A framework of biophilic urbanism for improving climate change adaptability in urban environments

Highlights

• An advanced framework was suggested to include spatial ranges and biophilic methods.

• Spatial ranges were categorized into region and city, neighborhood and street, and building.

• Biophilic methods were suggested with the natural, technical, and functional method.

• The framework could be applied to improve climate change adaptability in urban areas.

Abstract

This study proposes a framework of biophilic urbanism that focuses on the adaptation of climate change, which is a representative urban problem facing modern cities. We derived a basic framework of biophilic urbanism by analyzing and reviewing the concepts and strategies of biophilic urbanism presented in previous studies. Based on this review, an advanced biophilic urbanism framework is suggested to examine the application of biophilic elements in cities. The framework consists of (1) the spatial range divided into region and city, neighborhood and street, and building and (2) the degree of biophilic method, which includes the natural, technical, and functional method. In addition, the representative biophilic elements for climate change adaptation are categorized using the framework. This framework provides an opportunity to identify and supplement the lack of biophilic elements in a city by enabling a systematic review of the biophilic elements according to the various spatial ranges and biophilic methods. Therefore, biophilic elements can be effectively applied within a city, and it is possible to create an environment where humans can experience various benefits as well as obtain psychological stability from nature.

Introduction

In the past, cities were designed to adapt to nature by adopting techniques that use natural materials and structures (e.g., organic and vernacular architecture) to form urban landscapes in the relationship between nature and human beings. In the early 20th century, it became possible to maximize environmental control through mechanical facilities with the development of functional architecture; thus, the architectural environment and urban landscape have begun to change significantly. Advances in technology have improved convenience and efficiency and have promoted urbanization. However, urbanization causes complex urban environmental problems, such as increased energy demand, resource consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and climate change (McKinney, 2002; Crawley, 2008; Madlener and Sunak, 2011; Argüeso et al., 2014; Zhou, 2014). Many studies have been reported that urban areas are the major source of anthropogenic carbon emissions. More than 90 % of the emissions are generated in cities, due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels for heating and cooling, industrial processes, and transportation. In addition, urbanization can reduce the magnitude of global carbon sinks with regional land use change, such as deforestation (Grimmond, 2007; Satterthwaite, 2008; Dhakal, 2010; McCarthy et al., 2010).

Recently, to solve these problems, architects and urban planners have begun to focus on ways to adapt and relate to nature in modern cities (Reeve et al., 2011; Beatley and Newman, 2013; El-Baghdadi and Desha, 2017). The attempt to bring as many natural elements into the human living environment as possible is approached with the concept of ‘biophilic urbanism’ (or ‘biophilic design’). Biophilic urbanism stems from Wilson’s concept of biophilia “innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (Wilson, 1984). Then, it is being developed and applied to architecture and urban planning, based on the notion that intimacy with nature offers many benefits, both physically and mentally (Reeve et al., 2012, 2013; Beatley and Newman, 2013; Newman, 2014; Xue et al., 2019). Biophilic urbanism, which attempts to reflect the concept of biophilia in urban planning and design, does not mean a return to the age when nature functioned as a shelter. Instead, biophilic urbanism aims to restore the relationship between humans and nature and improve the quality of the relationship by bringing nature into the human living environment. Biophilic urbanism also emphasizes that this relationship is one way to mitigate modern urban problems and is an essential element for achieving sustainable cities (Beatley and Newman, 2013; Newman, 2014; Xue et al., 2019).

The previous studies related to biophilic urbanism classified the elements for a clearer understanding and application of biophilic urbanism and design (Kellert, 2008; Browning et al., 2014). In addition, the elements were listed according to the spatial scale, and their expected effects regarding their ‘biophilic’ (Beatley and Newman, 2013; Xue et al., 2019) and social and economic benefits were measured and evaluated by each element (Ryan et al., 2014; Soderlund and Newman, 2015; Xue et al., 2019). From a biophilic design point of view, biophilic urbanism and design includes real natural elements and even non-natural elements that remind humans of nature (Kellert, 2008; Downton et al., 2016; Xue et al., 2019). The goal of biophilic urbanism and design is to include as much of nature as possible in the human living environment. However, few studies deal with how to use nature more effectively to alleviate modern urban problems while expanding the proportion of nature in urban and architectural planning.

This study aims to propose an advanced framework that can use nature more effectively to adapt to climate change in urban areas. We develop a comprehensive framework through a review of previous studies. Then, we suggest an advanced framework by improving and supplementing the comprehensive one to facilitate the applications of biophilic elements on region and city (macro), neighborhood and street (meso), and building (micro) ranges. Moreover, some examples of biophilic elements in the framework are suggested to discuss how to adapt climate change.