Understanding the convergence of nature and wellness in design practices
As society has settled into our technology-driven future, it's clear that we’ve designed a world disconnected from what we’ve been ecologically adapted to. Our habit of designing honors individualized outcomes, such as financial success, as opposed to encouraging wellness-first approaches. This has created a growing disconnection between us and the natural world we evolved in.
Modern design prioritizes efficiency and profitability, evident in its sterile surfaces and sharp angles. However, it has failed to enhance our connection to ourselves and the environment, contributing to ecological challenges and societal malaise.”
Several design theories have emerged to address the problems created by our disconnection from nature. Design theories such as biophilic design, salutogenic design and nature-based solutions provide clear frameworks to guide the creation of health-focused designs.
Drawing on principles of biological evolution, each of these three theories are rooted in creating spaces and objects that improve our health and wellbeing. Living beings are adapted and optimized for their conditions - this includes humans, and our designs should reflect that.
While these theories share similarities in process and outcome, each is unique. Together, they can guide designers and decision-makers in creating truly holistic and healthy spaces. The ways in which they differ help us see the gaps and disconnections within our built environments.
Biophilia, a theory coined by Erich Fromm, and later popularized by EO Wilson’s Biophilia, points out our innate connection to other living things. Wilson emphasized the evolutionary nature of biophilia and how our affinity for life and vitality is central to survival. The Design world was quickly influenced by the biophilia hypothesis. Stephen R. Kellert’s Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life outlines elements and strategies, as well as case studies and reasoning for why nature in our designed environments is so important. Today, numerous books, white papers, journals, consulting companies, and college courses focused on Biophilic Design. The concept of ‘bringing the outdoors in’ has gained significant traction.
Terrapin Bright Green’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design expands biophilic design beyond obvious examples like live plants or views of nature. It emphasizes spatial layout and environments that change dynamically throughout the day, mimicking natural rhythms. Biophilic design focuses on how sensory aspects of nature can enhance our experience of an object or space. It examines how individuals perceive and respond to their environment, using our evolutionary connection to nature to support physical and emotional well-being.
Biophilic design offers a framework for examining our relationship to spaces on both an emotional and evolutionary level. Language surrounding biophilic design is often distilled down to metrics of wellness and health - linking the concept with goals of health and optimization. These ideas of designed spaces fostering health and well-being parallels that of salutogenic design - a similar design that creates spaces that promote health rather than waiting to only cure the symptom.
Salutogenic Design is rooted in the work of Aaron Antonovsky’s Salutogenesis Model, a health theory first seen in his 1979 book Health, Stress and Coping. Salutogenesis explores how one’s outlook on life influences stress and well-being, shifting the focus from treating disease to understanding the origins of good health. This approach has been applied in healthcare to promote preventative treatments and healthier lifestyles.
The salutogenic model emphasizes the role of the built environment in fostering a sense of coherence—comprehensibility (clarity of space), manageability (control over surroundings), and meaningfulness (a sense of purpose). Alan Dilani, a Swedish architect and professor, emphasizes designing spaces that promote social interaction, reduce stress, and enhance understanding, as seen in his healthcare facility designs.
Approaching design through this health first lens aligns with the principles of biophilic design. Although not all salutogenic designs are biophilic, can all biophilic designs be considered salutogenic? Does fostering our innate human-nature connection inherently create the sense of cohesion that the Salutogenic model encourages?
Biophilic design and salutogenic design provide pathways for understanding ways in which we can create environments that make us feel good. They explore how our inherent connection to nature can shape how we interact with and experience our environments. These frameworks address how we feel within spaces. But do biophilic or salutogenic designs address broader challenges, such as reducing dependence on plastics, improving building energy efficiency, or managing rising sea levels?
While Biophilic Design and Solutogenic design fall just short of directly addressing these broader challenges, Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) offers a framework to enhance our relationship with the environment. Nature-based Solutions look at nature’s functionality to address human-caused challenges such as resource overuse, habitat loss, and rising temperatures.
Nature-Based Solutions are sometimes conflated with Biomimicry, a concept popularized by Janine Benyus, which examines natural processes—such as cellular structures, animal behaviors, and ecological systems—as models for engineered solutions. Nature-based Solutions is an approach to ecological problem solving that is recognized by the American Society for Landscape Architects, the US Department of Interior, FEMA and other official organizations.
Examples of Nature-Based Solutions include designing systems inspired by mangroves to protect shorelines from rising seas, developing mycelial structures as sustainable plastic alternatives, and implementing permaculture gardening techniques for regenerative agriculture. Over millions of years, nature has evolved to overcome adversity. By studying these adaptations, we can develop innovative solutions to our own challenges.
Isn’t the goal of all design to create and improve upon already existing ideas? Why do we need to categorize and define these modes of design thinking? To create clarity, foster collaboration, and refine our approaches to problem-solving. Defining language and frameworks around a school of thought allows designers to better analyze and refine the solutions they propose.
By framing our innate connection to nature within design principals helps us grasp where we might find shortcomings in sustainability. Recognizing that health outcomes are shaped by our connection to our surroundings underscores the psychological and physiological benefits of nature. Integrating nature into built environments addresses systemic challenges, such as air quality and urban heat, while improving individual well-being.
The principles of biophilic design, salutogenic design, and nature-based solutions demonstrate a commitment to creating spaces that holistically enhance our experience. These frameworks optimize both individual well-being and the performance of our built environments.
Comments