Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

Biophilic Design Aesthetics in Art and Design Education

Author(s): Yannick Joye


Source: The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2011), pp. 17-35
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jaesteduc.45.2.0017
Accessed: 11-01-2016 09:03 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jaesteduc.45.2.0017?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#
references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetic
Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Biophilic Design Aesthetics in
Art and Design Education

YANNICK JOYE

1. Introduction: Defining Biophilia and Biophilic Design

In 1984 the renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson wrote that

we are human in good part because of the particular way we ­affiliate


with other organisms. They are the matrix in which the human mind
originated and is permanently rooted, and they offer the challenge
and freedom innately sought. To the extent that each person can feel
like a naturalist, the old excitement of the untrammeled world will
be regained.  I offer this as a formula of reenchantment to invigo-
rate poetry and myth: mysterious and little known organisms live
within walking distance of where you sit. Splendor awaits in minute
proportions.1

This poetical quote nicely captures the essence of Wilson’s biophilia


­hypothesis. While the notion of biophilia had been originally introduced
by the philosopher and social psychologist Erich Fromm, it became popular
in Wilson’s characterization: namely, as the hardwired emotional affiliation
with life and life-like processes.
One of the central assumptions of biophilia is that human evolution took
place in natural environments and that repeated contact with, and depend-
ence on, natural elements influenced early humans’ subsistence. From an
evolutionary perspective it indeed makes sense for organisms to have a fit-
ness advantage when they were (up to a certain degree) “hardwired” to au-
tomatically display emotional reactions to certain (survival-relevant) natu-
ral elements. Up to now the strongest empirical support for the existence
of such hardwired affective reactions comes from experiments probing the
negative emotional (“biophobic”) responses elicited by snakes and spiders.2
As these organisms posed a permanent threat throughout much of human

Yannick Joye (PhD, University of Ghent, Belgium, 2007) currently works as a full-
time postdoctoral researcher at the Research Centre for Marketing and Consumer
Science, University of Leuven. For the moment he is mainly involved in research on
(evolutionary) environmental aesthetics and in empirical environmental psychology
research. Dr. Joye has published in—among others—Environment and Planning B, Re-
view of General Psychology, and Environmental Values.

Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 45, No. 2, Summer 2011


©2011 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 17 4/14/11 2:18 PM


18   Joye

evolutionary history, having inborn mechanisms to deal with them would


have constituted a significant adaptive benefit.
Biophilia theorists hypothesize that the reverse must also be true. As
some natural elements were not threatening but improved the survival
chances of ancestral humans, it seems only reasonable to assume that our
species has also evolved positive affective reactions to certain natural ob-
jects.3 Take the example of a flowering tree: flowers have always been part
of ancestral biomes; they indicated that a tree would bear fruit at a specific
moment in the near future; and they were themselves a potential source
of food. Because of these advantages, some theorists contend that evolving
a tendency or biological “preparedness” to display positive aesthetic reac-
tions toward a lush and flowering tree would have constituted a significant
adaptive benefit. This would have enabled individuals to be more atten-
tive to these elements and perhaps more inclined to approach them, as op-
posed to individuals who remained aesthetically unaffected. According to
Wilson, “biophilic” responses to these and other elements still guide human
­behavior and attitudes because on an evolutionary timescale humans have
inhabited nonnatural settings only very recently: “It would be . . . quite ex-
traordinary to find that all learning rules related to that [biocentric] world
have been erased in a few thousand years, even in the tiny minority of peo-
ples who have existed for more than one or two generations in wholly ur-
ban environments.”4
It is worth mentioning that biophilia is not a “tidy” theory, nor is there
one definite interpretation of what the term exactly stands for. For exam-
ple, the word “biophilia” does not always accurately reflect its content.
Although the notion “bio” presupposes that biophilia is directed to biologi-
cal objects and processes, most biophilia theorists employ the notion quite
loosely and agree that the experience of biophilia can also be brought about
by nonbiological natural elements, like mountains, glaciers, clouds, and so
forth. Another issue is that while the aesthetic impact of natural elements
has a central place in biophilia, other positive and beneficial effects of nature
contact are commonly also captured by the notion of biophilia. For example,
in what follows I will repeatedly point out that nature has so-called “re-
storative” effects on humans. Although aesthetic fascination can facilitate
restorative experiences, the actual restorative effect should not necessarily
be accompanied by an aesthetic experience. It thus seems that biophilia is
commonly interpreted quite broadly: actually, it appears to suffice that there
is a positive and presumably a hardwired emotional “nature effect” for it to
count as a biophilic effect.5
Despite this capacity for biophilia, possibilities for experiencing it are
­often drastically reduced in modern urban environments. Nature is not only
often replaced by built structures in modern societies, the geometrical forms
and volumes that are typical of modern buildings seem to be of an ­entirely

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 18 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   19

different category than nature’s forms. With increasing urbanization it is


probable that this type of building will become even more dominant and
will become a daily reality for even larger populations. Because of the clear
affective component of biophilia, proponents of biophilia claim that the con-
sequence is that people are taken away from opportunities for experienc-
ing positive affect, such as aesthetic enjoyment. As it has been empirically
established that repeatedly experiencing positive affect can contribute to
happiness,6 the more far-reaching conclusion seems to be that humans are
deprived of a significant source of well-being. In an attempt to solve the
mismatch between the visual structure of modern urban environments and
the capacity for biophilia, different scholars have proposed “biophilic de-
sign” or “biophilic architecture” as a possible solution.7 In essence, biophilic
design acknowledges urban living as a reality but proposes to integrate na-
ture and natural forms into the built environment, with the goal of inducing
biophilic responses and thereby fostering human well-being.
The central goal of this paper is to highlight the possibilities of and
­challenges for biophilic design and discuss its relevance—and the “natural”
aesthetics that goes hand in hand with it—for art and design education. In
the first section I will explain the basic design principles of biophilic design.
In the second part, I will try to demonstrate that biophilic design educa-
tion is crucial for progressing to a mature biophilic design practice. The third
part will argue that biophilic design education transcends the strict peda-
gogical level and will show that this type of education can have a creative,
­ecological, and restorative significance for those involved in it. The clos-
ing sections philosophically discuss the implications of biophilic design’s
“­genetic” commitments.

2. Principles of Biophilic Design Aesthetics

In the following two sections I will describe some of the central aesthetic
­attributes and characteristics of biophilic design and try to demonstrate
why it is important for biophilic design to become “contextually embed-
ded.” Before I embark on this, I want to note that for my discussion of the
central biophilic design characteristics, I will focus mainly on a set of spe-
cific empirical findings from the field of environmental psychology. It is not
within the scope of this paper to rehearse all possible design strategies, and
I refer the reader to recent publications on the matter to get more detailed
insight into this issue.8

2.1. Essentials of biophilic design aesthetics—The example of greenery


Research within the field of environmental psychology shows that people
respond positively to vegetative elements and to settings containing veg-
etation (that is, trees, flowers). In particular, empirical studies show, over

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 19 4/14/11 2:18 PM


20   Joye

and over again, that green settings are aesthetically preferred over ­nongreen
­environments and that the former also have a restorative influence on
­human individuals (we will return on this latter point later in the paper).
Quite a few theorists contend that these affective responses are evolved
adaptations and consider them as a good illustration and expression of bi-
ophilic responding.9 But if this is indeed a correct interpretation, in what
way can greenery be integrated into the built environment in order to lead
to an actual instance of biophilic design? Two main strategies can be dis-
cerned in the relevant literature.
A first strategy is to offer the possibility for people to experience actual
nature10—and in this case greenery—in architecture. Such actual experi-
ences can be realized by, say, integrating plant life in buildings (for example,
potted plants or trees); by providing views on the exterior (natural) environ-
ment; by growing greenery on the building’s exterior surface (for example,
vines, “green roofs”); and so on. In fact, this strand seems quite uncontro-
versial because it is an almost immediate extrapolation of (experimental)
environmental psychology findings to the built environment and because it
does not say much about the built form per se.
A second strategy is to provide a vicarious experience of vegetative
­structure in architecture by imitating these natural elements (or certain as-
pects of them) in architectural design. Such imitated architectural nature can
be realized according to different levels of abstraction.

• A first mode is to integrate almost exact copies of vegetative struc-


tures in architectural design, as one can see, for example, in plant-
based ornaments.

• A second strategy, which is perhaps architecturally more relevant


(but also more speculative), is to imitate nature in architecture in a
more stylized, abstract way. The assumption is that because of glo-
bal formal and structural similarities with the actual natural ele-
ment, the human brain will analyze these structures as natural-like,
which elicits biophilic responses. Perhaps by this mechanism, the
interior of Gaudí’s Sagrada Familia will trigger biophilic responses,
as the columns look almost like a “forest” of stylized trees.

• A third approach is imitating low-level visual features of natural


structures in architecture. For example, many natural structures
and elements have fractal characteristics. Some biophilic design
theorists therefore hypothesize that architecture with three-dimen-
sional fractal properties will, to a certain extent, be able to trigger
biophilic responses. In this regard, instances of Gothic and Hindu
temple architecture are often put forward as eminent examples of
fractal-like architecture.11

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 20 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   21

Although the example of greenery is perhaps limited, it nevertheless


­highlights how biophilic design aesthetics works conceptually, and it
should become clear that it can be easily extended and supplemented with
new proposals. Biophilic design will obviously transcend the level of green
interventions. Other factors that can be included are natural day-lighting,
abstract landscape features (for example, complexity), nature sounds, ani-
mal life, and so on.12

2.2. Biophilic design aesthetics requires contextual responsiveness


The fact that biophilic design can employ low-level visual features of
­naturalness in architecture seems to point to the relevance of “digital ar-
chitecture” for biophilic design.13 This architectural trend arose during the
mid-1990s, and its designs very often have profoundly biomorphic, organic
forms (which is a low-level visual feature shared by many biological enti-
ties). As the notion “digital” suggests, computers and digital design soft-
ware play a prominent role in this design strand. What is crucial to the de-
sign methods underlying digital architecture is that the digital tools are not
exclusively instruments for drawing the proposals of the architect. Instead,
along with the architect, the computer has become an active creative agent
in the design processes.14 To clarify this matter further let me give a con-
crete example of how digital architecture may (conceptually) work. In many
cases the architectural surfaces from which digital design experiments start
off can colloquially be considered as (digitalized) flexible rubber sheets. The
designer then selects some information or data set: for example, the trajec-
tories of people walking around the future building site. That information is
then digitally captured and transformed into vectors or force-fields, which
subsequently deform the initial flexible architectural surface in an unpre-
dictable manner. In many cases, the result of this design process is a highly
“organic” architectural shape.
On first sight the relevance of digital architecture seems obvious to my
discussion of the characteristics of biophilic design. Its curved, biomorphic
forms evoke and symbolize naturalness, and this apparently makes digital
architecture into an eminent example of what biophilic architecture could
look like. I believe, however, that this is only partially true. The reason is
that digital architecture has—up to now—not been genuinely “interested”
in elements that transcend itself. Although external contextual information
(for example, movement patterns of individuals) has a prominent place in
digital architecture, that information is generally deemed to be relevant and
worth considering only insofar as it contributes to generating new design
proposals. Such information is usually not employed for reaching an adap-
tive fit between the design and an individual’s needs or wishes, although
digital architecture does not intrinsically preclude this. At this stage such
design proposals appear to be primarily aimed at developing an ­interesting

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 21 4/14/11 2:18 PM


22   Joye

a­ esthetic object or sculptural expression15 and do not share biophilic ­design’s


social aims.
Although it is in principle possible that digital architecture can trigger
biophilic reactions, the isolation or disinterestedness that speaks from such
designs is not an option for biophilic architecture. Recall that biophilic de-
sign is aimed at improving the psychological experience of the built envi-
ronment by appealing to our (supposedly shared) capacity for biophilia.
While there is an obvious sculptural component to biophilic design aesthet-
ics, it has interest in not displaying such isolation and all the more in being
responsive to (among others) the social, historical, individual, and ecologi-
cal context in which it will become embedded. The reason is that these are
all factors that can interact with and influence the psychological experience
of the built environment. Such contextual responsiveness does not belong to
biophilic design by its very nature, but by neglecting it one runs the risk of
throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Biophilic design theorists obvi-
ously want biophilic design to be effective (that is, to increase well-being)
but the practice of biophilic design is faced with a paradox when it tries to
adapt to certain biophilic biases but at the same time neglects factors that
equally influence human well-being. Indeed, what is the value of biophilic
design aesthetics when a particular biophilic building makes people feel,
say, socially detached or sick, thereby cancelling out the intended biophilic
effects? While such contextual responsiveness seems to be implicit to re-
cent formulations of biophilic design, it places quite a heavy burden on the
design strand because it requires carefully examining and controlling the
many contextual factors that intersect with the experience of the built envi-
ronment. It remains an open question whether it will always be possible to
gain sufficient insight into these factors.

3. The Value of Art and Design Education for Biophilic Design Aesthetics

With the conceptual core of biophilic design now established, why should
this particular design aesthetic become introduced in artistic and aesthetic
educational curricula? While there is a longstanding tradition of nature as
an aesthetic model for art, architecture, and design, biophilic design is new
in that it explicitly attempts to start off from an (empirical) evidence base to
bring nature into architectural design. However, despite some recent pub-
lications dedicated to the topic, the design paradigm is still in full develop-
ment.16 Therefore, a major challenge facing biophilic design is to further in-
filtrate art and design education, allowing (future) architects and designers
to become acquainted with the theory and, eventually, to lift it to a higher
level—both practically and theoretically.
It is likely, however, that the introduction of biophilic design will face
resistance. For example, biophilic design’s appeal to universally shared
­preferences seems to contradict some architects’ desire to be creatively

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 22 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   23

unique (in the following section I will argue that this could well be an
a­pparent contradiction). A further issue is that the theoretical framework
underlying biophilic design borrows from different research strands (for
example, environmental psychology, vision research, evolutionary psychol-
ogy, neuroscience , and others), and it will require a transdisciplinary effort
by architecture and design educators to get a grip on these.17 This could
make them reluctant to integrate the theory into the architectural and de-
sign curriculum. One of the aims of this paper is to explain the essentials of
biophilic design and thereby facilitate the understanding and discussion of
the design theory in educational contexts. A third reason for resistance is that
some ­adherents of biophilic design contend that architectural styles with
nonnatural forms (for example, modernism, deconstructivism) are “patho-
logical” for human individuals.18 It is quite probable, however, that such
a view will be experienced as disgraceful or even insulting by those who
do not embrace biophilic form typologies in their design work. While it is
possible that environments that stray too far from our evolutionary habitats
can have adverse health effects, this only seems to be part of the story. Our
likings are not solely determined by a shared biology but also result from
learning and experience. Why couldn’t it then be that nonnatural shapes
(for example, straight lines) are more in tune with these learned likings? To
give a simple example, belonging to and identifying with a social group or
context can be crucial for one’s well-being, perhaps even more so than be-
ing responsive to biophilic tendencies. If true, what then is so pathological
about individuals (unconsciously) “putting aside” certain inborn aesthetic
likings and imitating the (learned) likings of the group, albeit likings for
nonnatural forms?
Biophilic design should clearly spell out why these resistances are
­misguided or why they are worth overcoming. What seems equally
­important is that the successfulness of the design strand hinges on its ­ability
to penetrate the world of aesthetic, art, and design education; that is, it
should establish a firm connection with architectural practices. A first reason
is that theorists working on biophilic design often don’t have any significant
­architectural background or training, which could hamper the transition to
the stage of practically developing biophilic design suggestions. I admit that
the gap between theory and practice can probably be overcome relatively
easy in the case of the first biophilic design strategy (that is, the experience of
actual nature in architectural design). However, restricting biophilic ­design
to this interpretation risks making the architectural strand redundant and,
hence, less groundbreaking than it proclaims to be. The reason is that this
interpretation seems akin to, among others, “green architecture” or ­interior
landscaping, for which rich and elaborated design practices already exist.19
I am convinced that the foregoing difficulty mostly applies to
the ­experience of imitated nature in architecture. For example, while the
­integration of fractals in architecture is sometimes proposed as a possible

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 23 4/14/11 2:18 PM


24   Joye

biophilic ­design strategy,20 the first conscious instance of modern fractal


­architecture still has to be built. It is an open question, however, how to
­design a t­hree-dimensional fractal-like building that is not only architectur-
ally sound and convincing but that can also reach the intended biophilic
effects and that displays contextual responsiveness. Because designers are
skilled and educated in creatively and practically developing design pro-
posals, the introduction of biophilic design aesthetics in art and design edu-
cation could imply an important move forward to a more full-fledged and
mature biophilic design practice, which can accumulate both theoretical and
practical know-how over the years.
In the section on contextual responsiveness (see 2.2) it already became
clear that a coherent biophilic design aesthetics can only be an open system
that is able to interact with other variables, such as historical, cultural, and
social factors. This highlights a second reason why it is crucial to bridge the
gap between theory and practice. It is a matter of fact that building and de-
sign are to a large extent the result of cultural learning processes, and a wide
range of building strategies and styles have proven their functional use and
aesthetic value throughout the ages. This does not necessarily prove that
the inborn aspect of biophilia is incorrect, but it shows that it can be infused
with and transformed by cultural ideas.21 The implication of this view is
that a narrow, contextually unresponsive interpretation of biophilic design
is bound to fail—and in some cases it will even be way off the mark. While
from a biophilic perspective we are perhaps innately predisposed to prefer
flowers, the perception of a flower-shaped building could easily interfere
with culturally learned ideas of what a building should look like or what is
culturally appropriate. Eventually, this may cancel out or block the intended
(positive) psychological effects or even lead to negative reactions. Another
concern is that biophilic design could be considered as a “deceptive” design
act because it coaxes in individuals aesthetic responses while not offering
the real object that has shaped these reactions. The implication is that bi-
ophilic design can only succeed if it is sensitive to these issues and tries to
weave the cultural viewpoint into the biophilic perspective.
I believe that there is a crucial role here for current architectural and ­design
education, which is firmly rooted in a cultural context and often intimately
intertwined with reigning design ideas. Some consider such “cultural root-
edness” as a negative and constraining factor on art and aesthetic education,
requiring “deprogramming” of both students and educators. In their discus-
sion of the modernist model, for example, Salingaros and Masden note: “As
an expression of the global capitalist venture, Western iconic structures now
hover over the intimate ground plane of older cultural entities throughout
the world. Architectural educators must stop acting, consciously or uncon-
sciously, as agents of what is nothing less tha[n] cultural hegemony.”22 I re-
gret that Salingaros and Masden do not consider such ­cultural rootedness
more positively and frame it—quite ­derogatively—in terms of hegemony.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 24 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   25

A sensibility for “fashionable” aesthetic models in ­architecture (for example,


minimalism) is—I believe—meaningful because it ­enables one to blend cul-
tural preferences into biophilic design. Of course, and here Salingaros and
Masden obviously have a point, this can only succeed if there is an initial
openness to adopt the principles of biophilic design. In section 4 we will
tentatively argue how three interrelated values of ­biophilic design aesthet-
ics can facilitate this process.
Up to now my discussion of the role of aesthetic and design education
for biophilic design has been largely positive (that is, connecting theory and
practice). I want to conclude this section by pointing out that these fields can
also be significant for biophilic design by playing a negative role—that is,
by initiating critical and philosophical reflection on the central tenets of the
design strand. This is important because up to now critical writing on bi-
ophilia and biophilic design has been remarkably rare, despite the fact that
biophilia is not an uncontroversial thesis and in need of further develop-
ment. Let me touch upon two important issues related to biophilic design. A
first one is that the possibility for experiencing biophilia is often considered
to be a reason for nature conservation (that is, “we need to preserve na-
ture because without it we’d lose a significant source of well-being”). This,
however, sits uncomfortably with the fact that if biophilic design’s second
design strategy is effective then we do not need actual nature anymore for
experiencing biophilia. A second issue is that most biophilia theorists seem
to agree that actual nature has the most powerful biophilic effects. But if this
is the case (this is an empirical issue), then isn’t it most rational to put effort
into practices like urban greening instead of into architectural imitations of
nature (which are expensive and labor intensive)? And if so, to what extent
is the option for nature-like decoration not more an ideological choice instead
of a guideline following from scientific analyses? Critical research and re-
flection is needed to address these and other issues and to make biophilic
design into a philosophically viable and transparent theory.

4. The Value of Biophilic Design Aesthetics for Art and Design Education

As discussed, the confrontation of biophilic design with aesthetic education


is quintessential for practically developing the former. However, the success
of this confrontation also hinges on the willingness of educational curricula
to show an initial openness to the new design strand. This process could
be facilitated by making explicit how biophilic design education can be of
value for educational contexts. Three—perhaps unforeseen—values will be
discussed in the following sections.

4.1. Creative value


As I already have pointed out, uncritically adopting biophilic design will
probably lead to ridiculous results (for example, flower-shaped ­buildings).

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 25 4/14/11 2:18 PM


26   Joye

A related issue, relevant for the potential creative value of biophilic ­design,
is whether this design strand ultimately leads to traditionalism and,
­likewise, to stylistic uniformity. The question of traditionalism is inspired by
the observation—made by certain scholars—that “traditional architectures
were achieved by instinctively following the operating mechanisms of both
intelligence based design and biophilia, even though those terms were not
then known.”23 To give but one example, traditional architecture quite often
symbolically refers to nature by naturalistic ornament. But doesn’t this im-
ply that the stylistic scope of biophilic design is inherently limited?
Although there is a good case in claiming that traditional architecture
has certain biophilic characteristics, I am convinced that stylistic uniform-
ity and traditionalism are not necessary features of biophilic design. Perhaps
there is a sense in which the reproach of stylistic uniformity applies to the
experience of actual nature in architecture. If stylistic diversity is understood
as only obtainable by transforming the material structure of an object, then
just placing plants in a building offers not much opportunity for diversity
(that is, this leaves the material structure of plants unchanged). Some will
perhaps consider this as too strict a definition and will contend that diver-
sity should also have a clear experiential component (that is, “something is
diverse when it is experienced as such”). While it is outside the scope of
this paper to embark on a philosophical discussion of this topic, this last
interpretation entails that the first biophilic design strategy is not incompat-
ible with stylistic diversity. Diversity can then (for example) be attained by
placing plants in buildings or settings of different styles or by arranging and
combining them in a multitude of ways. The “threat” of stylistic uniform-
ity is even less evident in the case of imitated nature in biophilic design be-
cause here nature can be represented and stylistically interpreted in a large
number of ways.
In its most basic form the experience of imitated nature implies that one
takes a look at the low-level (visual) features and patterns that are charac-
teristic of natural objects and applies these to architectural design. While
this strategy obviously implies a choice for natural shape grammars, its
nonrepresentational character entails that it has only few stylistic commit-
ments, ruling out any necessary connections with traditionalism. Still, I have
to admit that the contextual responsiveness necessitated by biophilic design
can have certain stylistic repercussions, which might put an inherent brake
on the form freedom that some might initially ascribe to biophilic design.
However, these constraints are not inherent to biophilic design but follow
from the interaction with the (cultural, social) environment in which it will
become embedded.
Nature is a perennial source of inspiration for architectural and design
aesthetics in many ways (for example formally, conceptually, and structur-
ally).24 To give but one example, under the influence of early evolutionary

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 26 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   27

thinking, toward the end of the nineteenth century an important line of


­architectural organicism emerged. This strand is commonly associated with
Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright, and it put an important empha-
sis on the form-function adaptation of buildings, which is a trait that was
believed to be characteristic of natural entities.25 Biophilic design seems to
belong to this complex collection of appropriations of nature in architecture;
one could even claim that it pushes it to a higher level because of its evi-
dence-based and, hence, quasi-scientific outlook. As biophilic design aims
to trigger biophilic reactions with its natural shapes, inherent to the theory
is nature as a creative and aesthetic model for art and architecture. Or, as
Stephen Kellert frames it, “The aesthetics of nature can function as a kind of
monumental design model. These environmental attributes suggest proven
pathways of success in a multiplicity of shapes and forms. By discerning
beauty and harmony in the natural world, we advance the belief and some-
times the understanding of how certain configurations of line, space, tex-
ture, light, contrast, movement, prospect, and color may be employed to
produce analogous results in the human experience.”26
What Kellert is claiming is that there is an inherent creative value to
­learning biophilic design aesthetics. As biophilic design aims to imitate
natural form, a crucial part of biophilic design education will (inevitably)
be dedicated to studying and observing the aesthetics of nature and un-
ravelling its characteristic composition rules. Note that this could not only
be of value for biophilic design contexts themselves; it could also help stu-
dents and practitioners to broaden and enrich their creative palette (espe-
cially since the modern built environment offers them only a limited and
uniform creative “language”). Note also that the study of the aesthetics of
natural elements should not be limited to the superficial “surface appear-
ance” of natural forms. Many natural objects are structurally efficient and
are characterized by an economic and delicate balance between form and
function. This is a topical issue within the field of biomimicry,27 and, among
others, German architect Frei Otto has become renowned for applying it in
his designs and design experiments. Otto studied the structural efficiency
and economy of (the shapes of) natural objects and processes in order to ob-
tain lightweight and minimal architectural structures.28 Such principles also
have a place in biophilic design education as biophilic design has obvious
connections with “green” and low-impact architecture.29

4.2. The restorative value of biophilic design education


Biophilia’s belief in the beneficial effects of nature and wilderness is an idea
that can be traced back to ancient times. While it is a view that has remained
largely intuitive until the twentieth century, empirical evidence in support of
it is now accumulating, especially in the field of environmental psychology.
In particular, in the introductory sections, I have already noted that ­nature

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 27 4/14/11 2:18 PM


28   Joye

can have a restorative effect on human individuals. Two ­interpretations


of restoration are currently dominating the environmental psychology
­literature. On the one hand, well-controlled field and lab experiments show
that nature is restorative in that it is able to restore the capacity to direct atten-
tion. For example, Hartig and colleagues found that subjects who had spent
their holidays in nature scored better on an attention-demanding task (that
is, proofreading) than before their departure, whilst individuals who had
made a city trip scored lower after their trip than before.30 Theorists claim
that the main reason for this restorative effect is that nature is intrinsically
(aesthetically) fascinating; it can capture an individual’s attention without
requiring much effort, giving the cognitive systems involved in controlling
attention an opportunity to recover.31 Besides attention restoration, contact
with nature is also found to be restorative in that it is able to reduce psycho-
logical and physiological stress in individuals.32 For example, subjects who
were initially stressed report better moods and less stress after having had
visual access to nature (especially vegetative elements and water features)
than after having watched urban enviroments.
According to biophilic design these empirically documented restorative
effects of experiencing nature are likely to be triggered to some degree in
biophilic-designed buildings. What is of equal importance for my discussion
of the educational aspects of the design strand, however, is that the opportu-
nity to have contact with natural elements in an educational setting can of-
fer students (and also teachers) an opportunity for cognitive and emotional
restoration. This is relevant because cognitive and emotional capacities are
often under pressure in educational contexts. It is not uncommon for atten-
tional fatigue to occur in such contexts, both for students as for educators.
For example, when students are required to stay focused for prolonged peri-
ods of time (such as during exam periods), attentional resources can become
fatigued, which can lead to a reduced ability to stay focused on tasks requir-
ing concentration. Moreover, because less cognitive resources are available
to control for impulses, individuals who are attentionally fatigued are more
prone to behave aggressively or violently.33 This brings me to another point,
namely, that it is naïve to think of educational institutions as places devoid
of violence, aggression, or stress. School-related experiences (for example,
exams, bullying), taxing life and family issues (for example, divorce of par-
ents), specific developmental stages (for example, puberty), and so on are all
occurrences that can be psychologically stressful. While it is true that educa-
tional institutions (ideally) should give students the necessary psychologi-
cal and social support to allow them to deal with such stressful episodes,
exposure to restorative elements in biophilic design education can play a
nonnegligible mitigating role.
The previous considerations underline one of the most central values of
nature-contact in biophilic design education. The act of learning and prac-
ticing biophilic design aesthetics offers in itself opportunities to experience

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 28 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   29

the beneficial effects of biophilic elements. Although the literature on the


restorative effects of nature has mainly focused on the mitigating role of
nature on negative (affective) states, evidence also suggests that it can make
people feel better when they already were in positive moods,34 which is a
finding that obviously expands the role of biophilic design interventions.
Another point worth mentioning is that evidence suggests that contact with
nature improves productivity.35 Interestingly, this effect seems to be most
pronounced when creative tasks are involved, again underscoring the value
of nature-contact in essentially creative contexts.
A fair point is the question of whether the physically constrained con-
text of the classroom is sufficient to reach restorative effects. While biophilic
design education can in part take place in actual outdoor settings, research
also indicates that more “discrete” experiences of nature have positive—
that is, restorative—effects. Experiments indicate that a brief glance at small
pockets of nature through a window can already have positive outcomes.36
In health-care settings nature photographs or videos and—perhaps more
importantly—nature art are frequently and successfully used for restora-
tive purposes.37 The latter finding seems especially relevant for contexts
that focus on the artistic study of nature, such as biophilic design aesthet-
ics. Although I agree that such beneficial effects are intended for only a
small group of individuals, such positive experiences seem to be essential
for the success of biophilic design. For the dissemination of and interest in
biophilic design it could be crucial that individuals establish personal and
positive emotional connections with the components that are central to the
design process.

4.3. Biophilic aesthetics implies (implicit) environmental education


Until now I have remained mostly silent about the inborn component of
biophilia and have largely taken it for granted. However, to this day the
contribution of genetic factors to biophilia remains unclear and hypotheti-
cal (we will return to this subject in the final sections of this paper). Perhaps
a process of cultural evolution can explain certain biophilic effects equally
well.38 According to this view, biophilic attitudes are cultural constructs that
spread by nongenetic (that is, “cultural”) modes of transmission, such as
social learning. Whether or not this is a correct view is something that future
research will have to determine. Whatever the outcome, there seems to be
agreement on the fact that biophilia certainly involves learning. The impli-
cation of this is that diminished contact with nature can lead to a vicious
circle, sometimes referred to with the notion of “extinction of experience.”39
The core idea is that when in a culture there are fewer opportunities for bi-
ophilic responding because of reduced contact with nature, this leads to an
underdevelopment of the ability for biophilia. The consequence is that there
will also be less interest in protecting elements that cause these responses,
with the result of even fewer (biophilic) learning opportunities, a further

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 29 4/14/11 2:18 PM


30   Joye

degraded “talent” for biophilic responding, and increasingly less interest in


protecting nature against destruction and exploitation (Fig. 1).

Reduction of Diminishing
nature contact with nature

Less interestofin
Reduction Less opportunities
protecting
naturenature for biophilia

Figure 1. The process of the extinction of experience.

Given the above it seems that biophilic design education implies a kind of
indirect or implicit environmental education. On the one hand biophilic de-
sign education tries to establish specific practices in which students are urged
to have (visual) contact with natural form. One of the goals is to enable them
to come to successful and effective biophilic design proposals. On the other
hand, and perhaps most importantly, is that the artistic nature of biophilic
design education implies an important emphasis and focus on aesthetically,
and hence affectively, experiencing nature (this point was emphasized in
the previous section). Both aims imply that one of the components of the
vicious circle is counteracted. That is, biophilic design education increases
opportunities for experiencing biophilia, and it could thereby attenuate the
process of the extinction of experience. Note that the aesthetic involvement
with nature could have an especially important role in this process. Envi-
ronmental psychology research shows that emotional states, like aesthetic
experiences, play a considerable role in proenvironmental behavior. Hartig
and colleagues, for example, found that those people who showed inter-
est in, and were fascinated by, a piece of familiar nature (that is, a fresh-
water marsh) were also more motivated to behave proenvironmentally.40
Similarly, recent research by Hartig and colleagues indicates that positive
experiences in nature—such as restoration—promote ecological behavior in
individuals.41
I expect that some will feel that it goes too far to contend that ­educational
contexts will play a major role in counteracting the above-described vi-
cious circle, as biophilic design education is addressed to only a relatively
small number of individuals (that is, architecture/design students). What is

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 30 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   31

­ robable, however, is that it can instill in these individuals more interest in


p
and attention to the aesthetic impact and potential of natural form and an
increased willingness to design according to similar (aesthetic) principles. If
this translates into a higher prevalence of biophilic design in the built envi-
ronment, then the impact of biophilic design education could be consider-
able after all.
However, it remains to be seen whether this higher prevalence will also
translate into more proenvironmental behavior in future inhabitants or us-
ers. The fact that biophilic design is possible and effective implies that actual
nature is less needed for biophilic experiences. And why would we then be
motivated to conserve actual nature? Imitations of the “real thing” can give
us biophilic experiences as well. I expect, however, that biophilia theorists
will point out that in the absence of actual nature, vicarious experiences of
nature are suboptimal and incomplete but still next to best when contact
with real nature is impossible.42 The superiority of actual nature then leaves
a meaningful role for a conservation ethic; without such conservation prac-
tices we would only experience a degraded kind of biophilia. Although these
are, to a large extent, empirical matters, I think they again illustrate the need
for further critical reflection on biophilic design’s founding assumptions.

5. Concluding Remarks: The Possible Scope of Biophilic Design Aesthetics

One of the central aims of this paper was to introduce to the reader the
­essentials of biophilic design and discuss the relevance of the design strand
for aesthetic, art, and design education. What is especially compelling about
biophilic design is that it constitutes an attempt at naturalizing architectural
theory. The design theory is still in full development, however, and I hope
to have reached a balance between both critical discussion and instructive
learning. Such a critical approach is deemed necessary as it is largely missing
from the biophilia debate. Before concluding this paper I wish to make some
final comments on biophilia’s genetic commitments. The relative strength
of this genetic component could have ramifications for the argument I have
presented and for the scope of a biophilic design aesthetic.
Philosophically, biophilic design implies a “universalist” view on
­aesthetic preferences and artistic behavior. It states that these traits are not
culturally specific but shared by all human beings. Nowadays universal-
ist aesthetic theories often have a distinct neo-Darwinian “flavour,”43 and
it should be clear by now that this also holds true for the theoretical under-
pinnings of biophilic design (that is, biophilia). Although biophilia’s claim
that we positively relate with nature is unquestionable, it remains unclear
what the scope of the genetic component of biophilia is, and one should
be cautious not to make any definite claims about it. For example, evolved
emotional reactions to predator and prey will probably involve quite basic
emotional states (for example, fear, dislike, like). However, biophilia often

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 31 4/14/11 2:18 PM


32   Joye

invokes deep feelings (for example, “love”) to characterize the human rela-
tionship with nature. But because these in no way follow from adaptationist
analyses, it raises suspicions that the bulk of biophilia’s “philia” is culturally
constructed—that is, built around a minimal skeletal genetic core.
Suppose that I am on the right track, then the obvious question is ­whether
this is problematic for the arguments I have presented in this paper. I be-
lieve it isn’t because the argument can be interpreted entirely pragmatically.
In particular, it is empirically established that Westerners relate positively
to certain natural elements. This does not influence the claims that natu-
ral form—both “actual” and “imitated”—can (a) be a source of creative in-
spiration, (b) can elicit restorative experiences in educational settings, and
(c) can provide a counterforce against the extinction of experience. What
this ­moderate interpretation of biophilia could nonetheless imply is that,
although our attitudes toward nature are deeply rooted, they are to a large
extent culturally dependent and not necessarily similar to those of other
cultures.
Quite probably, some will consider the foregoing conclusion as
­undesirable. The reason is that a strong version of biophilia makes some
think that biophilic design stands out as superior among other architectural
strands or that it is more “scientifically grounded” and, hence, preferable.
The supposed inborn nature of biophilia is considered as the necessary “am-
munition” to evaluate and reject architecture that does not appeal to this
predisposition or that does not display naturalness.44 However, the superi-
ority of evolved predispositions over cultural tendencies that is implied in
this argument ignores the possibility that cultural phenomena are also part
and parcel of an adaptationist and, hence, naturalistic framework.45
While it is perhaps true that biophilia can explain why we prefer certain
architectural styles over others, it is difficult to see how it can be prescrip-
tive. Even if biophilia were hardwired, there is no logical necessity that one
ought to adopt a biophilic design strategy, and the accompanying educa-
tional context, just because it happens to be the fact that we affectively re-
late to nature. It could even be true that biophilic design is psychologically
“healthier” than other styles. While this gives us one reason to embrace the
design strand, it is not necessarily a definitive reason, for there may be coun-
tervailing ones. For example, I have already pointed out earlier in this paper
that social issues (for example, belonging to a social context) could quite
easily override the tendency to prefer biophilic forms.
Finally, note that these problems echo difficulties at the heart of biophilia.
Biophilia attempts to safeguard biodiversity by pointing out that nature is
“good” for us. Along similar lines (and in agreement with the artistic focus
of my argument) it could be argued that biodiversity should be preserved in
order not to lose an important source of architectural creativity and ­aesthetic
inspiration. It should be evident that the previous criticism also applies here.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 32 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   33

There are obvious reasons why one could pursue something because it is
healthy or because it implies an important aesthetic vocabulary, but one can
probably think of many reasons why one would choose architecture that
is—from a biophilic perspective—“unhealthy.” What follows from these ar-
guments is that biophilic design education, and the natural aesthetics that
goes hand in hand with it, can only be interpreted in a pluralistic, ecumeni-
cal framework—that is, as a valuable addition to existing accounts.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the anonymous referees for their positive criti-
cism. Many thanks also to Andreas De Block for his thoughtful and valuable
comments on this paper. This paper was written when the author was a
postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute of Philosophy (KULeuven) and
was supported by the Research Program of the Scientific Research Founda-
tion-Flanders (FWO), project G.0446.08.

NOTES

  1. E. O. Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University


Press, 1984), 139.
  2. See, for example, A. Öhman and S. Mineka, “Fears, Phobias, and Preparedness:
Toward an Evolved Module of Fear and Fear Learning,” Psychological Review 108
(2001): 483-522.
  3. This argument has been put forward by Roger Ulrich. See R. S. Ulrich, “Bio-
philia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes,” in The Biophilia Hypothesis, ed. S. R.
Kellert and E. O. Wilson (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993), 73-137.
  4. E. O. Wilson, “Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic,” in The Biophilia Hypothesis,
ed. S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993), 32.
  5. For a discussion of the difficulties related to this broad interpretation of biophil-
ia, see P. H. Kahn Jr., “Developmental Psychology and the Biophilia Hypothesis:
Children’s Affiliation with Nature,” Developmental Review 17 (1997): 1-61.
  6. This topic has been discussed in Barbara Fredrickson’s research. For a discus-
sion, see B. L. Fredrickson, “The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psycholo-
gy: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions,” American Psychologist
56 (2001): 218-26.
  7. S. Kellert, Building for Life: Understanding and Designing the Human-Nature Con-
nection (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005); S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, and
M. Mador, Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings
to Life (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2008); Y. Joye, “Architectural Lessons
from Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture,” Review of
General Psychology 11 (2007): 305-28; N. A. Salingaros and K. G. Masden, “Neuro-
science, the Natural Environment, and Building Design,” in Biophilic Design: The
Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, ed. S. Kellert, J. Heerwa-
gen, and M. Mador (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2008), 59-83.
  8. Kellert, Heerwagen, and Mador, Biophilic Design.
  9. See especially Ulrich, “Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes.”
10. I am well aware that the notion of “actual nature” can be controversial and that
even “actual” everyday nature can share characteristics with artifacts (for ex-
ample, consider the designed aspects of a garden).

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 33 4/14/11 2:18 PM


34   Joye

11. Joye, “Architectural Lessons from Environmental Psychology.”


12. For an extensive overview, see Kellert, Heerwagen, and Mador, Biophilic Design.
13. See, for example, J. K. Waters, Blobitecture. Waveform Architecture and Digital De-
sign (Gloucester, MA: Rockport, 2003).
14. G. Lynn, Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999); M. Burry,
Cyberspace—The World of Digital Architecture (Victoria, Australia: Images, 2001).
15. This conclusion is further strengthened by the observation that the structural
supports of the plastic surfaces are tectonically not always in evidence, indicat-
ing that digital designers are not primarily choosing an architectural solution
but prefer a sculptural effect.
16. Kellert, Heerwagen, and Mador, Biophilic Design.
17. Joye, “Architectural Lessons from Environmental Psychology.”
18. N. A. Salingaros, Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction (Solingen: Umbau Verlag,
2004).
19. J. Wines, Green Architecture (Köln: Taschen, 2000).
20. Joye, “Architectural Lessons from Environmental Psychology”; Salingaros and
Masden, “Neuroscience, the Natural Environment, and Building Design.”
21. Kellert, Heerwagen, and Mador, Biophilic Design.
22. N. A. Salingaros and K. G. Masden, “Intelligence-Based Design: A Sustainable
Foundation for Worldwide Architectural Education,” Archnet-IJAR: International
Journal of Architectural Research 2 (2008): 160.
23. Ibid., 131.
24. See C. Van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture: An Inquiry into Its
Theoretical and Philosophical Background (Amsterdam: Architecture and Natura
Press, 1994).
25. P. Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750-1950 (Montreal: McGill-
Queen’s University Press, 1998).
26. S. Kellert, Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development (Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press, 1997), 36.
27. J. M. Benyus, Biomimicry—Innovation Inspired by Nature (New York: William Mor-
row and Company, 1997).
28. F. Otto and B. Rasch, Finding Form—Towards an Architecture of the Minimal (Lon-
don: Edition Axel Menges, 2001).
29. Contextual responsiveness demands from biophilic architecture that it is respon-
sive to ecological concerns. Biophilia aims to preserve nature, and it would be
awkward if it leads to architectural practices that—in the long run—make expe-
riencing biophilia impossible.
30. T. Hartig, M. Mang, and G. W. Evans, “Restorative Effects of Natural Environ-
ment Experiences,” Environment and Behavior 23 (1991): 3-26.
31. See, for example, T. R. Herzog, A. M. Black, K. M. Fountaine, and D. J. Knotts,
“Reflection and Attentional Recovery as Distinctive Benefits of Restorative Envi-
ronments,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 17 (1997): 165-70; S. Kaplan, “The
Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 15 (1995): 169-82.
32. R. S. Ulrich et al., “Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Envi-
ronments,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 11 (1991): 201-30.
33. F. E. Kuo and W. C. Sullivan, “Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Ef-
fects of Environment via Mental Fatigue,” Environment and Behavior 33 (2001):
543-71.
34. J. Haviland-Jones, H. H. Rosario, P. Wilson, and T. R. McGuire, “An Environ-
mental Approach to Positive Emotion: Flowers,” Evolutionary Psychology 3 (2005):
104-32.
35. See, for example, V. I. Lohr, C. H. Pearson-Mims, and G. K. Goodwin, “Interior
Plants May Improve Worker Productivity and Reduce Stress in a Windowless
Environment,” Journal of Environmental Horticulture 14 (1996): 97-100.
36. R. Kaplan, “The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits,”
­Environment and Behavior 33 (2001): 507-42.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 34 4/14/11 2:18 PM


Biophilic Design Aesthetics   35

37. U. Nanda, S. L. Eisen, and B. Veerabhadran, “Undertaking an Art Survey to


Compare Patient Versus Student Art Preferences,” Environment and Behavior 40
(2008): 269-301.
38. See, for example, P. J. Richerson and R. Boyd, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture
Transformed Human Evolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).
39. R. M. Pyle, “Nature Matrix: Reconnecting People and Nature,” Oryx 37 (2003):
206-14; J. R. Miller, “Biodiversity Conservation and the Extinction of Experi-
ence,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (2005): 430-34.
40. T. Hartig, F. G. Kaiser, and P. A. Bowler, “Psychological Restoration in Nature
as a Positive Motivation for Ecological Behavior,” Environment and Behavior 33
(2001): 590-607; see also E. Kals, D. Schumacher, and L. Montada, “Emotional
Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature,” Environment
and Behavior 31 (1999): 178-202.
41. T. Hartig, F. G. Kaiser, and E. Strumse, “Psychological Restoration in Nature as
a Source of Motivation for Ecological Behaviour,” Environmental Conservation 34
(2007): 291-99.
42. S. R. Kellert, “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative De-
velopment in Children,” in Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and
Evolutionary Investigations, ed. P. H. Kahn and S. R. Kellert (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2002), 117-51.
43. For an overview see E. Voland and K. Grammer, eds., Evolutionary Aesthetics
(Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2003).
44. Salingaros and Masden, “Intelligence-Based Design.”
45. Richerson and Boyd, Not by Genes Alone.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:03:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAE 45.2 text.indd 35 4/14/11 2:18 PM

Potrebbero piacerti anche