Next Article in Journal
Designing of Intelligent Video-Surveillance Systems in Road Tunnels Using Software Tools
Next Article in Special Issue
Creating a Virtuous Food Cycle in Monterrey, Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
RETRACTED: Baig et al. Digital Entrepreneurship: Future Research Directions and Opportunities for New Business Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5004
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nature-Based Solutions for Cooling in High-Density Neighbourhoods in Shenzhen: A Case Study of Baishizhou
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/su15075703
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improving Psychological Well-Being in Urban University Districts through Biophilic Design: Two Cases in Mexico

by
Carlos Cobreros
1,*,
Neyda Medoza-Ruvalcaba
2,
Mariana Flores-García
3 and
Rob Roggema
4,5
1
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Arquitectura, Arte y Diseño, Campus Queretaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76130, Mexico
2
Centro Universitario de Tonalá, Universidad de Guadalajara, Tonalá 45425, Mexico
3
Facultad de Arquitectura, Universidad la Salle Bajío Campus Camoestre, Leon 37150, Mexico
4
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Arquitectura, Arte y Diseño, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico
5
Cittaideale, 6706LC Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5703; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075703
Submission received: 26 January 2023 / Revised: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 17 March 2023 / Published: 24 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Greening Our Environment: Nature Driven Solutions for Regenerative and Resilient Cities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Since 2007, more than half of the population has lived in cities, and an increase of 60 percent is expected by 2030. The city can bring many benefits to citizens, but it also brings a series of problems, such as a loss of psychological well-being and the breakdown of social cohesion and several aspects of mental health. University districts, usually concentrated in specific parts of cities, suffer particularly from these negative effects. Nature can be used to alleviate these problems and provide the benefits of a connected urban life. The university community’s well-being depends on contact with nature. In this sense, biophilic design improves the built environment. The purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between connectedness to nature and psychological well-being in university communities to contrast the effect that nature has on people’s psychological well-being and to identify possible biophilic design patterns that could improve connectedness to nature, validating the urgent need to design and implement biophilic design in current cities and university urban districts.

1. Introduction

Absence of nature and green spaces in the direct vicinity of urban dweller’s surrounds has arguably negative impacts on their general, mental, and physical health. In this article, biophilic design interventions are identified to provide positive health impacts in university districts.
With more than half of the global population living in cities since 2007, a percentage that is expected to increase to 60% in 2030, adding 2.4 billion people by 2050 [1], and occupying a mere 3% of the territory [2], health concerns of the urban population are on the rise, as is the role that nature can play in improving urban living conditions. Cities may be seen as centers that promote mental health [3], urban interactions also entail a loss of psychological well-being and a breakdown of social cohesion [4], leading to suboptimal mental health conditions such as depression [5] in cities, in comparison with rural areas [6,7,8].
“The modern city represents a regressive encroachment of the synthetic on the natural, of the inorganic (concrete, metals, and glass) on the organic, or crude, elemental stimuli on variegated wide-ranging ones” [9] (p. 26). The city is posited here as the antithesis of nature; the organic is pitted against the artificial. Cities are not explicitly “designed for nature” [10], threatening biodiversity and people’s opportunities to interact with nature [11], especially for individuals living within economically deprived urban areas [12], or mental barriers [13].
The lack of outdoor experiences, contact with, and visualization of natural beauty, denies personal physiological nature [14,15,16], restricting physical and mental [17], spiritual [18], and social [19] benefits. This progressive disconnection with nature is associated with increases in stress-related illnesses [20] and affects human health, well-being, attitudes, and behaviors towards nature [21]. There is broad consensus that limited views of the outdoors or access to exterior landscapes [22,23,24], no natural light [25], no contact with nature patterns, biomimicry, space diversity, native elements, plants, plant patterns, simulation of natural features or water [24], limits restorative healthy environments [25].
Opportunities for nature experiences are decreasing for many people around the globe, despite their being associated with increased psychological well-being [11]. “Ecological conditions and processes do not operate separately from social processes, and existing socio-natural conditions are always the result of intricate transformations of pre-existing configurations that are themselves inherently natural and social” [26] (p. 445). The urbanization process is “an ecological transformation, which requires the reproduction of those relations in order to sustain it” [27].
The question, therefore, is how to design a city, so it can facilitate the accessibility, the quality, and the quantity of nature. This design is determined by [11]:
  • The type of natural features: better quality and quantity of nature characterize and define “natural features” (including size, type, composition, spatial configuration, biodiversity, and other attributes of land covers/uses);
  • The exposure to these features: easier access to nature characterizes “exposure” of people to nature (and/or type of “use”) through an accounting/estimation of the proximity, likelihood, and duration of nature contact of this nature to people;
  • The experience with these features: the intensity of the interaction with nature illustrates some of the crucial characteristics of nature exposure (i.e., nature experience) types, forms, and the intensity of the experience that exposure instantiates through the approaches captured in the notions of “interaction pattern” and “dose”.

Biophilic Design

The interaction with nature is called Biophilia [28], the “innate emotional affiliation [29] of human beings with other living organisms”, which describes the deep feelings of connection with nature [30]. This emotional affiliation is deemed “essential for human mental health and in that attachment, we find what is vital” [31]. This theory connects with many others that seek restoration and awareness of the environment, and revealing, reviving, or regenerating this loving relationship with nature [32,33,34], gradually helping the individual towards an “inner transformation” [35], overcoming the current deficit of direct contact or the fragmentation of our perception of the living world [36]. Contact with the natural generates emotion, meaning, compassion, and beauty [37], leading to a stage of “revival” [33].
The general benefits of biophilic design are related to the role nature plays in allowing humanity to have all the benefits of a connected urban life while alleviating the urban environment penalty [1]. Being in contact with nature and its processes, having access to open natural spaces such as parks, gardens, or rivers, and the interaction with animals and plants improves our general wellbeing [38], our health [39,40], and has environmental, social, cultural, and economic benefits [21,41]. The magnitude of the impact of nature on physical and mental health depends on the complex interactions between urban form, human society, and natural features [37,42]. Pathways to enhance nature relatedness involve sustained contact, emotion, and compassion toward nature, as well as appreciation of beauty [43]. However, the relationship with nature and environmental knowledge develops throughout an individual’s life and not only during childhood [21]. Biophilic design incorporates natural components into built environments [44]. There are successful examples of biophilic urban acupuncture, with a positive impact on emotional health, promoting physical activity, accessible and inclusive, promoting sensory stimuli [45]. Biophilic design contributes to improved wellbeing [46]. Biophilic cities are resilient and sustainable cities, providing numerous ecological and adaptive services at the same time, while providing essential benefits in the form of mental and physical health [47].
Schools and educational institutions play an important role in promoting connections with nature [48]. A natural environment therefore ensures that the benefits reach young people, favor the use of nature, promote attention, cognitive performance, and mood [49], and improves concentration, self-discipline, and reduce physiological stress [50]. Contact and visualization of natural beauty stimulate prosocial behavior and empathy, generosity, trust, and collaboration [16,19,51]; this can be accomplished, for instance, by the mere existence of nearby green spaces [47,52]. People have greater social contact with each other [53] and expose to nature inspires them to acquire human senses, develop social behaviors, and even create ethical structures that are intimately derived from our relationships with other living beings [38].
There are also substantial benefits for physical health [54,55], resulting from both qualitative and quantitative increase of natural elements [56,57,58,59]. Spending more time outdoors reduces heart rate and blood pressure and increases the immune system function [60] and mindfulness [61].
Being in contact or interacting with natural environments improves general mental wellbeing [62,63], especially for children and adolescents [47,64,65]. There is a multitude of benefits of natural environments for mental health: It can reduce stress, increase creativity, and improve mental clarity [45,66,67]; it constitutes a healthy restorative environment [24,25] and restorative functions [68]. It can reduce incidences of depression and stress [41,60], anxiety [51], and schizophrenia [69], and can improve self-reported mental health [70] and one’s sense of emotional well-being, particularly among those susceptible to mental health problems [71]. Adults improve in mood [42,72]. Brain activity is forged in the connection with nature and urban nature is necessary for good psychological functioning [41]. Nature relatedness is related to general psychological well-being and subjective well-being [73,74]. It is important that populations vulnerable to mental health problems, have easy access to parks and feel safe using it [47]. Three main pathways are provided by the natural environment that contribute to benefits for mental health and psychological well-being [67]:
-
Directly through the restorative effect of nature;
-
Providing opportunities for positive social contact;
-
Providing opportunities for physical activity.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between connectedness to nature and psychological well-being in university communities, to contrast the effect that nature has on people’s psychological well-being, and to identify possible biophilic design patterns that could improve connectedness to nature, validating the urgent need to design and implement biophilic design in current cities and university urban districts.

2. Materials and Methods

The research is based on the study of the relationship between connectedness to nature and psychological well-being, conducted by a multicenter study and supported, as a main method, by a cross-sectional survey. The research is complemented by the identification of possible biophilic design patterns that could suit the improved psychological well-being through better connectedness to nature.
The relationship between connectedness to nature and psychological well-being is conducted by a multicenter study in Guadalajara and Querétaro, located in the west and center of Mexico. The analytical cross-sectional design, based on the perception of users regarding their environment, has a double purpose, from the descriptive to the analytical [75]. Participating individuals in the survey were eligible when they were 18 years or older, consented to participating, and completed the designed research-form. Incomplete submissions were excluded. Totally, n = 276 people participated, of whom 63% (n = 174) were women, 35.1% (n = 97) men, and 1.8% preferred not to specify (n = 5). The average age was 27.3 years (S.D. = 10.8), ranging between 18 and 75 years, and 65% were between 20 and 29 years old. Of the total population, 47.83% corresponded to Querétaro and 52.27% to Guadalajara. To measure the impact of nature on psychological well-being, several scales have been applied (See Table 1). The Connectedness with Nature Scale [76] was used to measure the level of affective and experiential connection of individuals with nature. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.84. Psychological well-being was operationalized through different affective dimensions experienced by people during life. The Mood Rating Scale was used [77] to assesses four emotional states: depression, anxiety, hostility or anger, and joy. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.81. The Satisfaction with Life scale [78] measures individuals’ global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with their life. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.87. The Perceived Stress Scale was used [79] to assess the level of stress involved in different life situations. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.87. Finally, to assess the quality of life, the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Scale WHOQOL-BREF [80] was used. It has a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.90. To explore the impact of connectivity with nature on psychological well-being, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. The dependent variables referred to mood (sadness/depression, anxiety, anger/hostility, joy), life satisfaction, perceived stress, and quality of life (general, perceived, physical, psychological, social relationships, environment), all of which were integrated as the psychological well-being variable. The Bonferroni adjusted alpha of 0.017 was used and partial eta squared (h2) values were calculated to estimate effect size. Values greater than 0.14 (or 14%) were considered large effects [81].
Complementarily, possible biophilic design patterns have been identified that could suit the improved connectedness to nature and consequently, as a hypothesis, psychological well-being. Therefore, 14 biophilic design patterns [45], subdivided in 3 conceptual categories (nature in space, natural analogues, nature of space) [82], have been selected, which relate human biological science and nature to the design of the built environment (Table 2). Direct observation techniques and methods through pedestrian-scale photographs were employed, wherefrom biophilic design patterns were categorized. Each image was broken down and analyzed to highlight the coincidences of each “pattern-element” with its environment, which resulted in an image translated into a diagram (Figure 1) where the patterns were highlighted based on their physical characteristics, such as size, proportion, structure, among others, identifying, punctually, its location, and associating the experience and feelings derived from it.
For the identification of biophilic design patterns, variables have been determined that allow characterizing each of the elements of the study area. The characterization matrix shown in Table 3 indicated a code that was obtained for the analysis and graphing in percentage of presence of each of the patterns in the place.
For the identification of biophilic patterns, Figure 2 shows the eight analytical cases from eight reference, representative, and characteristics locations of the studied urban university districts were defined with different characteristics and scales to allow the validation of the biophilic pattern identification instrument. For this, the weighting was 100% when identifying all 14 patterns, which gave a value of 7.14% to each pattern with the intention of initially identifying a significant presence of biophilic patterns at the diagnostic level (%). For this, work sheets were made which integrated references in the analyzed path, as well as images and their categorization.

3. Results

3.1. Connectedness to Nature and Psychological Well-Being

The results of the study of the relationship between connectedness to nature and psychological well-being are depicted in Table 4. No differences were found according to gender or age.
The relationship between connectedness to nature and the variables of psychological well-being is shown in Table 5. Referring to mood, a positive significant relationship was found between connectedness with nature and feelings of joy (r = 0.159, p = 0.009), no correlation was found with sadness/depression, anxiety, and anger/hostility. A positive significant relationship was also observed between connectivity with nature and life satisfaction (r = 0.302, p = 0.000), quality of life in general (r = 0.203, p = 0.001), as well as in its specific dimensions of physical health (r = 0.154, p = 0.011), psychological health (r = 0.282, p = 0.000), and social relationships (r = 0.133, p = 0.027). Additionally, a significant negative correlation was found between connectivity with nature and perceived stress (r = −0.175, p = 0.004). Most representative correlations are shown in Figure 3, which shows a trend of major connectedness to nature being associated with major life satisfaction, general quality of life, health, and psychological quality of life, as well as less perceived stress.
The effect of connectedness to nature on the psychological well-being variable is shown in Table 6. Connectedness with nature had a significant effect on the combined dependent variable of psychological well-being, explaining 17% of the variance (F = 1.13; p = 0.001; Wilkes Lambda = 0.10). Specifically, connectivity with nature had a large significant effect explaining 29% of the variance in life satisfaction (F = 2.3; p = 0.000); 27% of the variance in psychological health (F = 2.1; p = 0.000); 25% of the variance in perceived stress (F = 1.9; p = 0.001); 23% of the variance in general quality of life (F = 1.7; p = 0.008); and 21% of the variance in quality of life in the dimension of social relationships (F = 1.5; p = 0.002).

3.2. Identification of Suitable Biophilic Patterns

According to the results shown in the Figure 4, the existing elements that show a direct initial contact were clearly identified in all the cases, and those that denoted an experience were not so easily identified. It is also possible to recognize that the average biophilic patterns scored 8 out of 14, with a strong tendency to the presence of nature in the place. Secondly in the Figure 5, the percentage of present biophilic patterns as a global value per case study is observed, identifying those cases with the most potential to develop strategies based on biophilic design.

4. Discussion

Connectedness with nature has a large significant effect in relation to life satisfaction. Engaging with the natural environment contributes to various objective and subjective metrics of human wellbeing, and nature provides substantial cultural and social values to humans. Previous studies have confirmed these findings. In this sense, nature’s restorative effect explains why happiness is directly related to nature connectedness. Moreover, people with a higher connectedness to nature are more likely to spend time in nature, and they benefit from both the affective and revitalizing effects of natural environments.
In this study, it is found that the connectedness to nature has a large positive impact on stress. This is well documented by previous studies that report that being in nature, frequent exposure to nature, or even viewing scenes of nature reduce negative effects such as anger, fear, and stress. Connectedness to nature is also associated with, and has an important impact on, the quality of life improving an individual’s general well-being, including physical, emotional, and psychological aspects. Spending time in nature, engaging with nature directly and indirectly, and a strong sense of nature connectedness (a psychological/emotional connection with nature) positively impact wellbeing. Specifically, nature connectedness and engaging with nature through simple activities (such as smelling flowers) are stronger predictors of wellbeing and mental health, rather than the actual time spent in nature [82].
In this study, the sizes of the effects are, in general, large; these were statistically significant and relevant. Not only does scientific evidence provide support to the intuition of individuals who visit parks and gardens that they personal health and well-being benefits; it also provides the basis for spatial interventions that are based on increasing the exposure to nature in cities as a practical way to enhance public health. In this sense, contact with nature provides an effective population-wide strategy.
Although the findings in this and many other studies suggest that connectedness to nature has a positive impact on psychological well-being, some limitations are addressed. An important limitation in this study relates to the fact that the participants were recruited from an email list of a private university, which limits the generalizability to larger populations. Future research involving a wider population is suggested. Another limitation is related to its cross-sectional nature which limits our conception of causal relationships; therefore, longitudinal data are needed to provide stronger evidence. Finally, data collection was developed by an online self-report questionnaire, which represents bias due to the fact that the population to which it was distributed cannot be accurately described, and respondents with biases may select themselves into the sample.
While the implementation of biophilic design at the urban scale can be very purposeful and ambitious, the implementation in cities is not so straightforward, as they have different characteristics in all their dimensions. Although the benefits of resilience are broad, they require considerable biophilic investments, from trees and urban forests to wetland systems. However, it serves the expansion of adaptive capacity in the face of a “storm” of shocks and stressors that global cities will face in the coming decades. This helps people, individuals, families, and communities, to become healthier and more socially connected, with a greater likelihood of successfully adapting to the future.
There is little understanding of the processes that are derived from a biophilic city, which posits adaptations to the functioning of natural systems. It is not clear, for example, what the minimum level of nature, or access to nature, is to live a healthy, happy, and resilient life. Additionally, the cumulative impacts of different green elements and combinations of green elements in urban environments is ill-understood. There is much more research required to better understand the benefits that resilience provides to biophilic cities and even the different basic forms in which urban biophilia manifests (which vary by geography and climate) [83].
This study provided evidence for the identification of a variety of biophilic patterns for new intervention opportunities based on biophilic design with high development potential.
The methodology started with the adaptation of biophilic design patterns, then identified the parameters for the existing infrastructure of the city within the study areas in eight representative locations of the two urban university districts studied. We chose the locations because they are characteristic of both cases, and associated the level of interaction of students with the psychological metrics of well-being and commitment to nature.
This study not only highlights the importance of integrating aspects of biophilic design, but also the need to integrate multidisciplinary approaches in which different types of data, such as environmental, statistical, sociological surveys, geographical information, and design with nature, can be related [84]. As mentioned above, it is of vital importance to recognize the physical environment from everyday experiences with nature, which will allow us to propose biophilic design strategies towards the shaping of a true biophilic city.

5. Conclusions

The article illustrates the effect of nature on people’s psychological well-being and validates the need to design and implement biophilic design strategies and patterns in cities and university districts. It is not enough simply to mimic nature in the city/urban environments; this should be read as real nature, with all the in-depth features nature has (clean air, take up of particles, carbon, producing oxygen, food, etc.).
It can be concluded that connectedness with nature has a significant positive effect on psychological well-being, showing consistency with former studies carried out which revealed, e.g., that connectivity and access to nature should play an important role in the structure of cities. Biophilic design should therefore play a fundamental role in the development of future cities, thus validating the need to design and implement biophilic design strategies in today’s cities.
This study contributes to the theory on the benefits of connectedness with nature in relation to public health and life satisfaction in cities, promoting substantial cultural and social values, with a positive impact on states of mind, and specifically on happiness.
In view of the above, it is suggested that researchers continue to delve into exploratory methodologies for the recognition of biophilic design patterns in the neighborhood and the interaction of the community with each one of them. They will be recognized as strategic components of a healthy environment. It will be important to delve into the variability and adaptability of different environments which converge with the natural processes of permanent transformation, and also to explore other experiences from the perspectives of age and gender, and the perception of other sectors in conjunction with education, including the variable of temporality.
To understand the benefits of being connected to nature, there is also a need for further studies on the biophilic potential of cities and the analysis of specific biophilic strategies, depending on the place and the context of application, to promote quality of life in its psychological dimensions of vitality, happiness, relaxation, and stress relief.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C., N.M.-R., M.F.-G. and R.R.; methodology, C.C., N.M.-R.; software, N.M.-R.; validation, C.C., N.M.-R. and R.R.; formal analysis, C.C., N.M.-R. and R.R.; investigation, C.C., N.M.-R., M.F.-G. and R.R.; resources, N.M.-R., C.C. and M.F.-G.; data curation, N.M.-R., C.C. and M.F.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C., N.M.-R., M.F.-G. and R.R.; writing—review and editing, C.C., N.M.-R., M.F.-G. and R.R.; visualization, N.M.-R. and M.F.-G.; supervision, C.C., N.M.-R., M.F.-G. and R.R.; project administration, C.C.; funding acquisition, C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data used in this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McDonald, R.; Beatley, T. The Urban Century. In Biophilic Cities for an Urban Century; Palgrave Pivot: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  2. ONU-Hábitat. Reporte Nacional de Prosperidad Urbana en México. Índice de Las Ciudades Prósperas (cpi); ONU-Habitat y el Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores (Infonavit): Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Glaeser, E.L. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier; Macmillan: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  4. McDonald, R.; Beatley, T. Cities as Inhumane: The Urban Health Penalty. In Biophilic Cities for an Urban Century; Palgrave Pivot: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  5. Van den Bosch, M.; Andreas, M.-L. Environmental exposures and depression: Biological mechanisms and epidemiological evidence. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2019, 40, 239–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Newbury, J.; Arseneault, L.; Caspi, A.; Moffitt, T.E.; Odgers, C.L.; Fisher, H.L. Why are children in urban neighborhoods at increased risk for psychotic symptoms? Findings from a UK longitudinal cohort study. Schizophr. Bull. 2016, 42, 1372–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Gruebner, O.; Rapp, M.A.; Adli, M.; Kluge, U.; Galea, S.; Heinz, A. Cities and mental health. Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2017, 114, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Lederbogen, F.; Kirsch, P.; Haddad, L.; Streit, F.; Tost, H.; Schuch, P.; Wüst, S.; Pruessner, J.C.; Rietschel, M.; Deuschle, M.; et al. City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature 2011, 474, 498–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bookchin, M. Ecology and Revolutionary Thought. Antipode 1985, 17, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Davis, M. How Eden lost its garden: A political history of the L.A. landscape. Capital. Nat. Social. 1995, 6, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Schwarz, K.; Fragkias, M.; Boone, C.G.; Zhou, W.; McHale, M.; Grove, J.M.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.; McFadden, J.P.; Buckley, G.L.; Childers, D.; et al. Trees Grow on Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Skår, M.; Krogh, E. Changes in children′s nature-based experiences near home: From spontaneous play to adult-controlled, planned and organised activities. Child. Geogr. 2009, 7, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Grellier, J.; Wheeler, B.W.; Hartig, T.; Warber, S.L.; Bone, A.; Depledge, M.H.; Fleming, L.E. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Corraliza, J.A.; Berenguer, J.; Martín, R. Medio Ambiente, Bienestar Humano y Responsabilidad Ecológica; Editorial Resma: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  18. Heintzman, P. Nature-Based Recreation and Spirituality: A Complex Relationship. Leis. Sci. 2009, 32, 72–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, J.W.; Piff, P.K.; Iyer, R.; Koleva, S.; Keltner, D. An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 37, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yin, J.; Zhu, S.; MacNaughton, P.; Allen, J.G.; Spengler, J.D. Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Colléony, A.; White, R.; Shwartz, A. The influence of spending time outside on experience of nature and environmental attitudes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 187, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Johnson, N. Why Biophilic Architecture Works: Five Reasons and Case Studies. Available online: https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/features/features-articles/why-biophilic-architecture-works-five-reasons-and (accessed on 30 September 2014).
  23. Clayton, S.; Colleony, A.; Conversy, P.; Maclouf, E.; Martin, L.; Torres, A.C.; Truong, M.X.; Prevot, A.C. Transformation of experience: Toward a new relationship with nature. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 10, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Ebrahimpour, M. Proposing a framework of biophilic design principles in hot and arid climate of Iran by using grounded theory. CEE 2020, 16, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ortega Andeane, P.; Estrada, C.; Toledano, F.; Campos, J. Calidad ambiental, carga y estrés en cuidadores primarios informales de un hospital pediátrico. In Ambientes Hospitalarios y Estrés; Ortega, P., Estrada, C., Eds.; Facultad de Psicología UNAM: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018; pp. 65–96. [Google Scholar]
  26. Swyngedouw, E. Modernity and Hybridity: Nature, Regeneracionismo, and the Production of the Spanish Waterscape, 1890–1930. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1999, 89, 443–465. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2564492 (accessed on 15 December 2022). [CrossRef]
  27. Harvey, D. Justice, Nature and the Geography. 1997. Available online: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Justice%2C+Nature+and+the+Geography+of+Difference-p-9781557866813 (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  28. Wilson, E. Biophilia, New ed.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  30. Söderlund, J. The Emergence of Biophilic Design; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fromm, E. Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil; American Mental Health Foundation: Riverdale, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wahl, D.C. Designing Regenerative Cultures; Triarchy Press Ltd.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Weber, A. Enlivenment: Toward a Poetics for the Anthropocene; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  34. Patke, A.; Young, M.W.; Axelrod, S. Molecular mechanisms and physiological importance of circadian rhythms. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2020, 21, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cooper, D.E. Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective; Green Books: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Louv, R. The Nature Principle: Reconnecting with Life in a Virtual Age: Human Restoration and the End of Nature-Deficit Disorder; Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lumber, R.; Richardson, M.; Sheffield, D. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kellert Stephen, R.; Heerwagen Judith, H.; Mador Martin, I. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-470-16334-4. [Google Scholar]
  39. Doménech Gómez, N. Aplicación de técnicas cualitativas y cuantitativas para recoger la respuesta del usuario frente a un espacio arquitectónico. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Escuela Técnica Superior de Gestión en la Edificación–Escuela Técnica Superior de Gestión en Edificación, Valencia, Spain, 2015. Available online: https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/49871 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
  40. Granda-Cango, K.G. El condicionamiento operante como estrategia dentro del proceso de enseñanza en la actualidad educativa ecuatoriana; Universidad Técnica de Machala: Machala, Ecuador, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  41. Corraliza, J.; Collado, S.; De Madrid, U.A.; De Zaragoza, U. Conciencia Ecológica Y Experiencia Ambiental En La Infancia. Cons. Gen. Col. Of. Psicólogos 2019, 40, 190–196. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hartig, T.; Kahn, P.H. Living in cities, naturally. Science 2016, 352, 938–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barrable, A.; Arvanitis, A. Flourishing in the forest: Looking at Forest School through a self-determination theory lens. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 2018, 22, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Magos-Ramírez, S.; Serrano-Arellano, J.; Dávila-Núñez, M.; Trejo Torres, Z. Estudios de psicología ambiental en hospital general de Huichapan: Elementos sensoriales y bioclimáticos. Rev. Investig. Y Desarro. 2016, 2, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
  45. Browning, W.D.; Ryan, C.O.; Clancy, J.O. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design; Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stafford, M.; Tilley, S.; Britton, E. The New Sustainability: Regeneration; Innovation Group: Portsmouth, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  47. McDonald, R.; Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Vision and Emerging Principles. In Biophilic Cities for an Urban Century; Palgrave Pivot: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Keaulana, S.; Kahili-Heede, M.; Riley, L.; Park, M.L.N.; Makua, K.L.; Vegas, J.K.; Antonio, M.C. A Scoping Review of Nature, Land, and Environmental Connectedness and Relatedness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Norwood, M.F.; Lakhani, A.; Fullagar, S.; Maujean, A.; Downes, M.; Byrne, J.; Stewart, A.; Barber, B.; Kendall, E. A narrative and systematic review of the behavioural, cognitive and emotional effects of passive nature exposure on young people: Evidence for prescribing change. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schweitzer, J.-P.; Gionfra, S. Nature-based education for resilient cities. In Lifelong Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 355–376. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cox, D.T.; Hudson, H.L.; Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. De Vries, S.; Van Dillen, S.M.; Peter, P.G.; Peter, S. Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesión and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 94, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C.; Coley, R.L.; Brunson, L. Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1998, 26, 823–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kardan, O.; Shneidman, L.; Krogh-Jespersen, S.; Gaskins, S.; Berman, M.G.; Woodward, A. Cultural and Developmental Influences on Overt Visual Attention to Videos. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Remme, R.P.; Frumkin, H.; Guerry, A.D.; King, A.C.; Mandle, L.; Sarabu, C.; Bratman, G.N.; Giles-Corti, B.; Hamel, P.; Han, B.; et al. An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and health. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2018472118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schipperijn, J.; Cerin, E.; Adams, M.A.; Reis, R.; Smith, G.; Cain, K.; Christiansen, L.B.; van Dyck, D.; Gidlow, C.; Frank, L.D.; et al. Access to parks and physical activity: An eight country comparison. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Adams, M.A.; Frank, L.D.; Pratt, M.; Salvo, D.; Schipperijn, J.; Smith, G.; Cain, K.L.; et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: A cross-sectional study. Lancet 2016, 387, 2207–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Shanahan, D.F.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Lin, B.B.; Dean, J.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Fong, K.C.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. A Review of Epidemiologic Studies on Greenness and Health: Updated Literature Through 2017. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018, 5, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Livni, E. Trees Please: The Japanese Practice of ‘Forest Bathing’ Is Scientifically Proven to Improve Your Health. 2016. Available online: https://qz.com/804022/health-benefits-japanese-forest-bathing/ (accessed on 26 April 2017).
  61. Rayner, J. Green roofs for sustainable cities. Geodate 2015, 28, 6–8. [Google Scholar]
  62. Amerio, A.; Brambilla, A.; Morganti, A.; Aguglia, A.; Bianchi, D.; Santi, F.; Costantini, L.; Odone, A.; Costanza, A.; Signorelli, C.; et al. COVID-19 Lockdown: Housing Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Howell, A.J.; Dopko, R.L.; Passmore, H.-A.; Buro, K. Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2011, 51, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Engemann, K.; Pedersen, C.B.; Arge, L.; Tsirogiannis, C.; Mortensen, P.B.; Svenning, J.-C. Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 5188–5193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Preuß, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; Márquez, S.; Cirach, M.; Dadvand, P.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gidlow, C.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Kruize, H.; Zijlema, W. Low Childhood Nature Exposure is Associated with Worse Mental Health in Adulthood. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Stigsdotter, U.K.; Ekholm, O.; Schipperijn, J.; Toftager, M.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F.; Randrup, T.B. Health promoting outdoor environments—Associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scand. J. Public Health 2010, 38, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. ÖZgen, E. Evaluation on the change of healing perception at healthcare facilities the royal children's hospital. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Health Sci. 2018, 2, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sundquist, K.; Frank, G.; Sundquist, J. Urbanisation and incidence of psychosis and depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 2004, 184, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Van den Berg, M.; Wendel-Vos, W.; van Poppel, M.; Kemper, H.; van Mechelen, W.; Maas, J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cincinelli, A.; Martellini, T. Indoor air quality and health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Hahn, K.S.; Daily, G.C.; Gross, J.J. Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 8567–8572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Murphy, S.A. Happiness is in our Nature: Exploring Nature Relatedness as a Contributor to Subjective Well-Being. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 12, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zelenski, J.M.; Nisbet, E.K. Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Rodríguez, M.; Mendivelso, F. Diseño de Investigación de Corte Transversal. Rev. Médica Sanitas 2018, 21, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Sanz, J. Un Instrumento Para Evaluar la Eficacia de los Procedimientos de Inducción de Estado de ánimo: La Escala de Valoración del Estado de ánimo (EVEA). 2001. Available online: http://www.redined.mec.es/oai/indexg.php?registro=005200230184 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
  78. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. WHO (World Health Organization). WHOQOL-BREF: Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment: Field Trial Version, December 1996; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  81. Brace, N.; Kemp, R.; Snelgar, R. SPSS for Psychologist, 4th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 303. [Google Scholar]
  82. Panagopoulos, T.; Sbarcea, M.; Herman, K. A biophilic mind-set for a restorative built environment. Landsc. Arch. Art 2021, 17, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Beatley, T.; Newman, P. Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Ignatieva, M.; Haase, D.; Dushkova, D.; Haase, A. Lawns in Cities: From a Globalised Urban Green Space Phenomenon to Sustainable Nature-Based Solutions. Land 2020, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 15 05703 g001 550
Figure 1. Example of identification of biophilic design patterns on site.
Figure 1. Example of identification of biophilic design patterns on site.
Sustainability 15 05703 g001
Sustainability 15 05703 g002 550
Figure 2. Variability in intervention scales for the identification of biophilic design patterns in sites at the initial diagnostic level.
Figure 2. Variability in intervention scales for the identification of biophilic design patterns in sites at the initial diagnostic level.
Sustainability 15 05703 g002
Sustainability 15 05703 g003 550
Figure 3. Correlation of connectedness to nature and life satisfaction, perceived stress, total quality of life, and health-related/psychological quality of life.
Figure 3. Correlation of connectedness to nature and life satisfaction, perceived stress, total quality of life, and health-related/psychological quality of life.
Sustainability 15 05703 g003
Sustainability 15 05703 g004 550
Figure 4. Identification of suitable biophilic patterns in different sites for case studies and % of presence of each one per case.
Figure 4. Identification of suitable biophilic patterns in different sites for case studies and % of presence of each one per case.
Sustainability 15 05703 g004
Sustainability 15 05703 g005 550
Figure 5. Presence of each pattern per case.
Figure 5. Presence of each pattern per case.
Sustainability 15 05703 g005
Table
Table 1. Measurement scales for the design of the instrument.
Table 1. Measurement scales for the design of the instrument.
Measurement ScalesSpecific Objectives
The Connectedness
with Nature Scale
[76]		To measure the level of affective and experiential connection of individuals with nature.
Mood Rating Scale
[77]		To assess four emotional states: depression, anxiety, hostility or anger, and joy.
The Satisfaction with Life scale
[78]		Measures individuals’ global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with their life.
The Perceived Stress Scale
[79]		To assess the level of stress involved in different life situations.
World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Scale
WHOQOL-BREF
[80]		To assess the quality of life in general and four domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health.
Table
Table 2. Fourteen biophilic patterns.
Table 2. Fourteen biophilic patterns.
Nature in SpaceNatural AnaloguesNature of Space
Visual Connection with NatureBiomorphic shapes and patternsPerspective
Non-Visual Connection with NatureMaterial connection with natureRefuge
Non-Rhythmic Sensory StimuliComplexity and orderMystery
Thermal and Airflow Variability Risk/danger
Presence of Water
Dynamic and Diffuse Light
Connection with Natural Systems
Table
Table 3. Characterization of biophilic patterns and codes for identification of elements on site.
Table 3. Characterization of biophilic patterns and codes for identification of elements on site.
Biophilic Patterns and Code Characterization of Elements
1. Visual Connection With Nature (VCWN) Views, natural elements, natural processes.
2. Non-Visual Connection With Nature (N-VCWN) Noise, Touch, Smell, taste, Sight. Positive perception regarding nature.
3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli (N-RSS) Random, ephemeral behavior regarding the connection with nature.
4. Thermal Variability and Airflow (TVA) Air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments.
5. Presence of Water (PW) Hear and touch Water, experience improvement.
6. Dynamic And Diffused Light (DDL) Light and shadow, experience of the natural.
7. Connection With Natural Systems (CWNS) Seasonal changes, healthy ecosystems.
8. Biomorphic Forms and Patterns (BFAP) Symbolic: natural form, texture, rhythm, order.
9. Material Connection With Nature (MCWN) Materials and elements of nature that local ecology or geology. Distinctive sense of place.
10. Complexity And Order (CAO) Rich sensory information and hierarchy, spatial.
11. Perspective (PER) Free view, monitoring and planning.
12. Refuge (REF) Place of Protection, to minimize risk, security.
13. Mystery (MY) Attraction, Curiosity, Surprise.
14. Danger/Risk (D/R) A threat, trust level.
Table
Table 4. Connectedness to nature and variables of psychological wellbeing.
Table 4. Connectedness to nature and variables of psychological wellbeing.
VariableMeanSDMinimumMaximum
Connectedness to Nature54.099.3624.0070.00
Psychological Well-BeingDepression9.204.244.0020.00
Anxiety10.204.414.0020.00
Hostility7.754.114.0020.00
Happiness13.253.664.0020.00
Life Satisfaction25.266.266.0035.00
Perceived Stress40.949.3717.0062.00
QOL Perceived4.200.801.005.00
Subjective Health4.010.921.005.00
QOL Physical Health27.934.8613.0035.00
QOL Psychological22.414.438.0030.00
QOL Social Relationships11.422.613.0015.00
QOL Environmental31.615.0517.0040.00
CV General101.6114.6560.00128.00
Notes: QOL = Quality of life, SD = Standard deviation.
Table
Table 5. Correlation between connectedness to nature and variables of psychological wellbeing.
Table 5. Correlation between connectedness to nature and variables of psychological wellbeing.
Variable1234567891011121314
1. Connectedness to nature1
2. Depression−0.0411
3. Anxiety−0.0540.668 **1
4. Hostility−0.0690.663 **0.651 **1
5. Happiness0.159 **−0.434 **−0.363 **−0.320 **1
6. Life satisfaction0.302 ***−0.269 **−0.288 **−0.378 **0.445 **1
7. Perceived stress−0.175 **0.494 **0.596 **0.414 **−0.389 **−0.540 **1
8. QOL perceived0.056−0.103−0.122 *−0.236 **0.265 **0.538 **−0.193 **1
9. Subjetive health0.018−0.206 **−0.248 **−0.278 **0.287 **0.405 **−0.255 **0.470 **1
10. QOL Physical health0.154 *−0.447 **−0.475 **−0.463 **0.447 **0.549 **−0.472 **0.432 **0.523 **1
11. QOL Psychological 0.282 ***−0.527 **−0.552 **−0.445 **0.526 **0.652 **−0.679 **0.289 **0.403 **0.674 **1
12. QOL Social relationships0.133 *−0.338 **−0.330 **−0.273 **0.338 **0.512 **−0.385 **0.398 **0.298 **0.479 **0.547 **1
13. QOL Enviromental0.112−0.226 **−0.229 **−0.315 **0.319 **0.571 **−0.298 **0.629 **0.450 **0.543 **0.434 **0.409 **1
14. QOL General0.203 ***−0.466 **−0.485 **−0.477 **0.511 **0.725 **−0.560 **0.603 **0.593 **0.866 **0.815 **0.685 **0.792 **1
Notes: QOL = Quality of life, ***. Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed), **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table
Table 6. Effect size of connectedness to nature on psychological well-being variables: mood states, perceived stress, life satisfaction and quality of life.
Table 6. Effect size of connectedness to nature on psychological well-being variables: mood states, perceived stress, life satisfaction and quality of life.
Variables of Psychological Well-BeingFn2p
Happiness1.2640.1840.145
Depression1.4510.2060.047
Anxiety1.0650.1600.374
Hostility1.2040.1770.199
Perceived stress1.9370.25700.001
Life satisfaction2.3110.2920.000
QOL General1.7000.2330.008
QOL Perceived1.3620.1950.082
Subjective Health1.0010.1510.477
QOL Physical Health1.3890.1980.070
QOL Psychological2.1170.2740.000
QOL Social Relationships1.5470.2160.002
QOL Environmental1.5370.2150.026
Notes: QOL = Quality of life; n2 = partial eta squared (size effects).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cobreros, C.; Medoza-Ruvalcaba, N.; Flores-García, M.; Roggema, R. Improving Psychological Well-Being in Urban University Districts through Biophilic Design: Two Cases in Mexico. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075703

AMA Style

Cobreros C, Medoza-Ruvalcaba N, Flores-García M, Roggema R. Improving Psychological Well-Being in Urban University Districts through Biophilic Design: Two Cases in Mexico. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):5703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075703

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cobreros, Carlos, Neyda Medoza-Ruvalcaba, Mariana Flores-García, and Rob Roggema. 2023. "Improving Psychological Well-Being in Urban University Districts through Biophilic Design: Two Cases in Mexico" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 5703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075703

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop