). Natural ventilation and airflow is another

Biophilic Design

Biophilic Urbanism

Fig. 1. Biophilic Design and Urbanism: Natural element, sensory connection and patterna and combination play an immediate effect for biophilic design while programme and
facility, public and slow traffic system, and occupant engagement refer to intermediate or long term effect for biophilic urbanism.
1446 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452

Table 1
Key strategies of Biophilic Design.

Level 1: Concept Level 2: Aspects Level 3: Indicators No. Strategies References

1 Biophilic Design 1-A Biophilic 1-A-1 Biophilia 1 Increase green space coverage ratio; Barton and Pretty (2010)
Infrastructure (10) ratio (6) 2 Promote plants canopy configuration for shading and Xue et al. (2017b)
sheltering;
3 Enhance native species ratio; Oldfield et al. (2015)
4 Enhance biodiversity level; Maes et al. (2016)
5 Enlarge water area; White et al. (2010)
6 Diverse water configuration and appearance; (Hunter et al., 2010; Ulrich et al., 1991)
1-A-2 Biophilia 7 Natural landscape promotion with minimal Hwang and Yue (2015)
management (4) management;
8 Permeable surfaces for stormwater management; (Beatley, 2011; Stovin, 2009)
9 Enhance natural ventilation and airflow design; Ignatius et al. (2015)
10 Enhance daylight and shadow design; (Aries et al., 2015; Hraska, 2015)
1-B Sensorial 1-B-1 Visual 11 Optimize window view of the natural landscape. i.e. (Ambrey and Fleming, 2014; Schweitzer
Design (10) connection with forest, seascape, water motif, etc.; et al., 2004)
nature (5) 12 Optimize window view of weather changes (i.e. the Kellert et al. (2008)
sunshine, rain, snow);
13 Provide indoor potting plants; (Chang and Chen, 2005)
14 Provide indoor green walls; (Beatley, 2000, 2012)
15 Provide observable artworks (i.e. painting, sculpture); Zbasnik-Senegaenik and Kuzman (2014)
1-B-2 Non-visual 16 Natural sound design (i.e. the wind, song of birds and Browning et al. (2014)
connection (3) insects);
17 Aromatic plant design (i.e. certain trees and flowers); Malnar and Vodvarka (2004)
18 Urban farming (i.e. plants-touching and tasting Gonzalez and Kirkevold (2014)
activities);
1-B-3 Thermal 19 Openable window for natural ventilation; Gou et al. (2014)
comfort and airflow 20 Individual/group thermal comfort controls (i.e. air USGBC (2013)
(2) temperature, air speed, and humidity);
1-C Biophilic 1-C-1 Biomorphic 21 Biomorphic building form and façade for energy cost (Senosiain Aguilar, 2003; Zevi, 1959)
Setting and forms & patterns reduction;
Performance (5) (3) 22 Biomorphic ornament design (i.e. Golden mean and Pawlyn (2011)
Fibonacci series);
23 Surface pattern design from natural environment (i.e. Pawlyn (2011)
pattern of animal skin);
1-C-2 Natural 24 Natural material selection, i.e. wood, bamboo, rock, etc.; (Tsunetsugu et al., 2007; WGBC, 2014)
material and color 25 Color selection to enhance creative environments. Lichtenfeld et al. (2012)
design (2)

crucial factor which allows people to feel in-touch with nature. enhances well-being. The creation of such an environment would
Openable windows can allow for spaces to be natural ventilated require fully accessible and dedicated cycling lanes (Moudon and
(Gou et al., 2014), while individual or group thermal comfort con- Lee, 2003; Saelens et al., 2003), sufficient bike parking facilities as
trols can also be considered as biophilic design (Miller et al., 2009; well as changing rooms and shower facilities where required (Kraft
USGBC, 2013). Under Biophilic Setting and Performance, there are et al., 2012; USGBC, 2013). The landmarks and public buildings such
biomorphic forms and patterns and natural material and color. as public libraries and community centers are service as havens
Biomorphic forms and patterns can be applied on various scales to from urban noise and traffic, while providing people with a sense of
create a visual connection with nature. Building forms and facades belonging in society (Anacta et al., 2017; Bartie et al., 2015;
can be biomorphic (Senosiain Aguilar, 2003) and also help to Kunstler, 1996). Under Mixed Land Use and Work-live-play Inte-
conserve energy. Biomorphic ornament design can be applied to gration, there are sharing space and facility and management and
smaller scales as well as surface patterns inspired by natural en- maintenance. Public green spaces, open plazas, dining facilities as
vironments (Pawlyn, 2011). The use of natural materials and colors well as learning and collaborative facilities all promote a shared
can also create connections with nature along with other benefits concept (Cohen and Mun ~ oz, 2016). Good security management and
such as enhancing creativity (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012; Tsunetsugu maintenance facilities without intrusion on freedom also serve to
et al., 2007). benefit the users (Jim and Shan, 2013; Kaplan et al., 1998; Moseley
Table 2 expands the Biophilic Urbanism with three aspects, et al., 2013). Lastly, under Green Space Place-making, there are
seven indicators and seventeen strategies. Under Transportation regular programmes and provisional programmes. Regular pro-
Connectivity, there are public oriented transportation and pedes- grammes include shaded outdoor seats for cafes and restaurants
trian friendly design, cycling system priority and navigation and (Ruiz and Correa, 2015; Tsitoura et al., 2014), as well as volunteer-
way-finding system. The idea of having public-oriented design is to engagement for urban farming (Napawan, 2015; Recasens et al.,
ensure that there is a certain level of convenience so that people are 2016). Provisional programmes include short-term events such as
more likely to choose public transports instead of private vehicles. holiday markets (Carlson et al., 2012) and outdoor performances,
This can be achieved by strategies such as having transport facilities exhibitions, and events (Kelly et al., 2013; Lo and Jim, 2012).
with 300 m walking distance (Badland et al., 2014; Holden and
Norland, 2005; Miller et al., 2016) and sheltered pedestrian net- 3. Methods
works such as sidewalks (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Kent and
Thompson, 2012) and connecting buildings and districts A Biophilia workshop was held to collect key stakeholders’
(Koohsari et al., 2016). A cyclist-friendly environment also pro- opinions and to reach a consensus on the cost-benefit and effec-
motes greater use of bicycles as a mode of transport which tiveness of the selected biophilic strategies. The workshop provides
 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452 1447

Table 2
Key strategies of Biophilic Urbanism.

Level 1: Concept Level 2: Aspects Level 3: Indicators No. Strategies References

2 Biophilic 2-A Transportation 2-A-1 Public 26 Locate public bus/MRT station within (Badland et al., 2014; Holden
Urbanism connectivity (8) transportation 300 m walking distance; and Norland, 2005)
facility (3) 27 Provide fully connected pedestrian (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Sallis,
network; 2009)
28 Provide shaded corridors/ (Kuo-Tsang et al., 2015; USGBC, 2013)
bridges between buildings and
districts;
2-A-2 Cycling 29 Provide fully accessible and Saelens et al. (2003)
system facility (3) dedicated cycling lanes;
30 Configure with bike parking (CFAD, 2010; USGBC, 2013; WGBC,
facilities; 2014)
31 Configure with change room
and shower facilities;
2-A-3 Navigation 32 Provide landmark in public (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Jackson,
and way-finding open space for attraction and 2003)
system (2) gathering;
33 Effective visual information (Anacta et al., 2017; Zhao and
system design for wayfinding Mourshed, 2012)
and collaboration;
2-B Promote Work- 2-B-1 Sharing space 34 Share public green spaces, open plaza (Cohen and Mun ~ oz, 2016;
live-play and facility (3) and community spaces; Danielsen and Lang, 2010)
Integration (5) 35 Share food & beverage, food court
facilities;
36 Share learning and collaboration
facilities;
2-B-2 Management 37 Security management (i.e. patrol, (Jim and Shan, 2013; WGBC,
and maintenance CCTV); 2014)
(2) 38 Enhance facility and site maintenance; (Kent and Thompson, 2012; Liu,
2010)
2-C Green Space 2-C-1 Regular 39 Provide shaded outdoor seats for cafe
Chen and Ng (2012)
Place-making (4) programme (2) and restaurants;
40 Volunteer-engagement for urban Recasens et al. (2016)
farming;
2-C-2 Provisional 41 Provide Friday/holiday market Carlson et al. (2012)
programme (2) (vegetable, food, and other commercial
sales);
42 Provide outdoor performance/ Kelly et al. (2013)
exhibition of art events during lunch
breaks (i.e. live concert, artwork show).

an opportunity and platform for sharing experience between the

government agencies, professional consultants, developers and
property managers. For the recruitment method, invitations were
sent to key stakeholders: Government, Developers, Design Firms,
and Properties Agencies in Singapore. The stakeholders who
confirmed their participations were required to ask their repre-
sentatives to attend this workshop. Finally, thirty experts were
involved in this study: 5 government agencies, 12 professional
consultants, 9 developers and 4 property managers. The numbers
of male (53.3 per cent) and female (46.7 per cent) participants are
approximately equal. The professions of the experts are highly
diverse, including Architecture, Urban Planning, Landscape Archi- Fig. 2. Flowchart of the Biophilia Workshop to collect data: there are two rounds of
surveys and discussions: the first round is to evaluate “cost” and “evaluation” of
tecture, Building Science, Mechanical Engineering, Facilities Man-
selected strategies, based on which BCR can be calculated; the second round is to vote
agement, Biology, Horticulture, Information Technology and Public selected strategies, based on which VP can be calculated.
Relationship. They are experienced building and urban develop-
ment stakeholders in Singapore.
The flowchart of the workshop is presented in Fig. 2. Two-round second round was conducted by voting using stickers.
surveys were conducted in this workshop. The workshop was The first round discussion was to evaluate the “effectiveness”
divided into two rounds of surveys which have specific aims and and “cost” of the 42 selected biophilic strategies. The “effective-
functions. Through the first round of survey, participants familiar- ness” evaluation aimed to review the performance of each strategy.
ized and understood each selected strategy which helped them to The experts were requested to make an appropriate score between
vote these strategies in the second round. Another reason for 1 and 10 for each strategy. The higher the score is, the more
dividing the workshop into two rounds of surveys is that it took a effective the strategy is. If a certain strategy is concerned as a very
full-day (9 a.m.e5 p.m.) to run this workshop and participants need important strategy for human health and public well-being, it could
a middle-break and refreshment. For the survey approaches, the be referred to a higher score, say 9, or 10 (highest). On the contrary,
first round was conducted by questionnaire survey while the if a certain strategy is not important or helpful, they might be
1448 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452

Table 3
The ranking of effectiveness.

Ranking Strategies Mean Score Category

Top-five
1 Window views of the natural landscape. i.e. forest, seascape, water motif, etc.; 9.29 1-B-1
2 Natural ventilation and airflow design; 8.63 1-A-2
3 Openable window for natural ventilation; 8.57 1-B-3
4 Natural landscape promotion with minimal management; 8.38 1-A-2
5 Shared public green spaces, open plaza and community spaces; 8.38 2-B-1
Bottom-five
5 Friday/holiday market (vegetable, food and other commercial sales); 5.63 2-C-2
4 Aromatic plant design (i.e. certain trees and flowers); 5.43 1-B-2
3 Surface pattern from natural environment (i.e. pattern of animal skin); 5.43 1-C-1
2 Security management (i.e. patrol, CCTV); 5.25 2-B-2
1 Biomorphic ornament design (i.e. Golden mean and Fibonacci series); 5.00 1-C-1

scored lower, say 2 or 1 (lowest). If a strategy is being considered

not very important but still have some usefulness, then score votes of each strategy
VP ¼ (2)
around 5. The “cost” evaluation aimed to discuss the expense of total votes
each strategy. Similarly, the experts were requested to make an The data analysis is mainly based on calculating and ranking
appropriate score between 1 and 10 for each strategy. The higher mean values for the four variables: cost, effectiveness, BCR and VP.
the score is, the costlier the strategy is. Higher scores say 9, or 10 Pearson Correlation and Spearman Rank-order Correlation were
(highest) stand for very expensive strategy while lower scores, i.e. 2 employed to explore whether and how strongly pairs of variables
or 1 (lowest) refer to an inexpensive strategy. After that, the group are correlated with each other. SPSS statistics was used to conduct
leader from each team presented their scores of the certain stra- the correlation analysis. The term of 'r' indicates the correlation
tegies while the rest of groups discussed the results and reached a coefficient; the significant p-value sets at 5% level.
consensus by all participants.
Based on the effectiveness and cost survey, Benefit-Cost Ratio
(BCR) could be calculated. From the results of the effectiveness and 4. Results
cost evaluation, the BCR was calculated as follows: dividing the
score of effectiveness by the score of cost (see Equation (1)). It 4.1. Round 1
represents the output of benefit produced by each unit cost. If the
value of BCR is larger than 1, it stands for a positive benefit against Table 3 summarizes the ranking of “effectiveness”. Generally,
the cost; if the value of BCR is less than 1, it means that the benefit is the evaluation of strategies in Biophilic Design is significantly
negative against the cost. higher than that of strategies in Biophilic Urbanism. Strategies
related to biophilic infrastructure and sensorial design for healing
and restoration were perceived more effective than others. Strate-
score of effectiveness gies such as natural views and natural ventilation in a micro-scale
BCR ¼ (1) and with an intimate relationship with individuals' body and
score of cost
physiology, were perceived as most effective biophilic strategies.
The second round wass a “vote session”. Each of the participants On the other hand, biomorphic forms and patterns, especially at a
were provided with 100 stickers and told that the stickers repre- larger scale such as building forms, seemed less effective in
sented their buying power which they could use to invest in the 42 stakeholders’ opinions.
strategies. They need to spend out all stickers. All stickers had a Table 4 summarizes the ranking of “cost”. In general, the score of
uniform value. Each expert voted individually. Voting portio (VP) Biophilic Urbanism seems higher than the Biophilic Design, which
was calculated by dividing votes of certain strategy by the overall indicated that the strategies from the integrated urban de-
vote. In this case, there were 30 participants and each one had 100 velopments were perceived to be costlier. In the workshop, par-
votes. Therefore, the overall vote was 3000. The VP was calculated ticipants also mentioned that larger infrastructure would require
by dividing the votes of certain strategy by the votes in all (see greater resources to implement or install, and would affect the
Equation (2)). surrounding environment than the individual biophilic design

Table 4
The ranking of cost.

Ranking Strategies Mean Score Category

Top-five
1 Public bus/MRT station within 300 m walking distance; 7.71 2-A-1
2 Individual/group thermal comfort controls (i.e. air temperature, air speed, and humidity); 7.57 1-B-3
3 Indoor green walls; 7.57 1-B-1
4 Shaded corridors/bridges between buildings and districts; 7.43 2-A-1
5 Observable artworks (i.e. painting, sculpture) 7.43 1-B-1
Bottom-five
5 Natural sound design (i.e. the wind, song of birds and insects); 4.43 1-B-2
4 Plants canopy configuration for shading and sheltering; 4.25 1-A-1
3 Effective visual information system design for wayfinding and collaboration; 3.75 2-A-3
2 Colour selection to enhance creative environments; 3.43 1-C-2
1 Natural landscape promotion with minimal management; 3.25 1-A-2
 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452 1449

Table 5
The ranking of BCR.

Ranking Strategies Mean Score Category

Top-five
1 Openable window for natural ventilation; 4.094 1-B-3
2 Natural landscape promotion with minimal management; 3.610 1-A-2
3 Biodiversity level; 3.431 1-A-1
4
and restaurants;
Shaded outdoor seats for cafe 2.743 2-C-1
5 Shared public green spaces, open plaza, and community spaces; 2.681 2-B-1
Bottom-five
5 Indoor green walls; 0.934 1-B-1
4 Observable artworks (i.e. painting, sculpture); 0.908
3 Shared learning and collaboration facilities; 0.899 2-B-1
2 Shared F&B, food court facilities; 0.885
1 Security management (i.e. patrol, CCTV); 0.786 2-B-2

strategies that encompasses smaller scale elements. The land use 4.3. Correlation
and the facilities cost were important driving factors of the cost.
The scale of public transport facilities were usually very large and Fig. 3 shows the correlation analysis between these rankings
required significant investments. and voting. Correlation analysis discloses that the mean value of
From the results of the effectiveness and cost rankings, the BCR effectiveness was positively and strongly correlated with benefit-
was calculated as follows: dividing the score of effectiveness by the cost ratio (r¼.583) and the vote (r¼.772). In this research, the
score of cost. It represents the output of benefit produced by each ranking of effectiveness and the vote calculation were highly
unit cost. If the value of BCR is larger than 1, it stands for a positive consistent. For instance, “window view of the natural landscape”,
benefit against the cost; if the value of BCR is less than 1, it means “natural ventilation and airflow design”, and “natural landscape
the benefit is negative against the cost. Table 5 shows the result. promotion with minimal management” were ranked both in top-
There are 35 variables which are profitable with BCRs more than 1. five of effectiveness evaluation and votes calculation. On the
The top five strategies are not deemed as expensive materials and other hand, “biomorphic ornament design” and “security man-
do not involve high installation costs, but are very effective. The agement” were ranked both in lowest-three in effectiveness eval-
bottom items are somehow expensive to install and manage, time- uation and votes calculation. Besides, the ranking of effectiveness
costing, and not fit to the priority in Singapore context. It is noticed and the benefit-cost ratio have somehow supported each other as
that the participants revealed the tendency that the strategies in well. Specifically, “natural landscape promotion with minimal
Biophilic Design are more convincing and cost-effective for health management”, “openable window for natural ventilation”, and
and well-being promotion as compared to the strategies in Bio- “shared public green spaces”, and “open plaza and community
philic Urbanism. It is noticed that the interaction between human spaces” were ranked both in top-five of effectiveness evaluation
and environment, such as green infrastructure and sensorial design and benefit-cost ratio. Similarly, “security management” was
are worth investing in for a low cost and high effectiveness. ranked both in lowest-two in effectiveness evaluation and benefit-
cost ratio. The correlation analysis also uncovers that mean value of
BRC was positively and strongly correlated with the VP (r¼.673). It
4.2. Round 2 is noticed that the ranking of BRC and the VP are analogous to each
other; for example, “natural landscape promotion with minimal
The results of the voting session are shown in the Table 6. The management”, “shared public green spaces”, “open plaza and
top-five strategies with the highest VP most come from Biophilic community spaces” were ranked both in top-five of BCR and VP;
Design and involve a direct connection with nature. Hence, they while “observable artworks” and “security management” were
were more “tactile” which can be seen and felt, and hence led to ranked both in lowest-five accordingly. The mean value of cost was
greater votes given. The bottom five variables with the lowest VP negatively and strongly correlated with the value of BCR (r¼-.702).
are deemed to have subjective effectiveness on the users, and hence These results indicate that the experts voted the strategies with
resulted in the lower number of votes. While the lowest voted high effectiveness and benefit-cost ratio, instead of the ones with
management and maintenance echoes the lowest cost-effective lower cost. More details of the correlation analysis is disclosed in
strategy mentioned above. Table 7.

Table 6
The ranking of VP.

Ranking Strategies VP Category

Top-five
1 Natural landscape promotion with minimal management; 6.73% 1-A-2
2 Green space coverage ratio; 6.67% 1-A-1
3 Window view of the natural landscape. i.e. forest, seascape, water motif, etc.; 6.53% 1-B-1
4 Natural ventilation and airflow design; 5.70% 1-A-2
5 Shared public green spaces, open plaza and community spaces; 5.40% 2-B-1
Bottom-five
5 Volunteer-engagement for urban farming; 0.57% 2-C-2
4 Observable artworks (i.e. painting, sculpture); 0.53% 1-B-1
3 Biomorphic ornament design (i.e. Golden mean and Fibonacci series); 0.47% 1-C-1
2 Effective visual information system design for wayfinding and collaboration; 0.43% 2-A-2
1 Security management (i.e. patrol, CCTV); 0.30% 2-B-2
1450 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452

minimal management”, “openable window for natural ventilation”,

and “shared public green spaces”, and “open plaza and community
spaces” were ranked in top-five of the effectiveness evaluation and
BCR. Similarly, “security management” was ranked in lowest-two in
the effectiveness evaluation and BCR.
Thirdly, it is noticed that the ranking of the BCR and the VP are
analogous to each other; for example, “natural landscape promo-
tion with minimal management”, “shared public green spaces”,
“open plaza and community spaces” were ranked in top-five of BCR
and VP; while “observable artworks” and “security management”
were ranked in lowest-five of BCR and VP.
Fourthly, cost had a negative relation with BCR, which indicated
that the experts scored the strategies with high effectiveness and
BCR, instead of the ones with lower cost. Biophilic Design can be
immediately effective in connecting human with nature while less
costly; therefore, Biophilic Design related strategies were consid-
ered more worth being invested and could be agreed on by the
majority. While Biophilic Urbanism is more ambitious to set long
goals to integrate biophilia to shape a new urban lifestyle, espe-
cially integrating different work-live-play functions together;
therefore Biophilic Urbanism related strategies were thought being
associated with higher cost while the impact is less known.
Fig. 3. Correlations between the effectiveness, cost, BCR and vote calculation: it shows
statistically significant positive correlations between effectiveness, BCR and VP while
statistically significant negative correlation between cost and BCR.

5. Discussion 6. Conclusion

This study engaged global authorities in the field of Urban Bio- This paper reported a research based on a Biophilia Workshop
philia to ascertain the efficacy of the BCR algorithm and to collate which gathered the most experienced stakeholders of building and
expert perspectives that could be engaged in the mainstream urban developments to learn from Singapore experience. The study
application of nature in our built environments. By virtue of a validates that the aggregate scores calculated from the effective-
structured workshop and the distillation of 42 specific strategies ness/cost evaluations and the subsequent BCR calculations accu-
from the literature, the collective experience of the assembled ex- rately reflect the informed decisions that have been made by the
perts was engaged to ascertain the most advantageous tactics for expert stakeholders in the VP section. This suggests decisions
increasing biophilia within urban areas. Through this consultation, pertaining to investment and development could be made effec-
a consensus was reached regarding the performance and unit cost tively based on a survey of experienced/informed stakeholders.
of each biophilic strategy, the benefit produced, and the investment In terms of BCR, “biophilic infrastructure”, “sensorial design”
preference for each strategy as demonstrated through a hypothet- and “green space place-making” could be the most recommend
ical purchasing simulation (the VP exercise). To be specific, the biophilic strategies. Remarkably, the strategies of “openable win-
higher rating of effectiveness follows the higher expectation of cost dow for natural ventilation”, “natural landscape promotion with
performance and the higher desire of investment. On the other minimal management”, “biodiversity level” and “shaded outdoor
hand, the higher unit cost of each biophilic strategy, the lower value seats for cafe
and restaurants” could significantly affect the bio-
of the benefit within a certain input (BCR). There are four important philic performance of built environments. In terms of VP, “biophilic
findings from this workshop. infrastructure” and “sensorial design” would be the “best-selling”
Firstly, the ranking of effectiveness and VP were highly consis- points in the building and urban development. Specifically, the
tent. For instance, “window view of the natural landscape”, “natural strategies of “natural landscape promotion with minimal man-
ventilation and airflow design”, and “natural landscape promotion agement”, “green space coverage ratio”, “window view of natural
with minimal management” were ranked both in top-five of the landscape”, “natural ventilation and airflow design”, “shared public
effectiveness evaluation and the VP calculation. On the other hand, green spaces”, “open plaza and community spaces” would be the
“biomorphic ornament design” and “security management” were most popular strategies favored by stakeholders and worth being
ranked in lowest-three in the effectiveness evaluation and the VP invested. On the other side, using natural elements as a decoration
calculation. or ornamentation would not be either cost-effective or favored by
Secondly, the ranking of effectiveness and the BCR supported stakeholders.
each other. Specifically, “natural landscape promotion with This study has important implications for biophilia research. The
research about immediate effect of Biophilia Design on human
body, especially exposure to natural views and airflow, natural
plants and other elements, is well documented, which provides
Table 7
strong evidence for stakeholders and decision makers; while the
Summarized correlations between Effectiveness, Cost, BCR and VP.
intermediate effect or long term effect of Biophilia through urban
Effectiveness Cost BCR Voting portio (VP) infrastructure and management is less well researched, which may
Effectiveness 1 -.082 .583a .772a weaken the business case for Biophilic Urbanism. More research is
Cost 1 -.702a -.291 needed to provide evidence about larger scale impact of Biophilia in
BCR 1 .673a urban life to enhance the confidence and business case of Biophilic
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Urbanism.
 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452 1451

Acknowledgements stakeholders' knowledge in landscape assessments e mapping indicators for

landscape services. Ecol. Indicat. 18, 421e433.
Frumkin, H., 2001. Beyond toxicity11The full text of this article is available via AJPM
The authors would like to extend our wholehearted thanks to Online at. In: Human Health and the Natural Environment. American Journal of
many people, who contributed generously to the works presented Preventive Medicine, 20, pp. 234e240. www.elsevier.com/locate/ajpmonline.
in this paper. Profound gratitude firstly goes to NUS e JTC Industrial Gibson, J.J., 1966. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Houghton Mifflin,
Connecticut, U. S.
Infrastructure Innovation Centre (I3C) for granting the research Gonzalez, M.T., Hartig, T., Patil, G.G., Martinsen, E., Kirkevold, M., 2009. Therapeutic
project Biophilia and Development of Punggol Creative Cluster. Many horticulture in clinical depression: a prospective study. Res. Theor. Nurs. Pract.
thanks are due to Mr. Aloysius Iwan HANDONO, Ms. Chong Teng 23, 312e328.
Gonzalez, M.T., Kirkevold, M., 2014. Benefits of sensory garden and horticultural
PHONG, Mr. Bij BORJA, and Ms. Yanyun LIN from JTC Corporation for activities in dementia care: a modified scoping review. J. Clin. Nurs. 23,
their generous assistance and unreservedly support throughout the 2698e2715.
research process. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooper- Gou, Z., Prasad, D., Lau, S.S.-Y., 2014. Impacts of green certifications, ventilation and
office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality. Ar-
ation agencies, namely National Parks Board (Nparks), CPG Con- chitect. Sci. Rev. 57, 196e206.
sultants Pte Ltd, WOHA Architects, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital He
le
ne, L., 2016. Becoming biophilic: challenges and opportunities for biophilic
& Jurong Community Hospital, NUS University Town, NUS School of urbanism in urban planning policy. In: Smart and Sustainable Built Environ-
ment, vol. 5, pp. 15e24.
Design and Environment, Cyber Security Agency, etc., who shared Holden, E., Norland, I., 2005. Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable
valuable knowledge and insights with us in various workshops, urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight resi-
seminars, and surveys. The authors also like to thank the anony- dential areas in the greater oslo region. Urban Stud. 42, 2145e2166.
Hraska, J., 2015. Chronobiological aspects of green buildings daylighting. Renew.
mous participants who provided helpful feedbacks to support the
Energy 73, 109e114.
Biophilia research. Hunter, M.D., Eickhoff, S.B., Pheasant, R.J., Douglas, M.J., Watts, G.R., Farrow, T.F.D.,
Hyland, D., Kang, J., Wilkinson, I.D., Horoshenkov, K.V., Woodruff, P.W.R., 2010.
The state of tranquility: subjective perception is shaped by contextual modu-
References lation of auditory connectivity. NeuroImage 53, 611e618.
Hwang, Y.H., 2015. Spontaneous Vegetation Transforming Manicured Lawns into
Alexander, C., 2002. The Nature of Order. Center for Environmental Structure, Selectively Maintained Biodiverse Gardens, Sustainable Landscape. Centre for
Berkeley, California. Urban Greenery & Ecology (CUGE) and National Park Board, Singapore,
Alvarsson, J.J., Wiens, S., Nilsson, M.E., 2010. Stress recovery during exposure to pp. 108e113.
nature sound and environmental noise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 7, Hwang, Y.H., Yue, Z.E.J., 2015. Observation of biodiversity on minimally managed
1036e1046. green roofs in a tropical city. J. Living Archit. 2, 9e26.
Ambrey, C., Fleming, C., 2014. Public greenspace and life satisfaction in urban Ignatieva, M., Ahrne
, K., 2013. Biodiverse green infrastructure for the 21st century:
Australia. Urban Stud. 51, 1290e1321. from “green desert” of lawns to biophilic cities. J. Archit. Urbanism 37, 1e9.
Anacta, V.J.A., Schwering, A., Li, R., Muenzer, S., 2017. Orientation information in Ignatius, M., Wong, N.H., Jusuf, S.K., 2015. Urban microclimate analysis with
wayfinding instructions: evidences from human verbal and visual instructions. consideration of local ambient temperature, external heat gain, urban ventila-
Geo J. 82, 567e583. tion, and outdoor thermal comfort in the tropics. Sustain. Cities Soc. 19,
Aries, M.B.C., Aarts, M.P.J., van Hoof, J., 2015. Daylight and health: a review of the 121e135.
evidence and consequences for the built environment. Light. Res. Technol. 47, Jackson, L.E., 2003. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition.
6e27. Landsc. Urban Plann. 64, 191e200.
Badland, H., Whitzman, C., Lowe, M., Davern, M., Aye, L., Butterworth, I., Hes, D., Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B., Sullivan, W.C., 2015. A doseeresponse curve describing
Giles-Corti, B., 2014. Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc.
exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of Urban Plann. 139, 16e25.
health. Soc. Sci. Med. 111, 64e73. Jim, C.Y., Shan, X., 2013. Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces
Bartie, P., Mackaness, W., Petrenz, P., Dickinson, A., 2015. Identifying related land- in Guangzhou, China. In: Cities, vol. 31, pp. 123e131.
mark tags in urban scenes using spatial and semantic clustering. Comput. En- Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Ryan, R.L., 1998. With People in Mind : Design and Man-
viron. Urban Syst. 52, 48e57. agement of Everyday Nature. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Barton, J., Pretty, J., 2010. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for Kellert, S., 2016. Biophilic urbanism: the potential to transform. In: Smart and
improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, Sustainable Built Environment, 5, pp. 4e8.
3947e3955. Kellert, S.R., 2008. Biophilia A2 - jørgensen, sven erik. In: Fath, B.D. (Ed.), Encyclo-
Beatley, T., 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, pedia of Ecology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 462e466.
Washington DC. Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J., Mador, M., 2008. Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science
Beatley, T., 2011. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Plan- and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J., p. 385
ning. Island Press, Washington, DC. Kellert, S.R., Judith Heerwagen, M., 2008. Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and
Beatley, T., 2012. Singapore: how to grow a high-rise city in a garden. Site Lines 8, Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New
14e17. Jersey.
Beatley, T., 2016. Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design. Island Press, Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington,
Washington, DC. D.C.
Browning, W., Ryan, C., Clancy, J., 2014. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving Kelly, H.F., Adair, A.S., McGreal, S., Roulac, S.E., 2013. Twenty-four hour cities and
Health & Well-being in the Built Environment. Terrapin Bright Green LLC, New commercial office building performance. J. Real Estate Portfolio Manag. 19,
York, p. 62. 103e120.
Carlson, C., Aytur, S., Gardner, K., Rogers, S., 2012. Complexity in built environment, Kent, J., Thompson, S., 2012. Health and the built environment: exploring founda-
health, and destination walking: a neighborhood-scale Analysis. J. Urban tions for a new interdisciplinary profession. J. Environ. Publ. Health 958175.
Health: Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med 89, 270e284. Kim, G., Kim, J.T., 2010. Healthy-daylighting design for the living environment in
CFAD, 2010. Active Design Guidelines, Promoting Physical Activity and Health in apartments in Korea. Build. Environ. 45, 287e294.
Design. The Center for Active Design Department of Design and Construction, Kim, H.-H., Lee, J.-Y., Yang, J.-Y., Kim, K.-J., Lee, Y.-J., Shin, D.-C., Lim, Y.-W., 2011.
New York City, p. 144. Evaluation of indoor air quality and health related parameters in office build-
Chang, C.-Y., Chen, P.-K., 2005. human response to window views and indoor plants ings with or without indoor plants. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 80, 96e102.
in the workplace. In: HortScience, vol. 40, pp. 1354e1359. Koohsari, M.J., Owen, N., Cerin, E., Giles-Corti, B., Sugiyama, T., 2016. Walkability and
Chang, P.-J., Bae, S., 2017. Positive emotional effects of leisure in green spaces in walking for transport: characterizing the built environment using space syntax.
alleviating workefamily spillover in working mothers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. In: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, vol. 13.
Health 14, 757. Kraft, M.K., Lee, J.J., Brennan, L.K., 2012. Active living by design sustainability stra-
Chen, L., Ng, E., 2012. Outdoor thermal comfort and outdoor activities: a review of tegies. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43, S329eS336.
research in the past decade. In: Cities, vol. 29, pp. 118e125. Kunstler, J.H., 1996. Home from Nowhere : Remaking Our Everyday World for the
Cohen, B., Mun ~ oz, P., 2016. Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and pro- Twenty-first Century. Simon & Schuster, New York.
duction: towards an integrated framework. J. Clean. Prod. 134 (Part A), 87e97. Kuo-Tsang, H., Lin, T.-P., Hsiao-Chi, L., 2015. Investigating thermal comfort and user
Danielsen, K.A., Lang, R.E., 2010. Live work play: new perspectives on the down- behaviors in outdoor spaces: a seasonal and spatial perspective. In: Advances in
town rebound. In: disP - The Planning Review, 46, pp. 91e105. Meteorology.
el-Baghdadi, O., Desha, C., 2017. Conceptualising a biophilic services model for ur- Lau, S.S.Y., Gou, Z., Liu, Y., 2014. Healthy campus by open space design: approaches
ban areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 27, 399e408. and guidelines. Front. Archit. Res. 452e467.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., 2009. Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities Lee, J., Park, B.J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T., Miyazaki, Y., 2011. Effect of
related to walkability. J. Urban Des. 14, 65e84. forest bathing on physiological and psychological responses in young Japanese
Fagerholm, N., K€ ayhko€ , N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., 2012. Community male subjects. Public Health 125, 93e100.
1452 F. Xue et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 1444e1452

Lichtenfeld, S., Elliot, A.J., Maier, M.A., Pekrun, R., 2012. Fertile Green: Green Facil- hospitals: reflections on benefits, preferences and design from visitors' books.
itates Creative Performance Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 38, Urban For. Urban Green. 26, 48e56.
pp. 784e797. Ruiz, M.A., Correa, E.N., 2015. Suitability of different comfort indices for the pre-
Lin, P., Lau, S.S.Y., Qin, H., Gou, Z., 2017. Effects of urban planning indicators on urban diction of thermal conditions in tree-covered outdoor spaces in arid cities.
heat island: a case study of pocket parks in high-rise high-density environment. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 122, 69e83.
Landsc. Urban Plann. 168, 48e60. Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., 2003. Environmental correlates of walking and
Liu, T.K., 2010. Well-being creates vibrant cities. In: ling, O.G., Yeun, B. (Eds.), World cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literature.
Cities: Achieving Liveability and Vibrancy World Scientific, Singapore, p. 324. Ann. Behav. Med. 25, 80.
Lo, A.Y.H., Jim, C.Y., 2012. Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace Salingaros, N.A., 2003. The sensory value of ornament. Commun. Cogn.: Interdiscipl.
provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Pol. 29, 577e586. Quar. J. 36, 331e351.
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M.L., Barredo, J.I., Grizzetti, B., Sallis, J.F., 2009. Measuring physical activity environments: a brief history. Am. J.
Cardoso, A., Somma, F., Petersen, J.-E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E.R., Zal, N., Prev. Med. 36, S86eS92.
Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A., Biala, K., Piroddi, C., Egoh, B., Degeorges, P., Schweitzer, M., Gilpin, L., Frampton, S., 2004. Healing spaces: elements of envi-
Fiorina, C., Santos-Martín, F., Narusevi cius, V., Verboven, J., Pereira, H.M., ronmental design that make an impact on health. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 10.
Bengtsson, J., Gocheva, K., Marta-Pedroso, C., Sna €ll, T., Estreguil, C., San-Miguel- S-71-S-83.
Ayanz, J., Pe
rez-Soba, M., Gre ^t-Regamey, A., Lillebø, A.I., Malak, D.A., Conde
, S., Senosiain Aguilar, J., 2003. Bio-architecture. Architectural Press, Oxford (Burlington,
Moen, J., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E.G., Zulian, G., Lavalle, C., 2016. An indicator Mass).
framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Soderlund, J., Newman, P., 2015. Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and
Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 14e23. outcomes. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2, 950e969.
Malnar, J.M., Vodvarka, F., 2004. Sensory Design. University of Minnesota Press, Stovin, V., 2009. Green Roofs and Stormwater Management. Department of Civil
Minneapolis. and Structural Engineering Pennine Water Group University of Sheffield, p. 44.
Miller, N., Pogue, D., Gough, Q., Davis, S., 2009. Green buildings and productivity. Terrapin, 2012. The Economics of Biophilia: Why Designing with Nature in Mind
J. Sustain. Real Estate 1, 65e89. Makes Financial Sense. Terrapin Bright Green, New York & Washington.
Miller, P., de Barros, A.G., Kattan, L., Wirasinghe, S.C., 2016. Public transportation and Tsitoura, M., Tsoutsos, T., Daras, T., 2014. Evaluation of comfort conditions in urban
sustainability: a review. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20, 1076e1083. open spaces. Application in the island of Crete. Energy Convers. Manag. 86,
Moseley, D., Marzano, M., Chetcuti, J., Watts, K., 2013. Green networks for people: 250e258.
application of a functional approach to support the planning and management Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y., Sato, H., 2007. Physiological effects in humans induced
of greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plann. 116, 1e12. by the visual stimulation of room interiors with different wood quantities.
Moudon, A.V., Lee, C., 2003. Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental J. Wood Sci. 53, 11e16.
audit instruments. Am. J. Health Promot. 18, 21e37. Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Napawan, N.C., 2015. Production places: evaluating communally-managed urban Science 224, 420e421.
farms as public space. Landsc. J.: Des. Plann. Manag. Land 34, 37e55. Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., Zelson, M., 1991. Stress
Newman, P., 2010. Green urbanism and its application to Singapore. Environ. Ur- recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psy-
banization ASIA 1, 149e170. chol. 11, 201e230.
Newman, P., 2014. Biophilic urbanism: a case study on Singapore. Aust. Plan. 51, USGBC, 2013. LEED V4 Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction. U.S.
47e65. Green Building Council, Washington, DC.
Newman, P., Beatley, T., Boyer, H., 2017. Build biophilic urbanism in the city and its WGBC, 2014. Health, wellbeing & productivity in offices: the next chapter for green
bioregion. In: Newman, P., Beatley, T., Boyer, H. (Eds.), Resilient Cities: Over- building. In: Council, W.G.B. (Ed.), Health, Wellbeing and Productivity. World
coming Fossil Fuel Dependence. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Green Building Council, UK, p. 87.
Washington, DC, pp. 127e153. White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., Depledge, M., 2010. Blue
Nowak, D.J., 2010. Urban biodiversity and climate change. In: Müller, N., Werner, P., space: the importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness rat-
Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, ings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 482e493.
Oxford, UK. Wilson, E.O., 1986. Biophilia. Havard University Press, Cambridge.
Oldfield, E.E., Felson, A.J., Auyeung, D.S.N., Crowther, T.W., Sonti, N.F., Harada, Y., Xue, F., Gou, Z., Lau, S., 2016. Human factors in green office building design: the
Maynard, D.S., Sokol, N.W., Ashton, M.S., Warren, R.J., Hallett, R.A., impact of workplace green features on health perceptions in high-rise high-
Bradford, M.A., 2015. Growing the urban forest: tree performance in response to density asian cities. Sustainability 8, 1095.
biotic and abiotic land management. Restor. Ecol. 23, 707e718. Xue, F., Gou, Z., Lau, S., 2017a. The green open space development model and
Pawlyn, M., 2011. Biomimicry in Architecture. RIBA Publishing, London. associated use behaviors in dense urban settings: lessons from Hong Kong and
Pocock, D., 1989. Sound and the geographer. Geography 73, 193e200. Singapore. Urban Des. Int. 22, 287e302.
Recasens, X., Alfranca, O., Maldonado, L., 2016. The adaptation of urban farms to Xue, F., Gou, Z., Lau, S.S.Y., 2017b. Green open space in high-dense Asian cities: site
cities: the case of the Alella wine region within the Barcelona Metropolitan configurations, microclimates and users' perceptions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 34,
Region. Land Use Pol. 56, 158e168. 114e125.
Reeve, A., Desha, C., Hargroves, C., Newman, P., Hargreaves, D., 2013. A basis for Yuen, B., 1996. Creating the garden city: the Singapore experience. Urban Stud. 33,
inquiry into policy considerations for increasing the application of biophilic 955e970.
urbanism. In: Rauch, S., Morrison, G., Norra, S., Schleicher, N. (Eds.), Urban Zbasnik-Senegae nik, M., Kuzman, M.K., 2014. Interpretations of organic architec-
Environment: Proceedings of the 11th Urban Environment Symposium (UES), ture. Prostor 22, 290e301.
Held in Karlsruhe, Germany, 16-19 September 2012. Springer Netherlands, Zevi, B., 1959. Towards an Organic Architecture. Faber & Faber, London.
Dordrecht, pp. 143e151. Zhao, Y., Mourshed, M., 2012. Design indicators for better accommodation envi-
Reeve, A., Nieberler-Walker, K., Desha, C., 2017. Healing gardens in children's ronments in hospitals: inpatients' perceptions. Intell. Build. Int. 4, 199e215.