Biophilic Urbanism

Designing Resilient Communities for the Future

Phillip James Tabb

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000297225
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architektur
• Subtopic: Nachhaltigkeit in der Architektur

Biophilic Urbanism provides readers with the tools to create more nature-based urban environments that are climate positive, sustainable, and healthy. The principles of biophilia are intended to support appreciation and direct engagement with nature, to responsibly utilize on-site natural resources, and to plan according to climatic conditions and local ecological processes. It seeks to create resilient and equitable human places capable of providing critical life-support functions and a strong sense of community, and to foster experiences that raise the human spirit creating a sense of awe. Twenty-five pattern attributes are defined and explored, each of which contributes to these goals.

Because of the dire necessity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, Biophilic Urbanism includes discussion of our need for connections, both to nature and one another, and the physical characteristics of cities and buildings relative to the contagious qualities of the air-borne virus.

Case studies, found throughout the world, are presented illustrating detailed biophilic planning and design strategies. The book will be of use to practitioners and students in the fields of natural and social sciences, behavioral science and psychology, environmental engineering, health and wellness professionals, architecture, landscape architecture, interior architecture, and planning.

Part 1PRINCIPLES

1INTRODUCTION

BIOPHILIA

Biophilia is an emerging discipline within the confluence of the fields of natural and social sciences, philosophy, anthropology, public health, biology, evolutionary psychology, environmental and civil engineering, planning, urban design, landscape architecture, architecture, and interior design. Biophilia’s epistemology derives from the two Greek terms bio meaning “life,” and philia meaning “affection or friendly feeling toward.”¹ Biophilia is defined as the love of life. It is the inborn affinity human beings have for other life forms.² Many proponents of biophilia have posited this relationship between humans and nature in several ways. Some describe it as the tendency to affiliate, interact or be closely associated with forms of life in nature. Others describe it as a psychological orientation to the alive and vital. And finally, this attraction is considered to be innate, subconscious, and evinced in daily life. Life is interpreted broadly, from life processes and connections to nature to living organisms or to all life forms. In part, this attraction is ascribed to abstract manifestations – the diversity of shapes, forms, patterns, and colors found in the living natural world. There are even broader explanations of biophilia that span from planetary systems to grains of sand. Expressed in these ways, biophilia supports the mystery, fascination, and interest we have to connect to nature in beneficial ways, which includes connecting to ourselves.

In Edward O. Wilson’s Biophilic Hypothesis several concepts are worth examining. The idea of “innate or inborn tendencies” toward nature and life and life-like processes is considered to be genetically inherited memory gained throughout human biological evolution. Biophilia ranges between extremes from attraction to aversion, from awe to indifference, and from peacefulness to fear-driven anxiety.³ For example, the idea of “affiliation” is rooted in unconscious or irrational emotional responses, having proximate manifestations, such as survival-specific behaviors like fight or flight. These manifestations are represented by responses to the dangers, such as the fear of snakes, spiders, or wolves, or having the attraction to colorful sunsets, and flora and fauna, or preferences for finding food or a safe habitat. It also includes issues of language acquisition, mate selection, and infidelity. Yet, biophilic design generally seeks to advance the positive characteristics of the affiliation and that our relationship is a beneficial one. However, more than that, Erich Fromm would argue that a biophilous orientation expresses in the whole person as an entire way of being.⁴

Is biophilia strictly a human experience or does it extend beyond us? Where did it originate? The savannas of tropical Africa were presumably the habitat-specific locations of our species.⁵ The Savanna Hypothesis, put forward by Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace in the 1800s, explains that in early human development apes (chimpanzees and bonobos) migrated from lush forests to the savanna. This location was preferable because of its open spaces that were uniform, with grasses, fresh water features, wetlands, woodlands, evidence of nearby animals, flowering and fruiting plants, and scattered climbable trees as in the Rift Valley in East Africa during the Pleistocene period (1.8 million years ago).⁶ Today, the Great Rift Valley has been a rich source of hominid fossils, allowing for the study of human evolution. The savanna facilitated a survival advantage, and as a consequence it is suggested that these ancestors transitioned from an arboreal lifestyle to one on the open grassland. This led to the favorable evolutionary trait of an upright posture (bipedalism) and walking, suggesting that natural selection resulted in human development with an adaptive mind, problem-solving ability, and love of life. The Savanna Hypothesis would further suggest that this first evolutionary step would also include not only an affiliation and adaptation to the environmental characteristic of this landscape, but also a sense of beauty about it. To Wilson, these land features included open grassland with abundant animal life; undulating topography with vantage points above and protective caves below; and streams that provided nourishment, attraction to other animals, and a defensive border for protection.⁷

According to Kaplan and Kaplan, landscapes today that resemble savannas or are parklike are preferred.⁸ The Savanna Hypothesis posits that those individuals who comprehended and appreciated the value of their native landscape survived and multiplied in greater numbers than those who did not.⁹ An opposing view asserted that the terrestrial savannas did not play a significant role in human development, and our ancestors preferred seasonal wooded ecosystems, such as those suggested in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and the researches of Richard Wrangham.¹⁰ The Lovejoy Hypothesis suggested that the need to have free arms in order to carry food was the determinant that led to bipedalism.¹¹ Peter Rodman and Henry McHenry theorized that it was climate change that caused the shrinking forests, instigating the migration to grassier lands.¹² And finally, according to Beery and Jonssen, the Topophilia Hypothesis, an expansion of the Biophilic Hypothesis, extends the affiliation of nature with non-human nature and place attachment.¹³ This seems relevant to biophilic urbanism, which is also placed-based.

Does this mean that biophilia is exclusively a human experience? It is easy to observe similar behaviors in wild and domesticated life-forms around us. It is uncanny how house cats can find the safest and warmest spots with great surveillance. Erich Fromm would argue that it is our “awareness” of the connection to nature that renders it a human, rather than an animal, experience. This self-awareness creates a separation, and perhaps intensifies the biophilic attraction towards regaining a unity with nature. Regardless of which hypothesis is ultimately correct, the relationship between human development and advantage-settings suggests a genetically based connection to biophilia and upholds the human affiliation with favorable natural environmental conditions. Negative natural phenomena exist, and instead of “affiliating” with them, we tend to “adapt” or “deal” with them. Peter Kahn asks whether these positive/negative extremes reconcile one another.¹⁴ Homo erectus then begins the Biophilic Hypothesis and the human–nature relationship. Evolutionary development and survival were influenced by connections to advantageous landscape features, such as access to water, plant and animal life, natural defenses, and sufficient views to warn of potential approaching threats – all considered recent biophilic patterns today. If we fast-forward to today, what are the survival instincts and attractions for contemporary culture? How do world population, globalization, and urbanization affect the Biophilic Hypothesis?

Ancient societies, such as the Amazonian, the Aboriginal, and Native Americans saw themselves as part of, not separate, from nature. Everyday life and survival were woven together with a respect for natural systems, organisms, and natural food supplies. There also is evidence of biophobia or the fear of nature, where humans are vulnerable to predation, and the fear of snakes (ophidiophobia), spiders (arachnophobia), and poisonous plants (botanophobia). Even with the advent of animal husbandry (cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs) around 15,000 years ago, and widespread settled farming around 12,500 years ago, there existed a balanced and respectful relationship to nature.¹⁶ Some speculate that humans saw themselves apart from nature – a homocentric paradigm, possibly caused by religious beliefs, the industrial revolution, or even the fossil fuel era – and the Earth and its natural bounty were seen as a commodity and something to be exploited. Human populations expanded, territories across the globe were occupied, and the natural resources were consumed. We eventually became dependent upon fossil fuels, and we transformed into an urbanized culture, ultimately moving inside buildings for the duration of most of our lives.

Ancient cultures lived closer to nature. There is further speculation that the reason humans now view themselves as separate from nature is through natural selection, to favor intellectual endeavors rather than physical ones. Major consequences of this evolutionary change are the enormous increase in population, the degradation of natural resources, the development of unsustainable consumption patterns, and the emergence of climate change. The interest in biophilia is beginning to reverse these trends, as exemplified in Elonda Clay’s comment, “Gardens and landscapes immerse humans in the cycles of nature, life, death, and rebirth, growing seasons, the rising sun and waning moon, planting seeds,...