Psychological Effectiveness of Biophilic Design in Urban Space: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Planning & Design, Department of Urban Planning & Design, Faculty of Art & Architecture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning & Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Biophilic design is known as a nature-friendly design philosophy for sustainable development, which, in combination with psychological effects, can lead to the creation of an urban space with desirable environmental quality. Understanding urban environments through everyday experiences with direct or indirect contact with nature allows urban designers and planners to shape design strategies for the sustainability of a biophilic city based on mental health. It seems that this research gap can be somewhat integrated and improved by a systematic review of the literature in this field. The present study aims to review research related to the field of biophilic design literature and mental health and psychological recovery in the specific field of urban design studies based on a systematic review method and descriptive and qualitative content analysis.
Methodology: In order to apply the systematic review method using the Prisma checklist, a structured brainstorming search was first conducted by setting the objectives, research questions, and key concepts of the research field. In the first step, the keywords biophilic, biophilic design, mental health, psychology, and urban space (and in some cases, several similar terms such as public space, urban place, and public place) were searched in the field of urban planning and design studies and in the scientific databases "Science Direct", "Taylor & Francis", "Sage", and "MDPI" and using the search engines "Web of Science" and "PubMed" and in the period from 2014 to 2024 (the last decade of the last century), and 548 articles were found. Also, in order to optimize the article search process, the keywords were used experimentally several times in combination with each other. In the second step, with the aim of examining related topics, less relevant or unrelated articles to the field of urban planning and design were eliminated, and 244 studies were selected, which was reduced to 215 by eliminating duplicate articles.
In the third step, 145 articles were selected by eliminating duplicate and inaccessible articles in the field of urban design, and 74 articles were selected in the initial screening based on title review and abstract overview. In the final step, relatively relevant items were eliminated, and 36 completely relevant articles were selected by reviewing the structure and content of the other two types. In this step, after a complete and detailed review of the content, non-applicable articles were eliminated, and in the end, 28 articles were selected as selected articles, which were analyzed in descriptive and qualitative fields of content. In relation to the descriptive analysis of content, the time of publication, research journal, geographical origin, type of study scale, and research method and approach were examined.
Results: The results show that the importance of this issue has been considered in the last five years, mainly in European and American countries. Qualitative findings also indicate that the selected studies were mainly place-based with a combined quantitative-qualitative approach. These studies focused on ten cognitive categories in the field of the most important concerns related to biophilic design and mental health and psychological recovery. The psychological effectiveness of biophilic design in urban space can also be realized within the framework of six main fields. The emotional-cognitive categories and green natural landscape are the most research focus areas, and the perceptual-cognitive and environmental fields are among the most practical fields in defining the framework of the psychological effectiveness of biophilic design in urban space. Also, in the content structure of these studies, health and biophilic design have the most connection and relationship with the concepts of restoration or recovery, stress, and urban green space.
Discussion: Evidence from the qualitative findings shows that; in general, by considering three areas; environmental aspects, human aspects and human-environment interaction aspects, an urban space can be designed that improves the quality of nature and ensures the mental health of citizens. Therefore, it seems that 1- The psychological effectiveness of biophilic design in urban space can be evaluated and designed or redesigned with a framework consisting of perceptual-cognitive, environmental, physical-visual, social, activity-functional and personality study fields. 2- The most important concepts related to the relationship between biophilic design and mental health are known in the emotional-cognitive categories, green natural landscape, environmental perception and cognitive sciences, water-sensitive landscape, livability, welfare and well-being of citizens, human experience, activity diversity, social sustainability and social groups. Meanwhile, the main focus of studies on emotional-cognitive categories and green natural landscapes can indicate that biophilic design as an environmental approach in sustainable development has a close connection with the psychological process of humans as citizens and users of urban space. 3- It seems that from the perspective of the content challenge, by completing the existing literature and the necessity of re-prioritizing the field of environmental sustainability and its related concepts, the application of this approach can be linked to the research field of urban planning and design with an emphasis on more health-orientedness, which will also be the foundation of the executive field.
Conclusion: Despite the volume of studies conducted in the field of biophilic design, the findings of the present study can achieve deeper insight into the psychological effectiveness of this type of nature-friendly design. Also, by providing a theoretical foundation for research and studies related to the literature on nature-friendly and health-oriented design, it can be a guide for future research in various fields of thematic literature, methodology, concerns, and challenges, especially in the context of domestic research studies.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Adli, M., Berger, M., Brakemeier, E.L., Engel, L., Fingerhut, J., Gomez-Carrillo, A., Hehl, R., Heinz, A., Mayer, J.H., Mehran, N., et al. (2017). Neurourbanism: Towards a new discipline. Lancet Psychiatry. 4, 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30371-6
Akpınar, A. (2021). How perceived sensory dimensions of urban green spaces are associated with teenagers’ perceived restoration, stress, and mental health? Landscape and Urban Planning. 214:104185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104185
Andreucci, M.B., Russo, A., & Olszewska-Guizzo, A. (2019). Designing Urban Green Blue Infrastructure for Mental Health and Elderly Wellbeing. Sustainability. 11, 6425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226425
Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Barbiero, P., & Senes, G. (2018). An individual’s connection to nature can affect perceived restorativeness of natural environments. some observations about biophilia. Behav Sci. 8:3. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8030034
Buttazzoni, A., & Minaker, L. (2024). Associations between real-time, self-reported adolescent mental health and urban and architectural design concepts. Cities & Health, 8(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2023.2286741
Buttazzoni, A., & Minaker, L. (2023). Exploring the relationships between specific urban design features and adolescent mental health: The case of imageability, enclosure, human scale, transparency, and complexity. Landscape and Urban Planning .235: 104736.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104736
Cardinali, M., Beenackers, M., Fleury-Bahi, Gh., Bodénan, Ph., Petrova, M., Timmeren, A., & Pottgiesser., U. (2024). Examining green space characteristics for social cohesion and mental health outcomes: A sensitivity analysis in four European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 93: 128230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128230
Cobreros, C., Medoza-Ruvalcaba, N., Flores-García, M., & Roggema, R. (2023). Improving Psychological Well-Being in Urban University Districts through Biophilic Design: Two Cases in Mexico. Sustainability. 15, 5703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075703
Collins, R., Spake, R., Brown, K., Ogutu, B., Smith, D., & Eigenbrod, F. (2020). A systematic map of research exploring the effect of greenspace on mental health. Landscape and Urban Planning. 201: 103823.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103823
Coventry, P., Brown, J., Pervin, J., Brabyn, S., Pateman, R., Breedvelt, J., Gilbody, S., Stancliffe, R., McEachan, R., & White, P. (2021). Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SSM - Population Health. 16: 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100934
Darcy, P.M., Taylor, J., Mackay, L., Ellis, N.J., & Gidlow, C.J. (2022). Understanding the Role of Nature Engagement in Supporting Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19, 3908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073908
Dzhambov, A. M., Hartig, T., Tilov, B., Atanasova, V., Makakova, D. R., & Dimitrova, D. D. (2019). Residential greenspace is associated with mental health via intertwined capacity-building and capacity-restoring pathways. Environmental Research, 178: 108708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108708
Ede, J., & Morley, A. (2020). Review of transport for London’s ‘Healthy Streets Approach’ and its potential contribution to biophilic cities. Cities & Health, 7(2), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1698937
Eid, S., Khalifa, M., & Abd Elrahman, A. S. (2021). Biophilic perceptions in the urban waterfront: analytical study of the Nile waterfront in Central Cairo. HBRC Journal, 17(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2021.1872052
Gaekwad, JS., Sal Moslehian, A., Roös, PB., & Walker, A. (2022) A Meta-Analysis of Emotional Evidence for the Biophilia Hypothesis and Implications for Biophilic Design. Environmental Psychology. 13:750245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.75024
Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings. 5, 948-963. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948
Grave, A. J. J., Neven, L., & Mohammadi, M. (2024). The design of neighbourhood open spaces to improve mental health: a critical review of restorative spatial characteristics and their applicability in design practice. Cities & Health, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2024.2359759
Greenshtein, I., Keidar, O., Tziraki, C., & Chinitz, D. (2020). ‘Greening our backyard’- health behavior impacts of the built environment within the overall ecology of active living. Cities & Health, 7(2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1725353
Ha, J., Kim, H-J., & With, K.A. (2022). Urban green space alone is not enough: A landscape analysis linking the spatial distribution of urban green space to mental health in the city of Chicago. Landscape and Urban Planning.  218: 104309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104309
Hung, Sh-H., & Chang, Ch-Y. (2022). How do humans value urban nature? Developing the perceived biophilic design scale (PBDs) for preference and emotion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 76: 127730.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127730
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-98477-000
Lefosse, D., Timmeren, A., Ratti, C. (2023). Biophilia Upscaling: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Three-Metric Approach. Sustainability. 15, 15702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215702
Methorst, J., Bonn, A., Marselle, M., Böhning-Gaese, K., & Rehdanz., K.(2021). Species richness is positively related to mental health – A study for Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning. 211: 104084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104084
Milliken, S., Kotzen, B., Walimbe, S., Coutts, C., & Beatley, T. (2023). Biophilic cities and health. Cities & Health, 7(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2023.2176200
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Khreis, H., Triguero-Mas, M., Gascon, M., & Dadvand, P. (2017). Fifty shades of green: pathway to healthy urban living. Epidemiology, 28 (1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000549
Olszewska, A. A, & Bil, J.S. (2016). Therapeutic Garden Design for Patients with Neurodegenerative Diseases. Space Form. 25, 259–270.
Park, H., Brown, C.D., & Pearson, A.L. (2024). A systematic review of audit tools for evaluating the quality of green spaces in mental health research. Health & Place. 86: 103185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103185
Pedersen Zari, M. (2019). Understanding and designing nature experiences in cities: a framework for biophilic urbanism. Cities & Health, 7(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1695511
Reeve, A. (2014). Mainstreaming biophilic urbanism in Australian cities: A response to climate change, resource shortages and population pressures [A Doctoral Dissertation]. Queensland University of Technology.
Richardson, M., & Butler, C. W. (2021). Nature connectedness and biophilic design. Building Research & Information, 50(1–2), 36–42.https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2006594
Rugel, E. J., Carpiano, R. M., Henderson, S. B., & Brauer, M. (2019). Exposure to natural space, sense of community belonging, and adverse mental health outcomes across an urban region. Environmental Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.01.034
Subiza-Pérez, M., Vozmediano, L., & San Juan, C. (2020). Green and blue settings as providers of mental health ecosystem services: Comparing urban beaches and parks and building a predictive model of psychological restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning. 204: 103926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103926
Tirri, C., Swanson, H., & Meenar, M. (2021). Finding the “Heart” in the Green: Conducting a Bibliometric Analysis to Emphasize the Need for Connecting Emotions with Biophilic Urban Planning. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18, 9435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189435
Tokhmehchian, A., & Gharehbaglou, M. (2019). Biophilic perception in urban green spaces (Case study: El Gölü Park, Tabriz). International Journal of Urban Sciences, 23(4), 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1568284
Triguero-Mas, M., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Seto, E., Valentín, A., Martínez, D., Smith, G., … Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Natural outdoor environments and mental health: Stress as a possible mechanism. Environmental Research, 159, 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.048
Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Behavior and the natural environment. Springer US, 85–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613- 3539-9_4
Vujcic, M., Tomicevic-Dubljevic, J., Grbic, M., Lecic-Tosevski, D., Vukovic, O., & Toskovic, O. (2017). Nature-based solution for improving mental health and well-being in urban areas. Environmental Research, 158, 385–392.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.030
Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
WHO, (2022). World mental health report: transforming mental health for all. https://www.who.int/publications/i/ item/9789240049338
Yakınlar, N., & Akpınar, A. (2022). How perceived sensory dimensions of urban green spaces are associated with adults’ perceived restoration, stress, and mental health? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 72: 127572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127572
Yeong Choe, E., Jorgensen, A., & Sheffield, D. (2020). Does a natural environment enhance the effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)? Examining the mental health and wellbeing, and nature connectedness benefits, Landscape and Urban Planning, 202: 103886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103886
Zhao, J., Wu, J., & Wang, H., (2020). Characteristics of urban streets in relation to perceived restorativeness. Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology. 30 (2), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019- 0188-4
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
Urban Planning Knowledge
Volume 10, Issue 1
April 2026
Pages 74-99

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 July 2025
  • Revise Date: 26 January 2026
  • Accept Date: 05 June 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics