Embracing Nature in the Built Environment: Evaluation of Biophilic Design Patterns in Selected Resorts
on
Journal of A Sustainable Global South, p-ISSN: 2579-6062
Embracing Nature in the Built Environment: Evaluation of Biophilic Design Patterns in Selected Resorts
Ajijolaoluwa O. Abraham 1, Adedapo A. Oluwatayo 2, Dike M. Nduka 3
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria [email protected]
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria
Abstract The integration of natural elements into the built environment, commonly referred to as biophilic design, has garnered interest due to its capacity to improve well-being and foster sustainable lifestyles. Resorts, which serve as temporary retreats for individuals seeking relaxation and leisure, offer a range of amenities and the opportunity to engage with nature. This paper aims to investigate the implementation of biophilic design patterns within selected resorts. Given its rich heritage and abundant natural resources, Ibadan, Nigeria was selected as the study location for this study. The research employed a quantitative methodology, employing convenience sampling to ensure a representative sample from the population. Questionnaires were distributed using a census sampling technique. The results of this study demonstrate a substantial implementation of biophilic design strategies in the chosen resorts. It is strongly advised to incorporate biophilic design strategies right from the inception of the design process, rather than considering them as an afterthought.
Index Terms— Biophilia, Biophilic Design, Design Strategies, Resorts
One facility that has become central to addressing the relaxation and leisure needs of man is the resort. This is because it has proven to be a place of recuperation and rejuvenation from the stresses of daily living [1]. Resorts are temporary dwelling places that offer visitors a range of amenities, including accommodation, food, drink, recreation, and relaxation, while also providing a chance to engage with the natural beauty of the surrounding area [2]. Essentially, resorts serve as a retreat from the pressures of urban centres, enabling individuals to temporarily disengage from their daily routine and reinvigorate their bodies and spirits [3].
Urban centers are often characterized by high population densities and a lack of natural elements [4]. However, research has shown that natural elements are crucial for stress reduction, creativity promotion, and the facilitation of healing processes [5]. The concept of infusing nature and its elements into the built environment is referred to as biophilia [6].
Bio means "life" or "living things," and philia means "love." The term "biophilia" refers to a love of life and
living things. It was first used by Erich Fromm in 1964 to describe a psychological inclination towards all that is alive and active. Wilson (1984, 1993), cited by Zhong et al., [6], defines biophilia as an emotional reaction that is "innate," "hereditary," and encoded in the genes.
Architects are increasingly drawn to the notion of integrating natural elements into the built environment, through this concept of ‘biophilia’, which has resulted in the emergence of biophilic design [7]. This pursuit is fuelled by the recognition that biophilic design may yield eco-friendlier and healthier spaces that offer numerous benefits to occupants. Through the integration of natural design elements, biophilic design represents a promising framework for aligning architecture with sustainable and healthy living.
The existing literature on resort architecture encompasses various themes, including ecological architecture, traditional/indigenous/vernacular/neo-vernacular approaches, landscape integration, modern/postmodern and green architecture, as well as nature integration and harmony with nature. These themes have been explored in studies conducted by Ediae et al. [1], Febyola et al. [8], Hu et al. [4],.
In recent years, the concept of biophilic design has gained significant attention in the field of architecture, focusing on its potential to enhance health and well-being in the built environment. Researchers such as Bolten & Barbiero (2020), Downton, Jones, Zeunert, & Roös [3], Lei, Lau, Yuan, and Qi [6], Aduwo, Akinwole, and Okpanachi (2021), and Movahed [3] have highlighted the application of biophilic design in various building types, such as offices, hospitals, libraries, mosques, and shopping malls. This growing body of research has demonstrated the positive impacts of incorporating biophilic design principles.
However, there is a dearth of research specifically investigating the application of biophilic design in the context of resort design. This study aims to fill this research gap by examining the biophilic design patterns adopted in selected resorts.
This paper is crucial as it addresses the growing interest in biophilic design and its potential benefits for well-being and sustainable living. By investigating the implementation of biophilic design patterns specifically within resorts, the study offers valuable insights into how these principles can be effectively integrated into leisure and relaxation environments. This paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge by emphasizing the importance of biophilic design in resort settings and highlights the practical recommendations for future design practices.
Resorts serve as full-service lodging establishments that offer a wide range of amenities and recreational activities, emphasizing leisure and relaxation [9]. These temporary accommodations provide guests with comfortable spaces to sleep, eat, drink, vacation, exercise, and rest, all while immersing themselves in the natural beauty of the surrounding area [2].
Resorts have long been recognized as havens of relaxation and leisure, offering individuals a temporary escape from the bustle of busy cities [8]. With their focus on providing a range of amenities and recreational activities, resorts aim to create an environment that promotes comfort, convenience, and entertainment for their guests [9].
Certain minimum qualifications must also be met for a lodging property to be considered a resort. These are some examples:
-
i. Include at least one signature amenity or anchor attribute.
-
ii. Provide five additional recreation/leisure/entertainment opportunities.
-
iii. One full-service food and beverage outlet.
-
iv. Short-term or overnight lodging must be included in the bed-base.
-
v. A minimum of 25 rooms or other accommodations (with the exception of properties with two signature amenity/anchor attributes).
-
vi. Highlight the experience of being in a leisure or retreat environment.
In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on integrating elements of nature into architectural design, leading to the emergence of a design theory called "biophilic design." Biophilic Design is a design approach that incorporates the natural elements and processes into the built environment to enhance human connection with nature.
Resorts, by their very nature, provide an ideal canvas for the application of biophilic design and its principles. They are often situated in picturesque locations, surrounded by natural beauty, which presents a unique opportunity to leverage the inherent appeal of the environment. The integration of biophilic design strategies in resorts aims to create spaces that not only captivate guests with their aesthetic charm but also facilitate a profound connection with nature, resulting in enhanced user experiences and improved well-being.
Biophilic design represents the application of the biophilia concept - the instinctive human desire to interact with nature - in architecture and aims to create more environmentally friendly and healthier spaces through the use of natural design elements in the built environment. This was first proposed by ecologist Stephen R. Kellert [10] and is widely cited in current studies [6][7].
Research conducted over the last 30 years has shown the positive effects of nature on human health and well-being, supporting the idea that biophilic design is beneficial [11]. Research has provided evidence that the integration of biophilic design principles can yield various positive outcomes such as enhanced mental health, reduced stress levels, improved attention, increased well-being, lower rates of violence and crime, faster recovery in healthcare settings, and even a boost in altruistic behaviour [12].
People who live in environments without nature may experience negative psychological and physical effects [13]. Recent research has examined the application of nature in interior design and its impact on physical and psychological well-being. Fitri, Rachmawati, and Haristianti found that the incorporation of nature, both directly and indirectly, in the interior of a resort hotel can provide a relaxing space and enhance the health and comfort of users.
Increasing evidence substantiates the health advantages attributed to biophilia, prompting researchers to delve into exploring methodologies for integrating its principles into design practice [3]. The objective of biophilic design extends beyond mere mitigation of environmental harm caused by construction, shifting its focus towards the interaction and experiential connection between humans and the natural world.
Efforts have been made to identify key components and patterns of biophilic design, such as the "14 Patterns of Biophilic Design" proposed by Terrapin Bright Green, an environmental consulting firm, which illustrates the connections between nature, human biology, psychology, and design in order to guide designers in creating and evaluating biophilic design projects effectively (Downton et al., 2017; Abo-Sabaa; Abdel Azem; Al-Shanwany and ElIbrashy, 2022).
Biophilic design encompasses three distinct categories -Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space - which serve as a framework for comprehending and facilitating the intentional integration of a wide range of strategies into the built environment [14].
Nature in space patterns
-
i. A visual connection with nature through the presence of natural components and living things.
-
ii. Non-visual connections with nature through stimuli such as sound, touch, smell, and taste that evoke a positive association with nature.
-
iii. Non-rhythmic sensory stimuli that are random and transient and can be statistically analysed.
-
iv. Mild variations in air temperature, airflow, relative humidity, and temperature that mimic natural conditions.
-
v. The presence of water in the environment to enhance the overall perception of a location through sound, sight, or touch.
-
vi. The use of dynamic and diffuse light to mimic
natural lighting conditions.
-
vii. A connection with natural systems and an
understanding of the seasonal and temporal fluctuations that define a healthy ecosystem.
Natural Analogues Patterns
-
i. Biomorphic shapes and patterns that resemble those found in nature are used in biophilic design.
-
ii. The use of natural materials, such as wood or stone, that reflect the local ecosystem or geology, is a key aspect of biophilic design.
-
iii. Creating a sense of complexity and order in the built environment, similar to that found in nature, is an important aspect of biophilic design.
Nature of the space patterns
-
i. Prospect: A view that allows for long-range observation and planning.
-
ii. Refuge: A protected space that allows for withdrawal from the surrounding environment or main activity.
-
iii. Mystery: The appeal of hidden views or other sensory elements that encourage exploration of the surroundings.
-
iv. Risk/Peril: A recognised danger with a reliable safety measure.
To provide a broader perspective on the implementation of nature in resort settings, studies that explore related themes are explored. One such study by Ediae, Egbudom, & Abeng (2022) investigated the adoption of sustainable site strategies in three beach resorts in Lagos.
The results indicated a good implementation of sustainable site planning strategies, with daylight access, open spaces, landscaping, and conservation of cultural heritage being the most adopted strategies. However, green vehicle parking, irrigation, land reuse, and building orientation were identified as the least implemented strategies. The study recommended the efficient implementation of all sustainable site planning strategies, including those least adopted, such as providing electric car
charging parks, clean energy use, adequate site water drainage, reuse of previously occupied sites, and building orientation that maximizes airflow while minimizing heat gain.
In another article, the benefits of the "green building with nature" concept in promoting sustainability in the Matano lakeside area were discussed by (Wasilah, Hildayanti, & Hamzah, 2019). This concept aims to achieve harmony between nature and physical and non-physical design components, thereby avoiding natural destruction. The study emphasized the incorporation of efficient design principles such as energy, water, and material efficiency. Implementation strategies included rainwater utilization, reforestation, and the establishment of playground areas. The article concluded that the use of the "green building with nature" concept principles in the Matano lakeside area not only preserved the local architecture but also provided recreational activities with a focus on natural interaction. Additionally, a paper highlighted the significance of cultural identity and environmental adaptation in the success of resort architecture, using the Kampung Tok Senik Resort as a model for future vernacular resort style development (Hassan, Emalgalfta, & Hassan, 2010). The study identified key factors for improvement, including the adaptation of vernacular style to interior finishes, ceiling, toilet facilities, and bathing facilities. It also emphasized the importance of improved accessibility and the integration of vernacular design elements for ventilation, natural lighting, and artificial lighting.
Comparing these studies to this study, it is observed that there are several similarities and differences. Like this study, the aforementioned studies highlight the importance of incorporating nature in resorts. However, the focus and specific strategies vary. While this study centres on biophilic design, the Lagos study focuses on sustainable site planning strategies, and the Matano lakeside area study emphasizes the "green building with nature" concept. Nevertheless, all studies emphasize the need for a comprehensive implementation of natural eleements to maximize the environmental, social, and cultural benefits in resort settings.
The study by Ediae, Egbudom, & Abeng [8] focused on the adoption of sustainable site strategies in beach resorts. While our study specifically examines biophilic design factors, there is an overlap between sustainable site strategies and biophilic design elements., such as the use of natural construction materials, open spaces, and vegetation within the resorts. These shared elements suggest the need for a comprehensive approach that integrates both sustainable site strategies and biophilic design principles to achieve environmentally friendly and nature-inspired resort environments.
The study by Wasilah, Hildayanti, & Hamzah (2019) discusses the "green building with nature" concept and its application in promoting sustainability in the Matano lakeside area. This concept aligns with the principles of biophilic design, emphasizing the integration of natural elements and harmonious design components. The findings
of our study, such as the focus on natural construction materials, nature-inspired patterns and décor, and the presence of water features, resonate with the principles of the "green building with nature" concept. Both studies emphasize the importance of incorporating efficient design principles, such as energy and water efficiency, to create sustainable and nature-
The paper by Hassan, Emalgalfta, & Hassan (2010) explored the significance of cultural identity and environmental adaptation in resort architecture, using the Kampung Tok Senik Resort as a model. While their focus is on vernacular style development, there are similarities in terms of incorporating natural elements and adaptation to the environment. The findings of our study, particularly the emphasis on privacy, panoramic views, and seamless indoor/outdoor experiences, align with the importance of integrating vernacular design elements for ventilation, natural lighting, and artificial lighting mentioned in the paper.
The overlaps and synergies observed in the findings highlight the need for architects and designers to consider infusing nature and its elements in resorts.
This study was carried out to examine the biophilic design patterns that have been adopted in selected resorts. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to visit selected resorts and investigate the biophilic design strategies that have been implemented, therefore a mixed method of design was employed in this study.
A review of the existing literature helped to identify the biophilic patterns and this informed the development of a schedule for physically identifying these strategies. A survey was also conducted to gather information from the users of the resorts. The variables used in investigating biophilic strategies were culled from Terrapin Bright Green LLC (2016).
This study utilised convenience sampling to select the resorts. The selection of the three resorts was based on a careful evaluation of various factors, ensuring they met the minimum requirements necessary to qualify as suitable research sites within the area. These resorts were chosen as they best matched the criteria for lodging properties to be considered as resorts. The questionnaire distribution was conducted through census sampling, which involved selecting members of the population based on their availability at the given time and proximity to the research site, which in this case are the selected resorts. A simple random sampling method was employed to randomly select respondents from this population.
Table 1 describes the demographics of the respondents of the survey. The total number of participants in this study were seventy-eight. It can be observed that thirty-three (42.3%) of the participants were female, while forty-one
(52.6%) were male. This shows that there were more males than females that participated in the survey.
The age distribution of the participants reveals that 39.7% (31) of the sample population fall in the age bracket of 26 years to 35 years. 21.8% (17) were in between the ages of 16 years to 25 years, 16.7% (13) were between 36 years to 45 years, 15.4% (12) were between 46 years to 55 years, while the lowest population of 5.1% (4) fell below 16 years.
Twenty-nine (37.2%) of the respondents had their highest educational qualification as bachelor’s degree, twenty-four (30.8%) had OND/HND, fourteen (17.9%) had SSCE, while six (7.7%) had their master’s degree. The lowest of the population had primary education and PhD at 2.6% (2) each. This shows that the majority of the respondents were educated.
Thirty-nine (50%) of the respondents were single, thirtyeight (48.7%) were married while only one (1.3%) respondent was widowed. 50% (39) of the respondents were from Resort 1, while 38.5% (30) and 10.3% (8) of the respondents were from Resort 2 and Resort 3 respectively.
TABLE I. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
|
Demographics |
Respondents’ Characteristics |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Gender |
Female |
33 |
42.3 |
|
Male |
41 |
52.6 | |
|
No Response |
4 |
5.1 | |
|
Age |
Below 16 |
4 |
5.1 |
|
16-25 |
17 |
21.8 | |
|
26-35 |
31 |
39.7 | |
|
36-45 |
13 |
16.7 | |
|
46-55 |
12 |
15.4 | |
|
No Response |
1 |
1.3 | |
|
Educational |
Bachelors |
29 |
37.2 |
|
Qualification |
Masters |
6 |
7.7 |
|
OND/HND |
24 |
30.8 | |
|
PhD |
2 |
2.6 | |
|
Primary Education |
2 |
2.6 | |
|
SSCE |
14 |
17.9 | |
|
No Response |
1 |
1.3 | |
|
Marital Status |
Married |
38 |
48.7 |
|
Single |
39 |
50.0 | |
|
Widowed |
1 |
1.3 | |
|
Resort |
Resort 1 |
39 |
50.0 |
|
Resort 2 |
30 |
38.5 | |
|
Resort 3 |
8 |
10.3 | |
|
No Response |
1 |
1.3 | |
|
User type |
Visitor |
40 |
51.3 |
|
Worker |
36 |
46.2 | |
|
No Response |
2 |
2.6 |
The objective of this study was to examine the biophilic strategies that have been adopted in existing resorts. Table 2 presents the mean ranking of the fourteen biophilic patterns adopted generally in all three resorts. Thirty-four variables were used to determine the adoption of these patterns. It can be observed that Dynamic and Diffuse Light (multiple sources of light) is the pattern mostly adopted in the resorts.
TABLE II. MEAN RANKING FOR BIOPHILIC PATTERNS IN ALL RESORTS
|
Descriptive Statistics | ||||
|
No. |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Rank | |
|
Multiple sources of light |
78 |
3.67 |
1.213 |
1st |
|
Views of the outside |
78 |
3.51 |
1.029 |
2nd |
|
Clear and unimpeded view of the space |
78 |
3.44 |
1.169 |
3rd |
|
Elements of nature such as vegetation in the space |
78 |
3.42 |
1.305 |
4th |
|
Views of nature likely to change over seasons |
78 |
3.38 |
1.154 |
5th |
|
Changes in air flow that make you feel like you are outdoors |
78 |
3.36 |
1.057 |
6th |
|
Openable windows or doors apart from the main entry that let in breeze into the space |
78 |
3.33 |
1.158 |
7th |
|
Images or videos depicting nature |
78 |
3.28 |
1.104 |
8th |
|
Furniture that appears to be made of natural materials |
78 |
3.27 |
1.213 |
9th |
|
Windows or skylights that let in light |
78 |
3.26 |
1.304 |
10th |
|
Details reminiscent of nature that make the space interesting and intriguing |
78 |
3.26 |
1.263 |
11th |
|
Changes in ambient temperature that make you feel like you are outdoors |
78 |
3.22 |
1.052 |
12th |
|
Spaces designated for quiet contemplation |
78 |
3.21 |
1.166 |
13th |
|
Changes in light and shadows over time |
78 |
3.21 |
1.155 |
14th |
|
Changes in relative humidity that make you feel like you are outdoors |
78 |
3.18 |
1.041 |
15th |
|
Views from elevated planes over a space or to the outside |
78 |
3.10 |
1.202 |
16th |
|
Use of natural construction materials such as wood or stone |
78 |
3.08 |
1.102 |
17th |
|
Water features such as a river, stream, ocean, pond, water wall, aquarium, or fountain |
78 |
3.04 |
1.167 |
18th |
|
Sensory experience of nature through sound |
78 |
3.04 |
1.200 |
19th |
|
Sensory experience of nature through touch |
78 |
3.03 |
1.195 |
20th |
|
Repeating patterns in the décor, such as windows or floor tiles like those encountered in nature |
78 |
3.00 |
1.117 |
21st |
|
Spaces that are more private than others protected from behind and overhead |
78 |
2.95 |
1.043 |
22nd |
|
Patterns on windows, carpets, wallpapers, or furniture that remind you of something in nature |
78 |
2.95 |
1.127 |
23rd |
|
Periodic sightings or noises of elements of nature such as butterflies flying or birds cawing |
78 |
2.91 |
1.311 |
24th |
|
Sensory experience of nature through smell |
78 |
2.83 |
1.294 |
25th |
|
Colour palettes that remind you of a natural landscape |
77 |
2.83 |
1.342 |
26th |
|
Being able to hear or touch the water |
78 |
2.78 |
1.234 |
27th |
|
Spaces that generate thrills looking at or walking past them |
78 |
2.76 |
1.301 |
28th |
|
Curving walls and pathways that make you want to find out what is beyond |
77 |
2.70 |
1.171 |
29th |
|
Images or artworks that depict water bodies |
78 |
2.64 |
1.319 |
30th |
|
Glass railings or floor to ceiling windows |
78 |
2.63 |
1.320 |
31st |
|
Building forms or hallways with curving edges |
78 |
2.56 |
1.234 |
32nd |
|
Sounds or visual stimuli whose source you cannot identify |
78 |
2.24 |
1.047 |
33rd |
|
Balconies, bridges, or pathways that appear to be risky at first glance |
78 |
2.12 |
1.151 |
34th |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
76 |
A cross tabulation of variables versus demographic information was conducted to examine the relationship between various aspects of biophilic design in resorts and demographic characteristics of the respondents. Pearson's chi-square statistic was used to assess the associations, and the corresponding p-values were evaluated to determine the statistical significance as presented in table 3 below. A value less than 0.05 shows a statistically significant association between the corresponding variables and demographic information. The significant values are highlighted in bold in the table. The table shows that the resort type has the most significant relationship with the variables. Only three variables were not significantly associated with the resort type. The respondents’ gender was found to have a significant relationship with the variable ‘changes in ambient temperature that make you feel like you are outdoors’. Age was a significant factor for the variables ‘sensory experience of nature through smell’ and ‘views of nature likely to change over seasons’. Educational qualification influenced respondents’ experience of these variables; changes in air flow that make you feel like you are outdoors, multiple sources of light, and patterns on windows, carpets, wallpapers, or furniture that remind you of something in nature. Overall, the results indicate that certain variables of biophilic design in resorts are significantly associated with demographic characteristics, particularly resort type.
TABLE III. CROSS-TAB OF VARIABLES VERSUS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
|
Variables/Demog raphic Information |
G |
Ag e |
EQ |
Marita l Status |
Resor t |
User type |
|
Views of the outside |
.96 1 |
.12 9 |
.684 |
.724 |
.001 |
.060 |
|
Elements of nature such as vegetation in the space |
.53 0 |
.60 7 |
.095 |
.252 |
.001 |
.001 |
|
Images or videos depicting nature |
.27 1 |
.95 4 |
.325 |
.642 |
.014 |
.041 |
|
Sensory experience of nature through sound |
.48 6 |
.75 3 |
.670 |
.764 |
.005 |
.134 |
|
Sensory experience of nature through smell |
.17 8 |
.00 3 |
.694 |
.225 |
.001 |
.001 |
|
Sensory experience of |
.76 9 |
.53 0 |
.662 |
.722 |
.001 |
.006 |
nature through
|
touch | ||||||
|
Periodic sightings or noises of elements of nature such as butterflies flying or birds cawing |
.80 2 |
.92 9 |
.175 |
.650 |
.001 |
.006 |
|
Changes in ambient temperature that make you feel like you are outdoors |
.03 7 |
.71 2 |
.784 |
.870 |
.032 |
.653 |
|
Changes in relative humidity that make you feel like you are outdoors |
.11 6 |
.91 2 |
.201 |
.722 |
.002 |
.158 |
|
Changes in air flow that make you feel like you are outdoors |
.07 8 |
.68 8 |
.043 |
.833 |
.161 |
.340 |
|
Openable windows or doors apart from the main entry that let in breeze into the space |
.95 9 |
.77 9 |
.414 |
.001 |
.025 |
.041 |
|
Water features such as a river, stream, ocean, pond, water wall, aquarium, or fountain |
.85 5 |
.24 0 |
.135 |
.788 |
.001 |
.088 |
|
Being able to hear or touch the water |
.83 5 |
.56 4 |
.778 |
.411 |
.183 |
.175 |
|
Images or artworks that depict water bodies |
.63 3 |
.12 2 |
.813 |
.738 |
.047 |
.194 |
|
Windows or skylights that let in light |
.77 5 |
.08 6 |
.625 |
.723 |
.001 |
.716 |
|
Multiple sources of light |
.60 2 |
.26 2 |
.002 |
.232 |
.001 |
.001 |
|
Changes in light and shadows over time |
.65 5 |
.52 9 |
.098 |
.331 |
.001 |
.380 |
|
Views of nature likely to change over seasons |
.87 0 |
.00 1 |
.892 |
.316 |
.001 |
.243 |
|
Building forms or hallways with curving edges |
.54 8 |
.46 5 |
.805 |
.797 |
.001 |
.015 |
|
Patterns on windows, carpets, wallpapers, or furniture that remind you of something in nature |
.88 9 |
.59 4 |
.006 |
.577 |
.277 |
.767 |
|
Use of natural construction materials such as wood or stone |
.84 7 |
.47 3 |
.976 |
.267 |
.002 |
.036 |
|
Furniture that appears to be made of natural materials |
.77 4 |
.65 3 |
.996 |
.791 |
.006 |
.041 |
|
Colour palettes that remind you of a natural landscape |
.47 4 |
.05 3 |
.376 |
.295 |
.001 |
.347 |
|
Repeating patterns in the décor, such |
.70 4 |
.38 7 |
.510 |
.907 |
.001 |
.064 |
|
as windows or floor tiles like those encountered in nature | ||||||
|
Details reminiscent of nature that make the space interesting and intriguing |
.81 0 |
.37 8 |
.991 |
.224 |
.001 |
.360 |
|
Clear and unimpeded view of the space |
.23 0 |
.87 3 |
.096 |
.636 |
.001 |
.045 |
|
Views from elevated planes over a space or to the outside |
.26 6 |
.24 8 |
.544 |
.533 |
.002 |
.688 |
|
Spaces that are more private than others protected from behind and overhead |
.55 2 |
.66 6 |
.377 |
.027 |
.022 |
.339 |
|
Spaces designated for quiet contemplation |
.87 2 |
.56 1 |
.347 |
.808 |
.047 |
.914 |
|
Curving walls and pathways that make you want to find out what is beyond |
.25 8 |
.66 2 |
.959 |
.784 |
.001 |
.253 |
|
Sounds or visual stimuli whose source you cannot identify |
.61 2 |
.23 0 |
.148 |
.614 |
.015 |
.260 |
|
Spaces that generate thrills looking at or walking past them |
.51 9 |
.25 5 |
.579 |
.197 |
.002 |
.053 |
|
Glass railings or floor to ceiling windows |
.78 7 |
.41 3 |
.269 |
.550 |
.032 |
.118 |
|
Balconies, bridges, or pathways that appear to be risky at first glance |
.18 0 |
.19 9 |
.825 |
.473 |
.001 |
.091 |
It was of interest to the study to identify the dimension of biophilic design strategies adopted by the resorts. Factor analysis was employed to determine the patterns that were best adopted in the resorts. The results are shown in subsequent tables.
Table 3 presents the results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin's (KMO) and Bartlett's test that were conducted on 34 biophilic patterns variables. The KMO test measures the proportion of variance in the variables that could be explained by underlying factors and values greater than 0.6 generally indicate that the data is suitable for factor analysis. The Bartlett's test examines the sphericity of the correlation matrix and small values (less than 0.05) of the significance level indicate that a factor analysis on the data could be useful. The results of the tests showed a KMO value of 0.860, a Bartlett's sphericity (chi square) of 1901.511 and a significance level of p<0.05. Overall, the results suggest that the sample size is adequate for modelling factor analysis.
TABLE IV. SAMPLE SUITABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF BIOPHILIC PATTERN DATA
|
Tests |
Results | |
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
.860 | |
|
Bartlett's Test of |
Approx. Chi- |
1901.511 |
|
Sphericity |
Square | |
|
df |
561 | |
|
Sig. |
.000 | |
Table 4 presents the results of a principal component analysis that was conducted on 34 variables of biophilic patterns. Only 7 principal component factors (PCFs) were extracted, which were the ones that had high correlation and an Eigenvalue greater than 1. The study used rotation sum of matrix squared loading to explain the model and the result of the analysis was a total of 24.125, which explained 70.959% of the variance.
TABLE V. EXTRACTED PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTORS (PCFS) FOR BIOPHILIC PATTERNS
Comp Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Squared Loadings
|
Total |
% of Var |
Cmltv% |
Total |
% Var |
Cmltv % | |
|
1 |
14.214 |
41.807 |
41.807 |
14.214 |
41.807 |
41.807 |
|
2 |
2.563 |
7.537 |
49.344 |
2.563 |
7.537 |
49.344 |
|
3 |
2.115 |
6.220 |
55.564 |
2.115 |
6.220 |
55.564 |
|
4 |
1.589 |
4.674 |
60.237 |
1.589 |
4.674 |
60.237 |
|
5 |
1.334 |
3.922 |
64.160 |
1.334 |
3.922 |
64.160 |
|
6 |
1.223 |
3.597 |
67.757 |
1.223 |
3.597 |
67.757 |
|
7 |
1.089 |
3.203 |
70.959 |
1.089 |
3.203 |
70.959 |
|
8 |
.978 |
2.877 |
73.836 | |||
|
9 |
.953 |
2.802 |
76.639 | |||
|
10 |
.800 |
2.353 |
78.991 | |||
|
11 |
.777 |
2.285 |
81.277 | |||
|
12 |
.677 |
1.991 |
83.268 | |||
|
13 |
.622 |
1.830 |
85.098 | |||
|
14 |
.608 |
1.789 |
86.887 | |||
|
15 |
.482 |
1.417 |
88.304 | |||
|
16 |
.423 |
1.245 |
89.548 | |||
|
17 |
.405 |
1.190 |
90.739 | |||
|
18 |
.393 |
1.156 |
91.895 | |||
|
19 |
.351 |
1.033 |
92.928 | |||
|
20 |
.305 |
.897 |
93.825 | |||
|
21 |
.270 |
.795 |
94.620 | |||
|
22 |
.245 |
.720 |
95.340 | |||
|
23 |
.234 |
.689 |
96.029 | |||
|
24 |
.188 |
.554 |
96.583 | |||
|
25 |
.183 |
.538 |
97.121 | |||
|
26 |
.163 |
.479 |
97.600 | |||
|
27 |
.157 |
.460 |
98.061 | |||
|
28 |
.139 |
.408 |
98.469 | |||
|
29 |
.129 |
.379 |
98.848 | |||
|
30 |
.100 |
.296 |
99.143 | |||
|
31 |
.097 |
.287 |
99.430 | |||
|
32 |
.068 |
.200 |
99.630 | |||
|
33 |
.064 |
.188 |
99.818 | |||
|
34 |
.062 |
.182 |
100.000 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
|
Comp |
Initial Eigenvalues |
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|
Total |
% of Var |
Cmltv % |
Total |
% of Var |
Cmltv % | |
|
1 |
14.214 |
41.807 |
41.807 |
5.890 |
17.324 |
17.324 |
|
2 |
2.563 |
7.537 |
49.344 |
3.728 |
10.964 |
28.288 |
|
3 |
2.115 |
6.220 |
55.564 |
3.548 |
10.437 |
38.725 |
|
4 |
1.589 |
4.674 |
60.237 |
3.287 |
9.667 |
48.392 |
|
5 |
1.334 |
3.922 |
64.160 |
3.062 |
9.007 |
57.399 |
|
6 |
1.223 |
3.597 |
67.757 |
2.560 |
7.531 |
64.930 |
|
7 |
1.089 |
3.203 |
70.959 |
2.050 |
6.029 |
70.959 |
|
8 |
.978 |
2.877 |
73.836 | |||
|
9 |
.953 |
2.802 |
76.639 | |||
|
10 |
.800 |
2.353 |
78.991 | |||
|
11 |
.777 |
2.285 |
81.277 | |||
|
12 |
.677 |
1.991 |
83.268 | |||
|
13 |
.622 |
1.830 |
85.098 | |||
|
14 |
.608 |
1.789 |
86.887 | |||
|
15 |
.482 |
1.417 |
88.304 | |||
|
16 |
.423 |
1.245 |
89.548 | |||
|
17 |
.405 |
1.190 |
90.739 | |||
|
18 |
.393 |
1.156 |
91.895 | |||
|
19 |
.351 |
1.033 |
92.928 | |||
|
20 |
.305 |
.897 |
93.825 | |||
|
21 |
.270 |
.795 |
94.620 | |||
|
22 |
.245 |
.720 |
95.340 | |||
|
23 |
.234 |
.689 |
96.029 | |||
|
24 |
.188 |
.554 |
96.583 | |||
|
25 |
.183 |
.538 |
97.121 | |||
|
26 |
.163 |
.479 |
97.600 | |||
|
27 |
.157 |
.460 |
98.061 | |||
|
28 |
.139 |
.408 |
98.469 | |||
|
29 |
.129 |
.379 |
98.848 | |||
|
30 |
.100 |
.296 |
99.143 | |||
|
31 |
.097 |
.287 |
99.430 | |||
|
32 |
.068 |
.200 |
99.630 | |||
|
33 |
.064 |
.188 |
99.818 | |||
|
34 |
.062 |
.182 |
100.000 |
As presented in Table 5, the first factor accounted for 17.324% of the variance in the data and was labelled Nature Inspired Design. The second factor accounted for 10.964% of the variance in the data and was labelled Sensory Connection with Nature The third and fourth factors accounted for 10.437% and 9.667% respectively and were labelled Thrilling Nature Vistas and Light and Shadows respectively. The fifth factor was labelled Privacy and Panoramic Views and accounted for 9.007% of the variance in the data. Finally, the sixth and seventh factors accounting for 7.531% and 6.029% of the variance in the data respectively were labelled Indoor/Outdoor Experience with Air and Water and Open Views respective.
TABLE VI. ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIXA FOR BIOPHILIC PATTERNS
Rotated Component Matrixa
Features Component
Factor 1: Nature Inspired Design Use of natural.774
construction materials such as wood or stone
windows, carpets, wallpapers, or furniture that remind you of something in nature
Repeating patterns .720
in the décor, such as windows or floor tiles like those
|
encountered in nature |
a space or to the outside | |||
|
Furniture that appears to be made of natural materials |
.718 |
Spaces that are more private than others protected |
.780 | |
|
Details reminiscent of nature that make |
.717 |
from behind and overhead | ||
|
the space interesting and intriguing |
Spaces designated for quiet contemplation |
.619 | ||
|
Colour palettes that |
.707 |
Factor 6: Indoor/Outdoor Experience |
with Air and Water | |
|
remind you of a natural landscape |
Being able to hear or touch the water |
.702 | ||
|
Curving walls and pathways that make you want to find out what is beyond |
.581 |
Changes in air flow that make you feel like you are outdoors |
.574 | |
|
Building forms or hallways with curving edges |
.559 |
Changes in relative humidity that make you feel like you are |
.529 | |
|
Images or artworks |
.544 |
outdoors | ||
|
that depict water bodies |
Water features such as a river, stream, |
.520 |
Factor 2: Sensory Connection with Nature ocean, pond, water
Sensory experience .708 wall, aquarium, or
of nature through fountain
|
smell |
Factor 7: Open Views | |||
|
Sensory experience of nature through |
.648 |
Views of the .596 outside | ||
|
touch |
Openable windows .596 | |||
|
Sensory experience of nature through sound |
.646 |
or doors apart from the main entry that let in breeze into the | ||
|
Elements of nature |
.623 |
space | ||
|
such as vegetation in the space |
Clear and .509 unimpeded view of | |||
|
Factor 3: Thrilling Nature Vistas |
the space | |||
|
Sounds or visual stimuli whose source you cannot identify |
.693 |
These results imply that these seven variables have been applied in existing resorts namely: | ||
|
Balconies, bridges, or pathways that appear to be risky at first glance |
.686 |
| ||
|
Periodic sightings or noises of elements of nature such as butterflies flying or birds cawing |
.642 |
The first factor includes features such as the use of natural | ||
|
Spaces that generate thrills looking at or walking past them |
.619 |
construction materials like wood or stone, patterns, and décor reminiscent of nature, furniture that appears to be made of natural materials, and colour palettes inspired by natural landscapes. The second factor encompasses sensory | ||
|
Views of nature likely to change over seasons |
.581 |
experiences of nature through smell, touch, and sound, as well as the presence of natural elements such as vegetation | ||
|
Glass railings or floor to ceiling windows |
.569 |
within the space. Factor three involves elements that evoke excitement and intrigue, such as unidentified sounds or visual stimuli, | ||
|
Factor 4: Light and Shadows | ||||
|
Multiple sources of light |
.696 |
sightings or noises of nature, and views that change over | ||
|
Changes in light and shadows over time |
.695 |
seasons. The fourth factor emphasizes the importance of multiple sources of light and changes in light and shadows over time to create a dynamic and engaging environment. | ||
|
Factor 5: Privacy and Panoramic Views |
Faetnr five f∩cnses on view¾ from elevated nlanes snares | |||
|
Views from elevated planes over |
.802 |
p, that offer privacy and protection, and areas designated for | ||
quiet contemplation. focuses on views from elevated planes, spaces that offer privacy and protection, and areas designated for quiet contemplation. Factor six includes features that simulate an indoor/outdoor experience, such as being able to hear or touch water, changes in airflow and relative humidity, and the presence of water features. The seventh factor highlights the importance of unobstructed views of the outside and the inclusion of openable windows or doors to allow for a refreshing breeze. These findings indicate that these seven factors, representing different aspects of biophilic design, have been applied in existing resorts. The findings of this study indicate that biophilic design strategies have been adopted to a significant extent in the selected resorts. However, it is apparent that the implemented strategies may fall short in fully harnessing the potential benefits of biophilic design. Observation reveals that these strategies often manifest as isolated experiences of nature, rather than a comprehensive integration of diverse approaches that would yield the desired effect.
The study examined the biophilic design patterns that have been adopted in the selected resorts. A questionnaire was distributed to the users of the resorts to evaluate the level of adoption of biophilic design strategies. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the biophilic design patterns were adopted in the resorts based on 5 Likert-type scale.
The findings of this study indicate that biophilic design strategies have been adopted to a significant extent in the selected resorts. However, it is evident that the strategies implemented may be insufficient in fully harnessing the potential benefits of biophilic design. The analysis of the buildings reveals that the application of biophilic strategies often occurs as isolated experiences of nature, rather than a holistic integration of various approaches that would yield the desired effect. Architects should aim for a cohesive integration of various biophilic design elements and strategies to create a truly immersive and impactful biophilic environment within resorts.
To achieve the full potential of biophilic design, it is crucial to recognize the importance of integrating all the elements and strategies into a cohesive whole. The successful implementation of biophilic design requires a comprehensive and integrated approach that considers the synergy among various components. By considering the interplay of nature-inspired design, sensory connections with nature, thrilling nature vistas, light and shadows, privacy and panoramic views, indoor/outdoor experiences with air and water, and open views, it ensures that all aspects work together synergistically to enhance users' experiences and well-being.
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that biophilic design strategies are integrated into the design process from the very beginning, rather than being treated as an afterthought. Early integration allows for a more thoughtful and costeffective implementation of biophilic design principles. By incorporating biophilic elements from the outset, architects
and designers can optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of these strategies, resulting in long-term cost savings and enhanced user experiences.
The findings of this study indicate that biophilic design strategies have been adopted to a significant extent in the selected resorts. Architects should strive for a more comprehensive integration of biophilic design elements, recognizing the importance of a holistic approach. It is highly recommended that biophilic design strategies are integrated into the design process from the very beginning, rather than being treated as an afterthought.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the Covenant University Centre for Research and Development (CUCRID) for their support in terms of funding, research facilities, and a conducive environment, enabling the successful completion and publication of this study. Gratitude is also extended to the management of the resorts selected for their valuable assistance during the data collection phase. Additionally, the authors express their appreciation to the researchers whose previous work was referenced in this study.
References
-
[1] Eddy, F., & Harahap, B. (2019). Post Modern Architecture Application on One Tree Hill Hotel Resort. International Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 224-231.
-
[2] Subagya, S., & Trimarianto, C. (2017). Application of Ecological Architecture Principles in Eco Resort Design at Pemenang, Lombok. Journal of A Sustainable Global South, 2579-6062.
-
[3] Zebua, V. C., & Putra, Y. (2022). The Design of Eco-friendly Resort, Asu Island . International Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 199 - 208.
-
[4] Downton, P., Jones, D., Zeunert, J., & Roös, P. (2017).
”Biophilic Design Applications: Putting Theory and Patterns Into Built Environment Practice. The International Conference on Design and Technology (pp. 59-65). Knowledge E.
-
[5] Bolten, B., & Barbiero, G. (2020). Biophilic Design: How to Enhance Physical and Psychological Health and Wellbeing in our Built Environments. Visions for Sustainability, 13, 11-16.
-
[6] Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, wellbeing, and sustainability: A critical review. In Frontiers of Architectural Research (Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 114–141). Higher Education Press Limited Company.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006
-
[7] Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, wellbeing, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114-141.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006
-
[8] Ediae, O. J., Egbudon, J. C., & Abeng, F. J. (2022). Adoption of Sustainable Site Planning Strategies by Beach Resorts in Lagos, Nigeria. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1054 012035. IOP Publishing.
-
[9] Das, G. (2021). Resort Definition and Classifications.
Academia.edu. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/7274542/Resort_Defintion_and_Cl assifications_
-
[10] Kellert, S., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The practice of biophilic design. Retrieved from www.biophilic-design.com
-
[11] Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A Review of
Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings, 948-963.
-
[12] Yassein, G., & Ebrahiem, S. (2018). Biophilic Design in the Built Environment to Improve Well-Being: A Systematic Review of Practices. Journal of Urban Research, 30.
-
[13] Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4), 950-969. doi:10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950
-
[14] Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design Improving Health & Well-Being In The Built Environment. New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
Discussion and feedback