G1.5.EX4

Designing for Well-being:

The Green Buildings in Modern Design

Summary

As modern architecture has begun to seek sustainable solutions to promote well-being, influenced by contemporary design concepts and environmental issues, green building has become an important practice where the design of architectural spaces significantly affects public health and individual well-being. The ability of green buildings to sustainably realise increased well-being has become a topic of debate. This essay argues that green building can enhance well-being through natural elements and that active engagement can amplify the well-being benefits of natural elements. The essay concludes that green buildings are designed for humanistic and sustainable concepts and can enhance the well-being of residents.

Introduction

The relationship between the living environment and well-being has existed since the Paleolithic era, and the interaction between humans and buildings has changed each other.1

Rapid industrialisation and urbanisation in the 20th century had a negative impact on human living and working conditions, and the concept of modern design emerged as a response to the problems of the age.2 Modern design emphasises function over form, aiming to improve the quality of life for all people by creating good designs that can be mass-produced.3 Buildings are the main spaces within cities that house the production and living of their inhabitants. Statistically, human beings spend 85-90% of their lives in buildings; therefore, the building environment directly impacts the well-being of all human beings.4

Against this backdrop, the emergence of green architecture as a synonym for sustainability in modern architecture is a natural progression of the modern design philosophy. (Fig 1)

In the book Are We Human, co-authored by architectural historians Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley, the authors mention that modern design promotes a human-centred

approach, a natural way for humans to protect humans, but that modern architecture is reshaping human well-being as it protects humans.5 Whether or not green architecture, as an emerging tool, can sustainably achieve improved well-being has been debated.

This essay presents two arguments on this topic. Firstly, green buildings invite natural elements into the living space, which improves the comfort and well-being of the inhabitants; secondly, active participation in the design and renovation of green buildings can improve personal well-being, thus contributing to the improvement of the design of green buildings and the realisation of sustainable design.This essay concludes that green buildings are designed to promote the concepts of humanism and sustainability and can improve the well-being of residents.

Literature Review

Since the emergence of biophilia hypothesis, much literature has begun to investigate the link between the environment and the psyche. The American environmental psychologists Rachel Kaplan and Stephen Kaplan summarised the results of their investigations in 1989. They pioneered the Attention Restoration Theory (ART), which suggests that human contact with natural elements can reduce stress and evoke a stronger sense of satisfaction. In the workspace, natural elements can also relieve the mental fatigue of office workers and enhance their cognitive function.6

This conclusion laid the groundwork for research into the impact of natural elements on well-being and design principles in green buildings, and in 2003, research by German architect Thomas R. Herzog and others assessed the restorative components of urban and natural environments,

demonstrating that natural environments are more resilient than urban environments.7

After the Kaplan's developed the theory of ART, Terry Hartig et al. demonstrated the positive psychological effects of being in natural environments in 1991.8(Fig 2) Subsequently, several studies began to demonstrate that different natural elements (e.g., light, plants, water) can positively affect different aspects of well-being in different kinds of spaces.

For example, in 1994, Roger Ulrich demonstrated that patients' access to natural views through windows aided physical recovery in hospitals.9

Experiments by Frances E Kuo and William C Sullivan showed that plants in public housing spaces can reduce crime and aggression.10

At the same time, the development of modern design concepts has also influenced the design

Fig 2. Part of the Kaplan's ART experiments scenes in 1991

of green buildings. In 1993, Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka systematically summarised the principles and practices of participatory design, emphasising the importance of userinitiated design.11 In 2021, Danlei Zhang and Tu Yong expanded the integrated theoretical framework based on the well-being model and environmental psychology, expanding the integrated theoretical framework. Research has shown that physical green features have a more significant impact on residents, such as greenery. These features can help improve well-being and happiness and motivate residents to participate actively. In contrast, non-physical green features, such as energy efficiency, have less impact on residents.12

However, some research studies have also suggested the opposite. Andrew Thatcher and Karen Milner's experiments showed that

green buildings did not significantly improve the psychological well-being of employees, thus suggesting that designers should focus on specific design features.13 Richard M. Ryan et al.'s (2010) study suggests that simulated or manmade natural elements within a building may not provide the same psychological benefits as real natural environments.14

Theoretical framework

In the context of modern design, theoretical frameworks such as sustainable design, nature-friendly design, environmental psychology, and participatory design are critical in fostering the development of green buildings. These ideas are concerned not only with the function and form of the structure, but also with how architectural design can be used to produce a living environment that is conducive to human health.Sustainable design in green building is utilized to produce healthier and more comfortable indoor spaces by including ecologically friendly materials, energyefficient technologies, and recycling. However, the initial version of the Green Building Reference Standard was utilized as a building-centered checklist to establish important sustainable design ideas.

Herwagen, an environmental psychologist from the United States, suggested that human interests should be the focus of green building research, while Wilson's proposed biophilic design demonstrated that contact with nature is critical to human physical and mental health. It modifies the intrinsic interaction between the built environment's design process and embodies the inherent connection between humans and nature. 15 16

Heerwagen et al. developed the biophilic design theory in 2.000 in conjunction with Wilson's biophilic hypothesis, which emphasizes the incorporation of natural aspects into architectural design to improve people's relationship with nature and increase health and well-being. Green vegetation, natural light, and landscape vistas are used to create architectural

spaces that are more in tune with their surroundings.17

Furthermore, environmental psychology seeks to explain how individuals engage with the built environment, the fact that humans are inextricably linked to a physical location, and the mutual and critical influence of people and place. Environmental psychologists Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan created theories of attention restoration and stress recovery to explain why people feel healthier and happier in natural settings.18

Participatory design in architectural practice involves residents in the planning, design, and decision-making processes to ensure that the building satisfies their requirements and preferences, increases their sense of

19

belonging and happiness with the building, and adds to their well-being.

Combining these theories, we refer to Danlei et al.'s pro-environmental behavioral framework (Fig 3) to integrate these theories into a cohesive framework for promoting well-being (Fig 4), which provides an important theoretical basis for our study of green buildings' contribution to promoting human well-being.20

Design for Well-being

1. Designing with natural elements promotes human well-being

1.1 Incorporating natural elements into green building design will promote objective well-being

Architecture has a long history of incorporating natural elements into its designs, as evidenced by prior examples(Fig 5). Incorporating environment-friendly components into green building design, such as the utilization of natural light, ventilation, and enhanced connectivity between buildings (indoors) and nature (outdoors), can benefit human health. Humans spend the majority of their time working and living indoors, and one of the most important aspects of the human advantages of green buildings is the quality of the indoor environment.Joseph et al. demonstrated that green buildings that

incorporate natural elements may achieve a higher level of indoor environmental quality than conventional buildings and that occupants of green buildings typically have better indoor environmental quality, which leads to improved health, such as fewer respiratory symptoms and greater satisfaction with the living or working environment. 21 Ryan et al. stated that natural lighting and green landscaping make living spaces more comfortable and pleasant.22

According to Xue et al23, incorporating biophilic design into green buildings promotes the perception that contact between the constructed and natural environments might alleviate stress, anxiety, and depression while also improving mental health. The presence of natural components produces a more pleasant and personal environment, which aids in the strengthening of emotional

Fig 5. Examples of integrating plants, water or similar natural forms into buildings

Design for Well-being

[Source: (a) Hanging Garden of Babylon (b) Antoni Gaudí’s Casa Batllo; (c) Le Corbusier's Immeublesvillas; (d) Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater]

bonds among residents and the community. As a result, incorporating natural elements into green buildings not only improves the quality of the living environment, but also improves the residents’ physical and mental health, promotes the development of social relationships, and thus creates a healthier, happier, and more fulfilling life for the residents.

1.2 Incorporating natural elements into green building design will promote subjective well-being

Incorporating natural components into green building design, such as natural light and green plants, can assist deliver richer and more varied sensory stimulation while also encouraging the development and strengthening of cognitive capabilities. Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s Attention Restoration

Theory proposes that contact with the natural world can increase attention, memory, and creativity, as well as individuals’ cognitive levels.24Zhong et al. propose that putting green features into buildings and connecting them to the local natural environment can produce a “sense of place” and a “sense of community,” which can lead to personal identification, a sense of belonging, and cohesion. 25It can not only improve people’s perspective and experience of the surroundings, but it can also encourage them to embrace healthier and more positive behaviours.

For example, by shifting from the concept of occupants as passive recipients to occupants who actively contribute to their comfort.26Incorporating natural features into green building design improves subjective well-being, creates healthier, more comfortable, and enjoyable living spaces, and meets people’s requirements for a high quality of life.

Design for Well-being

2.Active participation amplifies the wellbeing benefits

2.1 Active participation places more emphasis on personal well-being than passive participation

Active participation is a national movement that expresses the behaviour of residents who voluntarily participate in the green design and maintenance of green buildings, for example, residents will consider how to better invite biophilic elements into their living spaces. According to Choguill, active participation in urban development enhances longevity by strengthening community ties and increasing residents' sense of ownership and responsibility to proactively maintain their living environment.27Passive participation is a government- and

designer-driven behaviour, where residents only receive information but have no decision-making power. For example, multidisciplinary experts such as architects and landscape architects are involved in the structural technical and aesthetic design of green buildings, and Elizabeth OjoFafore et al. argue that passive participation allows a wide range of people to benefit from green buildings, and is therefore more inclusive, which is in line with modern design concepts from a popular perspective.28

However, green buildings under modern design are more focused on individual preferences, which means they can be customised. Erwin Hofman et al. have articulated that builders customise their clients' living spaces according to individual habits and preferences, thereby optimising

personal comfort and health.29 Thus, in terms of impact on personal well-being, active engagement is an accelerator for passive engagement, which more precisely enhances the benefits of passive engagement for human well-being.

2.2 Active participation places more emphasis on personal well-being than passive participation

After a number of researchers, including kaplan, demonstrated that biophilic elements can improve the well-being of residents by increasing the comfort of the living environment, active participation in green building behaviours has also been shown to directly encourage residents to interact with biophilic elements in a way that positively influences their subjective well-being. In

2009, Way Inn Koay and Denise Dillon examined the impact of community wellbeing on horticultural activities, showing that residents who engaged in horticultural activities had significant positive effects on both physical and psychological wellbeing, particularly subjective well-being.30 The effects of active participation were a sense of self-gratification and a clear sense of responsibility, and these positive psychological activities made people more willing to actively think about and participate in the design of green buildings to make them greener.

Passive participation is designed for the well-being of a broad group of people, architects and engineers will improve the building design according to the needs of a group of people, residents can benefit

from it but cannot adjust it again according to their individual needs, however, green buildings with active participation can bring more subjective emotional value to promote the improvement of sustainable structures.

Theoretical Sources Support

According to Heerwagen’s book, the key to green building is not how green it is, but how it is made green. She reminds out that, in the past, cost and resource utilisation were the primary issues in green building design. She emphasized that in previous studies on green building design, cost and resource utilisation were always the primary considerations, whereas green technologies and design strategies will improve the quality of the indoor environment, making green buildings more conducive to human well-being than buildings that use standard practices. As a result, she believes that human well-being should be a key priority in green building research.31 This provides context for our argument.

philic in architecture has been developed and applied to Biophilic design as a guide to meet the desire for “nature” in the building to cause people to interact with the natural environment in the built environment. This has focused people’s attention on the interaction of humans and the natural environment in the constructed environment. It is critical to investigate how green buildings may interact with the natural environment to improve human well-being. It lays a solid foundation for our research hypothesis.27Xue, Zhong, et al. have did research on the use of Biophilic design in green buildings, arguing that it would assist promote health and wellness.32 33

of Michigan, investigates the human experience of contact with natural surroundings from an environmental psychology perspective, helping to explain why people feel healthier and happier in natural situations and providing insights into understanding.34

The proposed Attention Restoration Theory lends theoretical credence to our claim that incorporating natural components into design improves cognition and consequently human well-being.

Stephen R. and others’ work on biophilic design is significant. The concept of Bio-

This lends credence to our claim that including natural aspects in design improves human well-being.Stephan Kaplan, an environmental psychologist at the University

Danlei’s research offers empirical evidence on the benefits of green buildings on pro-environmental behavior and well-being, as well as a framework for pro-environmental behavior research that implies green buildings can encourage people to embrace ecologically friendly behaviors. It not only supplies examples and data to back up our

Theoretical Sources Support

theory, but it also serves as the foundation for our theoretical research.8It not only gives instances and a theoretical basis for our theory, but it also argues that green active participation prioritizes personal joy over passive involvement.

Ryan et al.’s research confirms the uplifting effect of outside natural surroundings on individuals, i.e., the good impact of natural habitats on personal health and well-being.35and Joseph, G., Allen, Piers et al.36 conducted a comprehensive investigation of the association between green buildings and health, which supports our belief that green building-promoted customer service well-being has a favorable influence. And Allen’s integration of discussions about buildings, energy, health, climate, and resilience in this book, Healthy Buildings, which

argues that green and health goals are not in conflict, and that green buildings that focus on human well-being and the environment are a win for all,37 provides strong support for our building argument.

Luck et al. provide the most recent research and developments in green buildings, as well as the concept of human-centered design.38 These provide different perspectives of thinking for our thesis, demonstrate cutting-edge scientific research, and serve as significant references for our investigation into the future direction of green building design in terms of well-being to stimulate participatory design.

Huming et al. conducted a brain neuroscience test to investigate perceptions of three design components defined in the Green

Building Design Guidelines: illumination, vistas, and spatial layout, and found that people preferred constructed environments with green features.39 The findings indicate that people prefer green characteristics in the built environment, adding new views and empirical support to this paper’s assertion that green building design improves and promotes people’s mental health and sense of well-being.

Discussion

Modern design concepts emphasise minimalism and functionality. In modern architecture, the proposition of "less is more" guides the efficient use of space and materials, and large windows and open floor plans connect the natural outdoor environment to the interior, enhancing the natural lighting and ventilation of interior spaces. These concepts allow architects and engineers to determine the sustainability of a building during the design process of a green building.

In the context of modern design, the biophilic hypothesis put forward by Edward O. Wilson explains the connection between the human psyche and the natural environment, suggesting that human beings have an intrinsic affinity for nature.40 Pronatural design is a combination of the

biophilic hypothesis and modern design. Pro-natural design integrates natural elements such as natural light, vegetation, and natural materials that directly impact human well-being. It is the foundation of green building design theory.

With the known positive effects of natural elements on the psyche, psychological theories such as Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) explain the restorative effects of nature on the human mind. ART suggests that natural elements help cognitive abilities blunted by urban living. SRT builds on this by showing that natural elements also bring about positive emotions, reducing stress and anxiety.41 42Yet another voice is critical of modern design. Some theorists have begun to criticise modern design

Discussion

as leading to impersonal spaces and disconnected from the user's needs. At the same time, with the quest for sustainability in design, user participation is considered as a way to design sustainable architecture. There are two ways to incorporate natural elements in buildings: through green infrastructure design, such as roof gardens with government support, and through the greening of indoor spaces with the participation of residents in the design.(Fig 6) (Fig 7) Biophilic elements positively impact well-being, and user-initiated projects will increase subjective wellbeing more than government-orientated actions, thus making residents more willing to improve green buildings, leading to sustainable building design.

Thus, biophilic and user-engaged designs

form a theoretical framework for green buildings that enhance well-being. This theoretical framework not only supports environmental sustainability but also creates healthier living experiences. Through this intersection of disciplines, green buildings with modern design concepts can greatly contribute to well-being benefits.

Conclusion

Image Credits

Fig 1

PxP Design Workshop Co. 2023. “House of Screens / PXP Design Workshop Co.” ArchDaily. March 12, 2023. https://www.archdaily.com/997479/ house-of-screens-pxp-design-workshop-co?ad_ medium=office_landing&ad_name=article.

Fig 2

Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

Fig 3

Zhang, Danlei, and Yong Tu. 2021. “Green Building, Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: Evidence from Singapore.” Cities 108 (January): 102980. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2020.102980.

Fig 4

Drawn by author

Fig 5

Zhong, Weijie, et al. “Biophilic Design in

Architecture and Its Contributions to Health, WellBeing, and Sustainability: A Critical Review.” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 11, no. 1, Aug. 2021, pp. 114–141,

Fig 6

sohailkhan2k22. 2024. “The Art of Vertical Garden Maintenance: Craftsmanship and Care.” Green.org. January 30, 2024. https://green.org/2024/01/30/theart-of-vertical-garden-maintenance-craftsmanshipand-care/.

Fig 7

Fredericks, Murray, Michael Lassman, and Ryan Ng. 2019. “Aquas Perma Solar Firma.” CplusC Architects + Builders. 2019. https://cplusc.com.au/ project/aquas-perma-solar-firma.

Endnotes

1.Cedeño-Laurent, J.G., A. Williams, P. MacNaughton, X. Cao, E. Eitland, J. Spengler, and J. Allen. 2018. “Building Evidence for Health: Green Buildings, Current Science, and Future Challenges.” Annual Review of Public Health 39 (1): 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044420.

2. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. 2016. Are We Human? : Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich, Switzerland: Lars Mul̈ler.

3. Carpenter, Megan, and Steven Hetcher. 2014. “FUNCTION over FORM: BRINGING the FIXATION REQUIREMENT into the MODERN ERA.” Fordham Law Review 82: 179–229.

4. Apanaviciene, Rasa, Rokas Urbonas, and Paris A. Fokaides. 2020. “Smart Building Integration into a Smart City: Comparative Study of Real Estate Development.” Sustainability 12 (22): 9376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12229376.

5. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. 2016. Are We Human? : Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich, Switzerland: Lars Mul̈ler.

6. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

7. Herzog, Thomas R., Colleen, P. Maguire, and Mary B. Nebel. 2003. “Assessing the Restorative Components of Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2): 159–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5.

8. Hartig, Terry, Marlis Mang, and Gary W. Evans. 1991.

“Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences.” Environment and Behavior 23 (1): 3–26. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916591231001.

9. Ulrich, Roger. 1984. “View through Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science 224 (4647): 420–21. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402.

10. Kuo, Frances E, and William C Sullivan. 2001. “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior 33 (3): 343–67.

11. Schuler, Douglas, and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design : Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

12. Zhang, Danlei, and Yong Tu. 2021. “Green Building, Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: Evidence from Singapore.” Cities 108 (January): 102980. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102980.

13. Thatcher, Andrew, and Karen Milner. 2012. “The Impact of a ‘Green’ Building on Employees’ Physical and Psychological Wellbeing.” Work 41 (Supplement 1): 3816–23. https://doi. org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0683-3816.

14. Ryan, Richard M., Netta Weinstein, Jessey Bernstein, Kirk Warren Brown, Louis Mistretta, and Marylène Gagné. 2010. “Vitalizing Effects of Being Outdoors and in Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 159–68. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009.

15.Heerwagen Judith, “Green Buildings, Organizational Success and Occupant Productivity,” Building Research & Information 28, no. 5-6 (September 2000): 353–67, https://doi.

org/10.1080/096132100418500.

16.Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

17. Heerwagen, Judith H, Stephen R Kellert, and Martin L Mador. 2008. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, Nj: Wiley.

18. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

19. Luck, Rachael. 2018. “Participatory Design in Architectural Practice: Changing Practices in Future Making in Uncertain Times.” Design Studies 59 (November): 139–57. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003.

Zhang, Danlei, and Yong Tu. 2021.Green building, proenvironmental behavior and well-being: Evidence from Singapore

20. Allen, Joseph G., Piers MacNaughton, Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent, Skye S. Flanigan, Erika Sita Eitland, and John D. Spengler. 2015. “Green Buildings and Health.” Current Environmental Health Reports 2 (3): 250–58. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y.

21.Ryan, Richard M., Netta Weinstein, Jessey Bernstein, Kirk Warren Brown, Louis Mistretta, and Marylène Gagné. 2010a. “Vitalizing Effects of Being Outdoors and in Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 159–68. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009.

22.Xue, Fei, Stephen SiuYu Lau, Zhonghua Gou, Yifan Song,

Endnotes

and Boya Jiang. 2019. “Incorporating Biophilia into Green Building Rating Tools for Promoting Health and Wellbeing.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 76 (May): 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.004.

23.Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

24.Zhong, Weijie, Torsten Schröder, and Juliette Bekkering. 2021a. “Biophilic Design in Architecture and Its Contributions to Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability: A Critical Review.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (1): 114–41. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006.

25 .Zhang, Danlei, and Yong Tu. 2021. “Green Building, Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: Evidence from Singapore.” Cities 108 (January): 102980. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102980.

26 .Heerwagen, Judith. 2000. “Green Buildings, Organizational Success and Occupant Productivity.” Building Research & Information 28 (5-6): 353–67. https://doi. org/10.1080/096132100418500.

27 .Choguill, Charles L. 1996. “Toward Sustainability of Human Settlements.” Habitat International 20 (3): v–viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(96)81830-3.

28 .OjoFafore, Elizabeth, Clinton Aigbavboa, and Pretty Remaru. 2018. “Benefits of Green Buildings.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2289–97.

29.Hofman, Erwin, Johannes I. M. Halman, and Roxana A. Ion. 2006. “Variation in Housing Design: Identifying Customer Preferences.” Housing Studies 21 (6): 929–43. https://doi. org/10.1080/02673030600917842.

30 .Koay, Way Inn, and Denise Dillon. 2020. “Community Gardening: Stress, Well-Being, and Resilience Potentials.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (18): 6740. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186740.

31 .Heerwagen, Judith H, Stephen R Kellert, and Martin L Mador. 2008. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, Nj: Wiley.

32.Xue, Fei, Stephen SiuYu Lau, Zhonghua Gou, Yifan Song, and Boya Jiang. 2019. “Incorporating Biophilia into Green Building Rating Tools for Promoting Health and Wellbeing.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 76 (May): 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.004.

33.Zhong, Weijie, Torsten Schröder, and Juliette Bekkering. 2021a. “Biophilic Design in Architecture and Its Contributions to Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability: A Critical Review.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (1): 114–41. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006.

34.Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

35 .Zhang, Danlei, and Yong Tu. 2021. “Green Building, Pro-Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: Evidence from Singapore.” Cities 108 (January): 102980. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102980.

36 .Allen, Joseph G., Piers MacNaughton, Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent, Skye S. Flanigan, Erika Sita Eitland, and John D. Spengler. 2015. “Green Buildings and Health.” Current Environmental Health Reports 2 (3): 250–58. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y.

37 .Allen, Joseph G, and John D Macomber. 2020. Healthy Buildings : How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

38.Ryan, Richard M., Netta Weinstein, Jessey Bernstein, Kirk Warren Brown, Louis Mistretta, and Marylène Gagné. 2010a. “Vitalizing Effects of Being Outdoors and in Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 159–68. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009.

39.Hu, Ming, Madlen Simon, Spencer Fix, Anthony A. Vivino, and Edward Bernat. 2021. “Exploring a Sustainable Building’s Impact on Occupant Mental Health and Cognitive Function in a Virtual Environment.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 5644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85210-9.

40 .Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

41.Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

42 .Ulrich, Roger S., Robert F. Simons, Barbara D. Losito, Evelyn Fiorito, Mark A. Miles, and Michael Zelson. 1991. “Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 11 (3): 201–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80184-7.

Bibliography

Allen, Joseph G, and John D Macomber. 2020. Healthy Buildings : How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Allen, Joseph G., Piers MacNaughton, Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent, Skye S. Flanigan, Erika Sita Eitland, and John D. Spengler. 2015. “Green Buildings and Health.” Current Environmental Health Reports 2 (3): 250–58. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y.

Apanaviciene, Rasa, Rokas Urbonas, and Paris A. Fokaides. 2020. “Smart Building Integration into a Smart City: Comparative Study of Real Estate Development.” Sustainability 12 (22): 9376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12229376.

Carpenter, Megan, and Steven Hetcher. 2014. “FUNCTION over FORM: BRINGING the FIXATION REQUIREMENT into the MODERN ERA.” Fordham Law Review 82: 179–229.

Cedeño-Laurent, J.G., A. Williams, P. MacNaughton, X. Cao, E. Eitland, J. Spengler, and J. Allen. 2018. “Building Evidence for Health: Green Buildings, Current Science, and Future Challenges.” Annual Review of Public Health 39 (1): 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpublhealth-031816-044420.

Choguill, Charles L. 1996. “Toward Sustainability of Human Settlements.” Habitat International 20 (3): v–viii. https://doi.

org/10.1016/0197-3975(96)81830-3.

Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. 2016. Are We Human? : Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich, Switzerland: Lars Mul̈ler.

Hartig, Terry, Marlis Mang, and Gary W. Evans. 1991. “Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences.” Environment and Behavior 23 (1): 3–26. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916591231001.

Heerwagen, Judith. 2000. “Green Buildings, Organizational Success and Occupant Productivity.” Building Research & Information 28 (5-6): 353–67. https://doi. org/10.1080/096132100418500.

Heerwagen, Judith H, Stephen R Kellert, and Martin L Mador. 2008. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, Nj: Wiley.

Herzog, Thomas R., Colleen, P. Maguire, and Mary B. Nebel. 2003. “Assessing the Restorative Components of Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2): 159–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5.

Hofman, Erwin, Johannes I. M. Halman, and Roxana A. Ion. 2006. “Variation in Housing Design: Identifying Customer Preferences.” Housing Studies 21 (6): 929–43. https://doi. org/10.1080/02673030600917842.

Hu, Ming, Madlen Simon, Spencer Fix, Anthony A.

Vivino, and Edward Bernat. 2021. “Exploring a Sustainable Building’s Impact on Occupant Mental Health and Cognitive Function in a Virtual Environment.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 5644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85210-9.

Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature : A Psychological Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mi: Ulrich’s Bookstore, Cop.

Koay, Way Inn, and Denise Dillon. 2020. “Community Gardening: Stress, Well-Being, and Resilience Potentials.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (18): 6740. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186740.

Kuo, Frances E, and William C Sullivan. 2001. “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior 33 (3): 343–67.

Luck, Rachael. 2018. “Participatory Design in Architectural Practice: Changing Practices in Future Making in Uncertain Times.” Design Studies 59 (November): 139–57. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003.

OjoFafore, Elizabeth, Clinton Aigbavboa, and Pretty Remaru. 2018. “Benefits of Green Buildings.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2289–97.

Romm, Joseph. n.d. “Increasing Productivity through Energy-Efficient Design G R E E N I N

T H E B U I L

https://www.

terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ Greening_the_Building_and_the_Bottom_Line.pdf.

Ryan, Richard M., Netta Weinstein, Jessey Bernstein, Kirk Warren Brown, Louis Mistretta, and Marylène Gagné. 2010. “Vitalizing Effects of Being Outdoors and in Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 159–68. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009.

Schuler, Douglas, and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design : Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Thatcher, Andrew, and Karen Milner. 2012. “The Impact of a ‘Green’ Building on Employees’ Physical and Psychological Wellbeing.” Work 41 (Supplement 1): 3816–23. https://doi. org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0683-3816.

Ulrich, Roger. 1984. “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science 224 (4647): 420–21. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402.

Ulrich, Roger S., Robert F. Simons, Barbara D. Losito, Evelyn Fiorito, Mark A. Miles, and Michael Zelson. 1991. “Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 11 (3): 201–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80184-7.

Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Zhang, Danlei, and Yong Tu. 2021. “Green Building, Pro-

Environmental Behavior and Well-Being: Evidence from Singapore.” Cities 108 (January): 102980. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102980.

Zhong, Weijie, Torsten Schröder, and Juliette Bekkering. 2021. “Biophilic Design in Architecture and Its Contributions to Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability: A Critical Review.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (1): 114–41. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006.

Aknowledgement

This thesis is the first time in two years that we have known each other, and we have worked together on a single outcome for the entirety of our lives. It is the final assignment for both of us in our graduate studies. At this point in our journey, it means that our milestone-like two years have come to a close.

First of all, I would like to thank Prof Samer Akkach for helping us with our new knowledge and logic of academic writing. We were lost and anxious during the process of completing this piece of writing, but Prof Samer Akkach's patient answers at every stage gave us some inspiration and made our progress smooth.Secondly, we would like to thank all the professors and tutors we have met over the past two years.This essay is not just about our views on society and architecture, but it is also a feedback of the knowledge we have learnt over the past two years, so thank you to all the tutors for passing on their knowledge to us over the past two years.

Finally, it is our thanks to each other. The argument during the completion of this article was the first one we had in the two years we have known each other, but each other would calm down as soon as possible to find a new solution and finally finish this article together.

We believe that every experience is learning and growing, expanding the width of life. Thank you to the University of Adelaide for providing us with educational resources.