1. Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on integrating the built environment with nature, spurring the development of the biophilic design movement. Biophilia, a term coined by Wilson (1986), describes an inherent human tendency to seek connections with nature and the living world. The biophilic design movement aims to enhance this connection by emphasizing design strategies that promote human emotional and physical well-being (Almusaed, 2010; Kellert, 1993; Kellert et al., 2011). Although the core objectives of biophilic design are clear and intuitive, the concept encompasses a broad range of interpretations and methodologies related to how 'nature' is understood and experienced in the built environment. Ryan et al. (2014) categorizes biophilic patterns into three groups: (1) 'nature in space,' which focuses on incorporating visual and climatic elements of nature; (2) 'nature of space,' which involves spatial properties such as refuge, prospect, mystery, and peril; and (3) 'natural analogues,' which include biomorphic forms, materiality, and the complexity and order of natural patterns.
Similarly, Kellert (2018) identifies three categories of nature experiences: (1) direct experiences, which involve physical contact with natural elements like vegetation, water, and climatic conditions; (2) indirect experiences, where the built environment simulates natural elements through imagery, materials, and geometries; and (3) spatial experiences, focusing on organizational aspects of space that evoke natural qualities, such as prospect, refuge, and integrated complexity.
Recent developments in the biophilic design literature, particularly around natural analogues and space/place experiences, have extended the theory by incorporating elements of form and spatial design, which are central to the architectural and urban disciplines. This newer interpretation frames nature as a dynamic process that generates harmonious, integrated structures through geometric transformation and place-making.
Evidence suggests that implementing biophilic design principles can significantly enhance human well-being (Gillis & Gatersleben, 2015; Hung & Chang, 2021; Soderlund & Newman, 2015; Zhong et al., 2022). Research has shown that direct experiences of nature in built environments positively influence various health outcomes, including improved workplace conditions (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2014), enhanced attention and memory (Lee et al., 2015; Berman et al., 2012), faster stress recovery (Ratcliffe et al., 2013), and increased physical activity and healing (Sari et al., 2023).
Indirect nature experiences, such as simulated natural environments and nature imagery, have also been linked to psychological benefits. For example, exposure to simulated office settings with natural views has been associated with reduced anxiety (Chang & Chen, 2005), while viewing natural scenes accelerates recovery from acute stress compared to urban scenes (Brown et al., 2013). Additionally, interior environments featuring fractal light patterns are shown to enhance visual preference and mood (Abboushi et al., 2019). Spatial configurations that resemble natural environments, like prospect-refuge spaces and organic visual patterns, are also found to support psychological restoration and preference (Akcelik et al., 2024; Coburn et al., 2019; Herzog & Bryce, 2007).
While aspects of space, place, and natural analogues have been extensively explored in aesthetic and landscape studies (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kuper, 2017; Liu et al., 2021; Ode et al., 2009), their connections to psychosocial theories of place are still inadequately defined (Zhong et al., 2022). The concept of 'place experience' is a central theme in theories of sense of place (SoP) or place attachment, which focus on the meanings, emotions, and behaviors that shape human interactions with their environment (Altman & Low, 1992; Lewicka, 2011a; Manzo & Devine-Wright, 2013). According to Lewicka (2011), research on SoP has predominantly highlighted social factors over physical ones, even though natural elements are frequently cited as key contributors to place attachment (Han et al., 2023; Ojalammi & Koskinen-Koivisto, 2023). The impact of the natural complexity, spatial configuration, and geometry of the physical environment on SoP, however, remains underexplored.
Addressing this gap can help evolve biophilic design from a superficial application of natural features to a more profound interpretation of nature as a dynamic, generative process that creates organic qualities with significant psychological impacts (Figure 1). This study seeks to establish a link between biophilia and place theory by exploring whether the modeled naturalness of built environments influences our sense of place.
Figure 1. The different approaches and interpretations of biophilic design (Developed by the Authors).
1.2 Naturalness and Living Structures
The built environment can be naturalized by modelling generative processes typically found in nature and characteristic of timeless architecture and city planning. Architect and mathematician Christopher Alexander proposed a theory describing how this process creates ‘living’ or nature-like structures. In the “Nature of Order” (2002), he argued that we experience buildings and cities as ‘living’ due to a pervasive structure of interrelated parts forming integrated wholes. Here, 'life' is defined through complex orders rather than the typical biological sense. This deep structure endows any region of space with coherence, order, and beauty. Living structures in nature and the built environment are hypothesized to be the underlying forces inseparable from our experience of beauty, sense of well-being, relatedness, and belonging. (Alexander, 2002).
Alexander identified 15 geometric properties of living structures found in almost all natural and biological systems, as well as in timeless works of art and architecture. These properties outline how parts of a whole are organized to support each other, resulting in higher degrees of life, coherence, beauty, and naturalness. For example, the most fundamental property pertains to the organization of structures in proportionally related and organized levels of scale, favouring local symmetries over general symmetry and creating contrast between sub-structures through colour, shape, and other characteristics. These properties emerge from a generative process of step-by-step adaptation to the existing structure, where each step follows naturally from the previous one.
Such generative processes are evident in nature, from the growth of embryos to the crack patterns that form on dry land. When applied to architectural and urban design, they reflect an organic worldview that emphasizes orders of connecting and interdependent relationships, as opposed to the assembly of objects in space, which characterizes the mechanistic design approach of the modernist era.
Subsequent attempts have been made to quantify the concept of living structures. For example, Nikos Salingaros developed a method of quantification based on an analogy to thermodynamics (Salingaros, 1997). The latest mathematical model of living structures was introduced by Bin Jiang, which relies on two fundamental laws: the scaling law, which states that a living structure has far more small components than large ones across all scales, and Tobler's law, which posits that everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things (Jiang, 2015). Structural beauty or ‘livingness’ is determined by the number of substructures and the hierarchy of these substructures based on the head-tail/breaks, a method of iterative division according to their scale. Degree of life is formally defined by the formula L = S xH, where S is the number of substructures, and H is the number of hierarchical levels of these substructures calculated by the head/tail breaks. This method was tested on architectural and city plans with units of analysis similar to the space syntax method, such as convex spaces and axial lines. It was also applied to pixels in image-processing algorithms (Jiang & de Rijke, 2023).
Another study by Coburn et al., (2019) experimented with low-level image features as proxy measures for two of the 15 fundamental properties: Levels of scale and contrast. The Levels of scale property is operationalized by 1) edge density, measuring the number of straight and curved edges in an image; 2) fractal dimensions capturing the visual complexity and scaling differentiation of the edge maps of architectural images; and 3) entropy, a statistical measure of randomness in a scene, calculated using the scene’s intensity histogram. The contrast property is operationalized by calculating an image's standard hue, saturation, and brightness values along with their standard deviations. In their experimental work, low-level features calculated for a sample of exterior and interior architectural images significantly predicted participants' perception of naturalness and other psychological outcomes, such as comfort, which have implications for well-being studies.
The nature of order includes several hypotheses that have not been empirically tested. Measurement methods such as those described can facilitate this testing. The ongoing research focuses on the relationship between living structures and human experiences within a given place. According to the nature of order, environments that exhibit the properties of living structures contribute to experiences of beauty, support human life and well-being, provide emotional nourishment, and foster a sense of belonging.
1.3 Sense of Place
Seamon (2019) argued that the properties of living structures must be inherently related to the experience of place. Alexander’s description of experiencing life and wholeness in architecture resonates with the concept of SoP, particularly in its phenomenological and philosophical formulations. In recent decades, there has been increased interest in place research across social sciences, psychology, environmental design, and geography. At its core, place is understood to be more than just physical space because of its meaningfulness to the individual and groups (Tuan, 1979). Edward Relph (1976), the pioneering humanistic geographer famously stated, “Places are sensed in a chiaroscuro of setting, landscape, ritual, routine, other people, personal experience, care and concern for home and the context of other places.” The meanings attributed to certain places tend to be multi-layered, complex, and depending on various factors. According to the phenomenological and psychological perspective, (Canter, 1997; Relph, 1976) SoP constitutes the following dimensions: 1) The physical characteristics of the environment, 2) The meanings and emotions attached to the place, and 3) The activities the place provides.
Due to the complexity of place processes and the multidisciplinary nature of the theory, place literature encompasses numerous concepts. One key term in environmental psychology is place attachment, which describes affective bonds to places. Place attachment is often defined through two concepts: place dependence and place identity. Place identity, a component of the self-system, refers to how individuals view themselves in relation to their environment (Proshansky, 1978). Place dependence relates to actions in place and refers to the degree of fit between what an environment offers in terms of usability and an individual’s intended uses and competencies (Stokols & Shumaker, 1982).
Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) proposed an attitude-based interpretation of SoP, incorporating cognitive, affective, and conative (behavioural) components. They validated the measurement with data from a questionnaire survey of over 200 rural homeowners. The attitudinal components of the sense of place are defined as follows: 1) beliefs about the relationship between self and place (the cognitive component), 2) feelings towards the place (the affective component), and 3) the behavioural exclusivity of the place compared to alternatives (the conative component). This formulation serves as the basis of the most widely used psychometric measures of SoP (Boley et al., 2021; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Williams & Vaske, 2003).
SoP is defined through people, place, and process (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). It varies depending on factors related to the place itself (its physical characteristics, such as scale, land use, and building density) or factors related to the individual (such as duration of stay, ethnicity, age, economic status, and value system). Due to the social constructivist nature of the concept, social and personal factors have been more prominent in place studies (Lewicka, 2011). However, ecological psychology has emphasized the importance of considering both physical and social factors in place of attachment studies. Recent research has attempted to link restorative environments with SoP, finding that nature and aesthetic appeal positively predict attachment and identity (Ariannia et al., 2024; G. Brown & Raymond, 2007; Hur et al., 2010; Jayakody et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023; Olla et al., 2023). SoP is also linked to pro-environmental behaviour and influences perceptions of human/nature relationships (Feng et al., 2022; Schroeder, 2007). Most studies focus on the perception of physical environmental quality and values, often lacking a theoretical basis from design theories that apply objectively measurable variables.
Advances in biophilic design theories with reference to complexity science, objective beauty, and living structures open new avenues for addressing this knowledge gap. By investigating the attractive power of living structures and sustaining emotional engagement through repeated interaction, we can better understand the connection between biophilic patterns and SoP. Naturalistic environments, both in their explicit nature content and underlying order, can attract people based on their biological inclinations and aesthetic drives. Experiencing these places can support environmental awareness and conceptualization of identity through the lens of human/nature relationships (Schroeder, 2007). Additionally, naturalistic patterns offer affordances, such as mystery, which encourages exploration of the environment (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The different approaches and interpretations of biophilic design (Developed by the Authors).
Within this broader framework, this study explores one aspect of the relationship between naturalness and SoP by focusing on the properties of living structures and their impact on perceived naturalness and SoP. The findings could have significant implications for biophilic design, demonstrating how to reconnect people with nature beyond traditional greening schemes. They also encourage a revaluation of the fundamental spatial and morphological aspects that are critical to design disciplines.
2. Materials and Methods
A pilot study was designed to explore the research question using existing measures and manageable settings within this more prominent research topic. The study aims to test the hypothesis that occupants of buildings with higher degrees of modelled naturalness experience higher levels of SoP than those in less naturalistic buildings.
A comparative quasi-experimental case methodology was utilized to test this hypothesis by comparing two settings. Variables of the physical environment and user responses regarding SoP were analyzed and compared. Although the researcher could not manipulate the variables, potential influences on the outcome were neutralized by selecting cases with similar features. The study focused on two buildings with a hypothesized difference in degree of life (naturalness) as the basis of comparison. The objective was to compare the occupants' judgments of livingness and SoP using simple descriptive and t-test statistical analyses. Figure 3 outlines the methodological procedure.
Figure 3. Research methodology and procedure (Developed by the Authors).
The selection criteria were developed to neutralize, as much as possible, the effect of common physical, social, and personal factors that can influence SoP. The criteria considered were:
- The two buildings must be similar in function and size.
- Users of the two buildings must have similar demographic backgrounds, such as age groups and occupations.
- The two buildings must have noticeable differences in their aesthetic character. One is expected to have naturalistic qualities, and the other is mechanistic.
The selected cases were two faculty buildings at Istanbul Technical University in Türkiye; the first building houses the Faculty of Architecture and is known as the Taşkışla building, located on a remote campus. The second building is the Electric-Electronic (EE) Engineering faculty on the main campus. Both buildings are similar in size, facilities, number of students, and typology; each features rectangular forms and internal courtyards. However, they are distinct in their form, language, and aesthetics, which form the basis of comparison.
Taşkışla is a restored and adapted neo-classical building, originally a military hospital and later a military barracks, constructed in the early 1850s. Its outstanding stylistic features include a detailed classical masonry façade, wide and spacious corridors, and hallways overlooking a central courtyard with a garden and fountain (Figure 4). An online search shows that the building is a cherished monument and historical architectural landmark in Istanbul, with many students sharing photographs of it on social media, especially its courtyard. The building has been used as a film location in many local productions.
In contrast, the EE building, built in the 1980s, is characterized by a mechanistic and utilitarian style, with a more recent addition featuring different materials and facade details while maintaining the overall structure (Figure 4). Classically designed buildings are more likely to have higher naturalistic quality. Based on this and the general response to the buildings, it was hypothesized that the Taşkışla building has a higher degree of life and that its students experience a higher SoP than students in the EE building.
Figure 4. The two faculty buildings that were used for the comparative method.
The variables in the study are SoP and naturalness (degree of life). These constructs are operationalized through three types of measurements as follows:
1) Measurements of sense of place for the two groups of building users: A highly reliable and widely used 5-point Likert-type instrument developed by Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) was used to measure SoP. This attitude-based construct includes three dimensions: place identity, referring to the role of places in the process of self-identity; place attachment, which revolves around the emotional bonds that people have towards significant places; and place dependence, or the ability of places to support the needs and activities of their occupants.
2) Measurements of the users’ subjective judgement of degrees of life: Using image pairs, the degree of life test, originally developed by Alexander (2002), was employed to test perceived livingness as an approximation of perceived naturalness.
3) Objective measurements of naturalness or ‘life’ of the building: Image analysis of interior and exterior images of the two buildings was conducted using two methods outlined in the literature review. The first method involves measuring low-level image features, which have been shown to correlate with perceptions of an image’s naturalness and predict aesthetic preference (Coburn et al., 2019). The second method is a recursive calculation of an image's structural beauty according to the scaling law. (Jiang & de Rijke, 2023).
Data collection began by photographing the two buildings to create a pool of image pairs showing equivalent features and spaces for image analysis and the degree-of-life test. All photos were taken during the day using an iPhone 13 camera. The images were generally taken at eye level, with a few exceptions where the camera was tilted to show distant façade details. None of the images included people to avoid influencing subjective judgement and image analysis calculations. Additionally, natural features such as trees and the sky were kept roughly similar in area across comparable image pairs. Next, a set of 30 image pairs was decided and analyzed using open-source Python codes for the specified image analysis measures. Following this, a survey was administered to the buildings’ users. Survey participants were randomly assigned from two groups of students enrolled in the faculties housed by the two buildings. The students voluntarily participated in an online survey via the SurveyMonkey platform, with the link shared by faculty lecturers. The survey consisted of three sections:
-
The first five questions gathered personal information about the students, such as age, gender, level of education (bachelor's/ postgraduate), and the number of years spent studying in their faculty building.
-
The second section featured the SoP measuring instrument, containing 12 items grouped into three sets of four. Each set measured one of the three dimensions of SoP. Some items were modified from the original residential property scale to suit the study context.
-
The third section measured subjective judgments of an image's ‘livingness’. It contained 30 questions, each featuring an image pair. Each pair displayed two equivalent spaces from the two buildings side by side, and the participants were asked to select the one that felt more alive. The images included both interior and exterior views, and their order was randomized in the survey.
3. Results
In total, 23 responses were received from Taşkışla students and 29 from EE students. Table 1 presents the frequency of demographic information for the two surveyed groups.
Table 1: Demographic information for the two groups of surveyed students.
|
Demographic
|
Taşkışla students
|
EE students
|
|
Age
|
20 and below
|
13.0
|
10.3
|
|
|
20-23
|
47.8
|
41.4
|
|
|
24-26
|
21.7
|
24.1
|
|
|
27-29
|
4.3
|
6.9
|
|
|
30 and above
|
13.0
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gender
|
Male
|
70
|
37.9
|
|
|
Female
|
30
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Educational Level
|
Bachelor's Degree
|
61
|
51.7
|
|
|
Post-Graduate
|
39
|
48.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period of study
|
1 year or less
|
56.5
|
20.7
|
|
|
2 years
|
30.4
|
10.3
|
|
|
3 years
4 years
|
4.3
0
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
5 years and above
|
8.7
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
Major
|
Architecture
|
69.6
|
86.2
|
Computer engineering
|
|
Landscape architecture
|
4.3
|
3.4
|
Electrical engineering
|
|
urban planning
|
26.1
|
10.3
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The internal reliability of the SoP scale was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, resulting in a score of .916 for the Taşkışla student survey and .896 for the EE students survey. Table 2 shows the mean score for each item of the Likert-type SoP scale. Additionally, the mean scores of place identity, place attachment, and place dependence were calculated for each group of students.
Table 2: Demographic information for the two groups of surveyed students.
|
|
Taşkışla Students
|
EE Students
|
|
Likert Scale Items
|
Mean
|
Std.Deviation
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
|
IDN 1 (I feel that X* is a reflection of me)
|
3.83
|
.984
|
2.00
|
.964
|
|
IDN 2 (Studying in X says much about who I am.)
|
3.87
|
1.100
|
1.97
|
.906
|
|
IDN 3 (I feel that I can be myself at X)
|
4.00
|
.853
|
2.34
|
1.078
|
|
IDN 4 (Studying at the X reflects the type of person I am.)
|
3.78
|
1.043
|
2.03
|
.823
|
|
ATTCH 1 (I feel relaxed when I am at X)
|
4.26
|
.964
|
3.31
|
1.072
|
|
ATTCH 2 (I feel happiest when I am at X)
|
3.35
|
1.229
|
1.97
|
1.085
|
|
ATTCH 3 (X is one of my favorite places to be.)
|
3.91
|
1.041
|
1.97
|
.823
|
|
ATTCH 4 (I will miss X when I graduate)
|
4.22
|
.795
|
2.34
|
1.233
|
|
DEP 1 (X is the best place for me to enjoy doing my studies)
|
3.74
|
1.214
|
2.03
|
1.052
|
|
DEP 2 (As a university facility, no other place can compare to X)
|
3.83
|
1.302
|
1.52
|
.738
|
|
DEP 3 (I wouldn’t substitute any other place for studying and things I do at X.)
|
3.17
|
.984
|
1.72
|
.922
|
|
DEP 4 (I wish I were studying at some other place than Taşkışla)
|
4.00
|
.905
|
2.48
|
1.153
|
|
|
A total of 23 responses
|
|
A total of 29 responses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparing the two groups, students at Taşkışla reported a higher level of place identity, attachment, and dependence than those at the EE building. A 2-sample T-test was conducted to determine if the differences in these reported measures were statistically significant. Table 3 shows that Taşkışla students scored significantly higher on all three dimensions. Notably, students at Taşkışla reported a high SoP despite most having studied there for only one to two years. Additional statistical analyses revealed no significant correlation between the number of study years and any SoP constructs. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the reported SoP between bachelor’s and postgraduate students for both groups.
Table 3: Demographic information for the two groups of surveyed students.
|
|
Mean (Taşkışla)
|
Mean (EE)
|
t
|
Two-Sided p
|
|
IDN
|
3.8696
|
2.0862
|
7.860
|
<.001
|
|
ATTCH
|
3.9348
|
2.3966
|
6.877
|
<.001
|
|
DEP
|
3.6848
|
1.9397
|
7.769
|
<.001
|
The degree-of-life test showed a strong consensus between the two groups of students. Both Taşkışla and EE students rated images of the Taşkışla building as having more life than those of the EE building. Only out of the 30 image pairs had a majority preference for the EE images, which were of sitting areas and staircases. Table 4 presents the selection percentage for each image for both groups of students.
Table 4: The results of the degree-of-life test.
|
item
|
Responses
|
|
|
Taşkışla students
|
Image pairs
|
EE students
|
|
1 Entrance Hall
|
14%
|
86%
|
 
|
31%
|
69%
|
|
|
2 Sitting Area
|
67%
|
33%
|
 
|
93%
|
7%
|
|
|
3 Lab/Studio
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
21%
|
79%
|
|
|
4 Corridor
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
14%
|
86%
|
|
|
5 Classroom
|
14%
|
86%
|
 
|
17%
|
82%
|
|
|
6 Hallway
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
10%
|
90%
|
|
|
7 Corridor
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
4%
|
96%
|
|
|
8 Hallway
|
24%
|
76%
|
 
|
24%
|
76%
|
|
|
9 Door
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
7%
|
93%
|
|
|
10 Courtyard
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
0%
|
100%
|
|
|
11 Facade
|
10%
|
90%
|
 
|
0%
|
100%
|
|
|
12 Façade Detail
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
0%
|
100%
|
|
|
13 Window
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
11%
|
90%
|
|
|
14 Stairway
|
62%
|
35%
|
 
|
93%
|
7%
|
|
|
15 Facade
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
21%
|
79%
|
|
|
16 Corridor
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
14%
|
86%
|
|
|
17 Façade Detail
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
21%
|
79%
|
|
|
18 Courtyard
|
10%
|
90%
|
 
|
18%
|
82%
|
|
|
19 Sitting Area
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
0%
|
100%
|
|
|
20 Courtyard
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
0%
|
100%
|
|
|
21 Cafeteria
|
45%
|
55%
|
 
|
15%
|
85%
|
|
|
22 Corridor
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
4%
|
96%
|
|
|
23 Hallway
|
10%
|
90%
|
 
|
15%
|
85%
|
|
|
24 Sitting Area
|
10%
|
90%
|
 
|
37%
|
63%
|
|
|
25 Corridor
|
0%
|
100%
|
 
|
11%
|
89%
|
|
|
26 Entrance
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
4%
|
96%
|
|
|
27 Corridor
|
10%
|
90%
|
 
|
11%
|
89%
|
|
|
28 Hallway
|
10%
|
90%
|
 
|
7%
|
93%
|
|
|
29 Sitting Area
|
20%
|
80%
|
 
|
11%
|
89%
|
|
|
30 Hallway
|
5%
|
95%
|
 
|
22%
|
78%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The third part of the analysis aimed to test the objective measures recently developed for the concept of living structures. Image analysis was conducted using the low-level image features method on the same set of images, approximating the effects of the two patterns of living structures: level of scale and contrast. Five measures were tested: entropy and fractal dimension to represent levels of scale, and the standard deviation of the image’s hue, saturation, and brightness to describe the property of contrast (Coburn et al., 2019). A sixth measure applied is the scaling law method, which approximates the degree of life based on structural hierarchies and the number of substructures (Jiang & de Rijke, 2023).
The analysis utilized open-source Python codes and built-in Python image analysis features. Most images from the Taskisla building scored higher on five of the six measures (Entropy 53%, Hue 63%, Saturation 63%, brightness 70%, scaling 60%). Conversely, 60% of EE images scored higher for the fractal dimension. Higher scores on all dimensions generally correspond with images containing more vegetation, fine textures, and architectural detail. In contrast, images of monotone and minimalist interior spaces score the lowest, aligning with the theoretical concepts of living structures. Figure 5 summarizes the result of the image analysis.
Figure 5. Results of the image analysis measuring objective naturalness.
4. Discussion
4.1 Naturalness/life in Architecture
Alexander (2002) argued that a consensus can often be reached by asking people to reflect on which scene feels more alive, attributing this to certain universal properties of living structures that resonate with our experience of the world. He also suggested that pre-modern buildings were more likely to possess those properties. Similarly, Kaplan's preference theory has demonstrated the impact of natural complexity and coherence on aesthetic appraisal through naturalistic patterns such as mystery, prospect, and refuge (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The cases in this study were chosen for their demonstrable differences in aesthetic quality and style, with one hypothesized to be more naturalistic. As predicted, participants assessing the livingness of these buildings showed a clear consensus in favour of the classical building, which was hypothesized to be more naturalistic in its visual quality.
Objective measures of naturalness demonstrated close results when comparing the number of images scoring higher for the six measures and their mean score. Ranking the images according to these measures was generally consistent with their theoretical implications. For example, hallways with minimal geometry and little colour variation scored the lowest, while images with rich façade details or natural features scored the highest. Images with low L-score tended to feature less detail and overall blandness, such as the images of the EE building corridors. As expected, the detailed and aesthetically rich façade of the Taşkışla building scored higher than that of the EE building. Overall, some of these measures predicted perceived naturalness and preference in previous research. In this study, they were applied to real settings with building users, allowing for the examination of other psychological outcomes, such as the sense of place.
4.2 Naturalness and sense of place
The results from combining naturalness measures and SoP suggest that naturalistic buildings may foster a more positive place experience than mechanistic and utilitarian ones. The significantly higher level of SoP in naturalistic buildings confirms the research hypothesis. The demonstrable difference in perceptions of life indicates that variations in a building's naturalness likely influence the occupants' SoP.
Cole et al. (2021) have suggested that green buildings can support SoP by aligning common green building strategies with SoP dimensions. Similarly, naturalistic buildings can enhance SoP through the emotional dimension of forming attachments via attractive, nature-like features, identification with places based on environmental awareness and valuing nature, and dependence on places to perform desired actions. Previous research has shown that people tend to form attachments and identify with places due to the presence of nature. The perceived beauty of places also contributes to forming SoP. These results highlight the connection between nature and SoP, demonstrating that naturalistic patterns of order enhance this relationship.
4.3 Implications for theory and practice
This study has highlighted a theoretical link between SoP and the naturalistic properties of the built environment. Place theories have often been criticized for their ironic underemphasis on places and their objective physical properties (Lewicka, 2011). Exploring this link broadens our understanding of people/place relations, which are formed by a multitude of factors, including extended and repeated interactions, personal experiences and memories, social ties, and the attractive force of living structures that can evoke interest, aesthetic enjoyment, and emotional engagement.
On the other hand, the biophilic design theory should move beyond its focus on greening buildings and cities in order to explore the full potential of its goals. More empirical evidence is needed to examine the effects of indirect nature in place, such as prospect/refuge and mystery, as well as other properties of living structures, such as local symmetries and simplicity.
Nature and biology play a significant role in contemporary urban and architectural design thinking, whether through taking inspiration from natural forms, evolutionary and generative processes, or even for branding purposes. Designers can use this biological moment to make their designs more human-friendly and considerate of their emotional impact. To increase the naturalness of the environment, buildings and cities should be allowed to ‘grow’ organically through sensitive adaptive processes that fit new forms rather than impose them. Based on these findings, designers are encouraged to follow adaptive design processes that create highly integrated and aesthetically pleasing living structures. The theory of living structure and other advancements in biophilic design are promising in describing these processes and guiding designers to adopt this approach.
5. Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that architectural environments embodying naturalistic beauty significantly enhance the sense of place (SoP) experienced by their users. By comparing two educational buildings with distinct aesthetic qualities, it was found that the building with naturalistic elements, the Taşkışla, provided a stronger sense of attachment, identity, and dependence than its mechanistic counterpart. These findings suggest that environments designed with biophilic principles, which integrate nature and its analogues into the built form, can foster more profound emotional connections and promote psychological well-being.
The results also highlight the importance of objective measures of naturalistic beauty in understanding how architectural design influences human experience. The study's novel combination of survey-based data and image analysis revealed that features such as complexity, coherence, and detail are crucial in determining the perceived naturalness of a building. These findings support the argument that design strategies focused on enhancing naturalistic qualities, such as through the use of local symmetries, fractal patterns, and organic forms, can positively impact users' perceptions and experiences of their environment.
Overall, this research provides valuable insights into the interplay between architecture and human psychology, suggesting that biophilic design not only has aesthetic appeal but also contributes to socio-economic benefits by fostering environments that support well-being and community ties. Future studies should further explore the specific elements of naturalistic architecture that most effectively enhance SoP, using both qualitative and quantitative methods to build a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between built environments and human experience.
Acknowledgement
N/A.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
CRediT author statement:
Conceptualization: S.A., G.I. Data Curation: S.A. Formal Analysis: S.A, N.A. Investigation: S.A. Methodology: S.A Project Administration: G.I Resources: S.A., N.A., G.I. Software: S.A, N.A. Supervision: G.I. Validation: S.A, G.I. Visualization: S.A. Writing – original draft: S.A. Writing – review & editing: S.A., G.I.
References
Abboushi, B., Elzeyadi, I., Taylor, R., & Sereno, M. (2019). Fractals in architecture: The visual interest, preference, and mood response to projected fractal light patterns in interior spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.005
Akcelik, G. N., Choe, K. W., Rosenberg, M. D., Schertz, K. E., Meidenbauer, K. L., Zhang, T., Rim, N., Tucker, R., Talen, E., & Berman, M. G. (2024). Quantifying Urban Environments: Aesthetic Preference Through the Lens of Prospect-Refuge Theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 102344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102344
Alexander, C. (2002). The nature of order: the process of creating life. Taylor & Francis.
Almusaed, A. (2010). Biophilic and bioclimatic architecture: Analytical therapy for the next generation of passive sustainable architecture. Springer Science & Business Media.
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4
Ariannia, N., Naseri, N., & Yeganeh, M. (2024). Cognitive-emotional feasibility of the effect of visual quality of building form on promoting the sense of place attachment (Case study: Cultural iconic buildings of Iran’s contemporary architecture). Frontiers of Architectural Research, 13(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.10.002
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., Kaplan, S., Sherdell, L., Gotlib, I. H., & Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
Boley, B. B., Strzelecka, M., Yeager, E. P., Ribeiro, M. A., Aleshinloye, K. D., Woosnam, K. M., & Mimbs, B. P. (2021). Measuring place attachment with the Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101577
Brown, D. K., Barton, J. L., & Gladwell, V. F. (2013). Viewing nature scenes positively affects recovery of autonomic function following acute-mental stress. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(11), 5562–5569. https://doi.org/10.1021/es305019p
Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
Canter, D. (1997). The facets of place. In Toward the integration of theory, methods, research, and utilization (pp. 109–147). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4425-5_4
Chang, C.-Y., & Chen, P.-K. (2005). Human Response to Window Views and Indoor Plants in the Workplace. HORTSCIENCE, 40(5), 1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.40.5.1354
Coburn, A., Kardan, O., Kotabe, H., Steinberg, J., Hout, M. C., Robbins, A., MacDonald, J., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., & Berman, M. G. (2019). Psychological responses to natural patterns in architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.007
Cole, L. B., Coleman, S., & Scannell, L. (2021). Place attachment in green buildings: Making the connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101558
Feng, X., Zhang, Z., & Chen, X. (2022). Paper Analysis of the Relevance of Place Attachment to Environment-Related Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(23), 16073. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316073
Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings, 5(3), 948–963. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948
Han, T. Y., Isa, M. I., & Marzbali, M. H. (2023). Influencing Factors Of Neighbourhood Attachment: A Case Study Of Penang, Malaysia. Planning Malaysia, 21, 364–375. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v21i28.1339
Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 779–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298796
Hung, S. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). Health benefits of evidence-based biophilic-designed environments: A review. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2021.24.1.1
Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.005
Jayakody, D. Y., Adams, V. M., Pecl, G., & Lester, E. (2024). What makes a place special? Understanding drivers and the nature of place attachment. Applied Geography, 163, 103177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103177
Jiang, B. (2015). Wholeness as a hierarchical graph to capture the nature of space. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 29(9), 1632–1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2015.1038542
Jiang, B., & de Rijke, C. (2023). Living Images: A Recursive Approach to Computing the Structural Beauty of Images or the Livingness of Space. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 113(6), 1329–1347. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2023.2178376
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of Place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In The biophilia hypothesis (p. 69), Island Press.
Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235432
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
Kuper, R. (2017). Evaluations of landscape preference, complexity, and coherence for designed digital landscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.002
Lee, K. E., Williams, K. J. H., Sargent, L. D., Williams, N. S. G., & Johnson, K. A. (2015). 40-second green roof views sustain attention: The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
Li, J., Luo, J., Deng, T., Tian, J., & Wang, H. (2023). Exploring perceived restoration, landscape perception, and place attachment in historical districts: insights from diverse visitors. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1156207
Liu, Q., Zhu, Z., Zeng, X., Zhuo, Z., Ye, B., Fang, L., Huang, Q., & Lai, P. (2021). The impact of landscape complexity on preference ratings and eye fixation of various urban green space settings. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 66, 127411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127411
Manzo, L., & Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203757765
Nieuwenhuis, M., Knight, C., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). The relative benefits of green versus lean office space: Three field experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000024
Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
Ojalammi, S., & Koskinen-Koivisto, E. (2023). ATTACHMENT TO PLACE AND COMMUNITY TIES IN TWO SUBURBS OF JYVÄSKYLÄ, CENTRAL FINLAND. Geographical Review, 114(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2022.2161383
Olla, I., Amole, B., & Amole, D. (2023). Place Attachment of Shoppers: A Study of Palms Mall, Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n2-8
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578102002
Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.004
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion London.
Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., & Kallianpurkar, N. B. (2014). BIOPHILIC DESIGN PATTERNS Emerging Nature-Based Parameters for Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 8(2), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i2.436
Salingaros, N. A. (1997). Life and Complexity in Architecture From a Thermodynamic Analogy. Physics Essays, 10(1), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3028694
Sari, M., Fatimah, I. S., Pratiwi, P. I., & Sulistyantara, B. (2023). Psychological Effects of Walking and Relaxed Sitting in Urban Greenspaces During Post-pandemic: A Case Study in Bogor City, Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n1-1
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
Schroeder, H. W. (2007). Place experience, gestalt, and the human-nature relationship. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.07.001
Seamon, D. (2019). Christopher Alexander’s Theory of Wholeness as a Tetrad of Creative Activity: The Examples of A New Theory of Urban Design and The Nature of Order. Urban Science, 3(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020046
Soderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4), 950–969. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1982). The Psychological Context of Residential Mobility and Weil‐Being. Journal of Social Issues, 38(3), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01776.x
Tuan, Y.-F. (1979). Space and place: humanistic perspective. In Gale, S. & Ollson, G. (eds.), Philosophy in geography (pp. 387–427). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9394-5_19
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/49.6.830
Wilson, E. O. (1986). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006
