Biophilic School Design for Health and Wellbeing

1. Motivations for This Reprint

This Reprint title—‘Biophilic School Design for Health and Wellbeing’—suggests the coverage of a range of factors through which it is contended that key elements of nature and the built environment have a direct link to the health and wellbeing of students and teachers.

In short, this is an extension of the much researched ‘sick building syndrome’ which was examined in depth in 1983 by the World Health Organisation [1]. It is, therefore, not surprising that the concept of biophilia also re-emerged around this time through E. O. Wilson [2]. The original enunciation of the hypothesis was developed in Eric Fromm’s [3] first use of the term in his publication ‘The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness’. Fromm suggested that humans have a deep connection to nature in part to ensure a healthy life, but also as a nurturing resource.

Fromm labelled this connection ‘biophilia’ or the love of nature. Later, following Kellert’s [4] work, this connection has been confirmed in a myriad of studies, with van den Bosch’s [5] ‘Nature and Public Health’ being one of the most comprehensive in its coverage. This work came into sharp focus in 2020 with the advent of the global pandemic COVID-19. This emergence resonates with the Tuberculosis pandemic in the late 1890s and early 1900s. At that time, the ‘open air school movement’ emerged as a potential counter to this disease. In some respects, the 21st Century biophilic school design campaign reprises that movement [6].

2. Aim and Purpose

Thus, a prefix to the title might well be ‘Evidence-Based’, with the ten articles in this Reprint sourcing evidence-based peer reviewed literature, which informs the planning and designing methodology through biophilic principles towards enhancing the health and wellbeing of students and teachers. This evidence-based approach parallels those used by health planners in designing hospitals, clinics, and allied health facilities.

Health planners have adopted an evidence-based method by leveraging the approach used in medicine and public health, where all outcomes are measured through an evidence-based lens. Such an approach has not yet been applied to the planning and design of school facilities with any significant rigour. We note, however, that data led teaching and learning approaches are becoming the norm in education, but are yet to feature significantly in the design of learning environments. Many studies are now making the connection between the built and natural environment and health and wellbeing through Terrapin’s [7] 14 Biophilic Design Patterns.

3. Subject and Scope

The Reprint covers three key areas: (1) the emerging evidence-base around nature and its impact on health and wellbeing; (2) using these findings to inform biophilic design principles for schools; and (3) the use of selected school and university case studies to illustrate how these two intersect in practice.

The evidence based around nature and its relationship to health and wellbeing explores how biodiversity on the campus grounds, and ultimately within the learning spaces as well, can enhance health indicators and outcomes. Furthermore, wellbeing indicators are also implicated in connection with various natural settings. The emerging biophilic principles can be directly related to these natural elements and the measurement of various human factors in a variety of settings is possible and presented.

These biophilic principles include overall greening targets, including the use of school grounds to improve and increase natural and biodiversity affordances, the introduction of more natural elements into school architectural design and also to enhance indoor environmental quality performance.

The first of the three parts, namely ‘the emerging evidence-base around nature and its impact on health and wellbeing’ is covered by three authors. Tim Baber & Ben Cleveland [Contribution 1] explore the interaction of biophilia and adolescents’ sense of place in Australian vertical schools Kenn Fisher [Contribution 2] investigates the concept of the biophilic school through carrying out a critical synthesis of evidence-based systematic literature reviews. Finally, Fiona Gray & Andrea Downie [Contribution 3] consider the design of thriving school ecosystems: the synergy of biophilic design, wellbeing science, and systems science.

The second part uses these findings to ‘inform biophilic design principles for schools’. Rokhshid Ghaziani [Contribution 4] suggests the need for re-thinking biophilic design for primary schools in exploring children’s preferences. Bethania Lanzaro and Marcella Ucci [Contribution 5] probe teacher and parent perceptions of biophilic conditions in primary school environments and their impact on children’s wellbeing whilst Kari Leif & Vivian Loftness [Contribution 6] develop a toolkit of biophilic interventions for existing schools to enhance student and faculty health and performance.

The third part makes use of ‘selected school and university case studies to illustrate how these two intersect in practice’. William Browning & Jim Determan [Contribution 7] conduct a study of a secondary school to determine learning outcomes of the biophilic design of schools. Alan J Duffy [Contribution 8] investigates the ‘nature’ of vertical school design through a biomimicry lens. Elia Ebrahimi Salari & Nigel Westbrook [Contribution 9] focus on wellbeing through mediated spaces including informal learning and physical activity environments in vertical schools. Yuqing He, Jacky Bowring, & Gillian Lawson [Contribution 10] explore mental health improvements through campus landscape design: insights from New Zealand universities.

4. The Suggested Audience

The primary audience is school principals, as they are in the best position to lead such an approach to health and wellbeing on their campuses. In turn, they can lead and calibrate the staged incorporation of these features with teachers and in concert with budget availability.

But so too are many other participants in this approach and campaign. This includes facilities managers within Ministries of Education, School Principal Associations, Subject Teacher Associations, Architects, Engineers, and other professionals involved in the planning, design, construction and management of school facilities. Furthermore, health and wellbeing advocates in the abovementioned sub-sectors are key to the implementation of this approach.

Another key sector which is often overlooked is faculties of education within universities. Teacher trainees are rarely exposed to the physical environment as a pedagogical affordance and, in particular, the learning environment as a factor in influencing the health and wellbeing of both teachers and students alike.

It is hoped that this Reprint summarises key aspects of an evidence-based biophilic school design approach to health and wellbeing in a way that provides effective evidence and the ways and means to implement such a strategy.