What Is Biophilic Design? Understanding the Principles Behind Designing with Nature

Biophilic design has become an increasingly familiar term in architecture and interiors.

It is also a term that is frequently simplified.

Search for biophilic interiors online and you are likely to find rooms filled with houseplants, green walls, timber finishes and nature-inspired colours. These can all have a place within biophilic design.

But they are not, by themselves, a definition of it.

Biophilic design is concerned with something broader: the relationship between people, nature and the built environments in which we spend our lives.

Understanding that distinction is important.

Because biophilic design is not an interior style, a collection of decorative features or another word for a room containing plants.

It is an approach to design.

And to understand where that approach comes from, we first need to understand the idea of biophilia.

What does “biophilia” mean?

The modern discussion of biophilia is closely associated with American biologist Edward O. Wilson, whose 1984 book Biophilia brought the concept to a much wider audience.

Wilson proposed that human beings have a natural affinity for life and living systems. The idea was later developed further through what became known as the biophilia hypothesis, which proposed an innate emotional affiliation between humans and other living organisms.

That hypothesis has influenced decades of discussion and research into the human relationship with nature.

But there is an important distinction to make.

Biophilia is an idea about the human relationship with nature. Biophilic design is an attempt to translate that relationship into the built environment.

That is where architecture and interior design enter the conversation.

From biophilia to biophilic design

Modern life means that much of our experience takes place inside buildings and constructed environments.

Biophilic design asks how those environments might support meaningful experiences of nature rather than separating us from them.

Stephen R. Kellert became one of the most influential figures in developing this idea into a design discipline.

His work moved the conversation beyond the simple inclusion of natural objects and towards a much broader understanding of how buildings and interiors can create experiences associated with nature.

These experiences can be direct.

Daylight entering a room.

Moving air.

Vegetation.

Water.

Views towards landscapes or other natural systems.

But the relationship can also be indirect.

Natural materials, representations of nature, forms and geometries associated with the natural world, and the visible processes of ageing and change can all contribute to how we experience a space.

And some aspects of biophilic design are spatial rather than material.

The relationship between openness and shelter, opportunities for prospect and refuge, movement through space, complexity, orientation and connection to place can also form part of the discussion.

This is one reason biophilic design cannot be reduced to a checklist of objects.

Biophilic design is not an interior style

This distinction is particularly important in interiors.

Biophilic design does not prescribe a particular aesthetic.

A biophilic interior does not have to be green.

It does not have to be rustic.

It does not have to contain exposed timber, botanical wallpaper or dozens of plants.

And it certainly does not need to look like every image returned by a search for “biophilic interior”.

The principles can be considered within very different architectural languages.

A minimal contemporary home, a traditional building, an office, a school or a healthcare environment may all approach the relationship between people and nature differently.

Biophilic design is therefore better understood as a design approach than as a visual style.

The question is not simply:

Does this room look natural?

A more useful question is:

How does this environment enable people to experience and relate to nature?

It is about much more than plants

Plants are probably the most recognisable expression of biophilic design.

And for good reason: living vegetation creates one of the most direct ways of introducing nature into an interior.

But plants represent only one possible element.

Natural light is another.

So are views of nature, air movement, water, natural materials and sensory variation.

Some approaches also consider representations of nature, biomorphic forms and patterns, natural geometries and spatial conditions that echo experiences found in natural environments.

This wider understanding changes the way we think about a room.

A space with twenty plants but poor daylight, little connection to the outdoors and no consideration of how people experience the space should not automatically be treated as an exemplary piece of biophilic design.

Equally, a room without a large collection of plants may still establish meaningful connections with nature through daylight, views, materials, spatial relationships and other carefully considered elements.

Plants can be part of biophilic design. They are not the definition of it.

Why are there different biophilic design frameworks?

Anyone beginning to research biophilic design will eventually encounter different lists of principles, elements, attributes and patterns.

This can be confusing.

The reason is relatively simple: there is not one universally adopted framework that defines every aspect of biophilic design.

Different researchers and practitioners have developed frameworks to organise a complex field and make it more useful for research and design practice.

One influential framework appeared in the 2008 book Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, edited by Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen and Martin L. Mador.

Kellert's contribution organised biophilic design into two broad dimensions, six elements and more than seventy attributes.

In 2015, Kellert and Elizabeth F. Calabrese published The Practice of Biophilic Design, offering a more streamlined framework.

They organised biophilic design around three broad categories of experience:

Direct experience of nature

This includes actual contact with environmental features such as natural light, air, water, plants, animals, weather, landscapes and ecosystems.

Indirect experience of nature

This includes representations and transformations of nature, such as images of nature, natural materials and forms or patterns associated with the natural world.

Experience of space and place

This considers spatial qualities and relationships, including concepts such as prospect and refuge, organised complexity, mobility, wayfinding and cultural or ecological attachment to place.

These categories are useful because they immediately demonstrate how much broader biophilic design is than simply introducing vegetation into a building.

But they are not the only framework.

The 14 — and now 15 — Patterns of Biophilic Design

Another highly influential framework was published by Terrapin Bright Green in 2014.

14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, by William Browning, Catherine Ryan and Joseph Clancy, organised design strategies into three broad groups:

Nature in the Space

Natural Analogues

Nature of the Space

Within those groups, the original framework described fourteen patterns intended to help translate research on nature and human experience into practical design considerations.

The framework has continued to evolve.

Its tenth-anniversary edition revisited the original work, and the current publication includes a fifteenth pattern, Awe.

This evolution is worth noting because it illustrates something important about biophilic design:

the field is developing.

Frameworks are tools for understanding and applying ideas. They should not be mistaken for immutable laws of design.

For a designer beginning to explore biophilic design, their value lies in providing a structured way of asking better questions about the relationship between people, nature and space.

What does the research actually say about wellbeing?

This is where discussions about biophilic design require particular care.

Claims about its benefits are widespread.

Biophilic design is frequently associated with reduced stress, improved wellbeing, better cognitive performance, greater productivity and improved health outcomes.

There is research investigating relationships between exposure to nature, particular biophilic interventions and aspects of psychological and physiological wellbeing.

There are also systematic reviews reporting positive findings in particular settings, including healthcare environments.

But this does not mean that every feature described as “biophilic” will produce the same measurable benefit in every person, room or building.

Studies examine different populations, different environments and different interventions. They also use different measures and research methods.

That makes broad promises difficult to justify.

For SID, I think the more responsible position is this:

There is a meaningful and growing body of research examining how contact with nature and biophilic design interventions may influence human health and wellbeing — but individual findings should be understood within the context in which they were studied.

Good design should not turn emerging or context-specific evidence into marketing claims.

Biophilic design and sustainable design are not the same thing

The two ideas are often placed together, and there are good reasons for that.

Both can encourage designers to reconsider the relationship between buildings, people and the natural world.

But biophilic design and sustainable design are not interchangeable terms.

Sustainable design is concerned with a much broader range of environmental and social considerations: resource use, energy, emissions, sourcing, durability, waste, circularity and the impacts associated with producing and operating our built environment.

Biophilic design focuses more specifically on human relationships and experiences of nature within the built environment.

The two can support each other.

But one does not automatically guarantee the other.

A natural material, for example, may contribute to a biophilic experience through its texture, variation or connection to the natural world.

That does not automatically tell us whether the material was responsibly sourced, how far it travelled, how it was processed, what finishes were applied to it or what happens to it at the end of its useful life.

Likewise, a product with strong environmental credentials is not automatically a biophilic design element.

“Natural”, “biophilic” and “sustainable” describe different things.

Understanding those differences allows us to make better design decisions rather than relying on labels.

What is good biophilic design trying to achieve?

Biophilic design is not about fitting as many references to nature as possible into one interior.

More is not automatically better.

Nor should every recognised pattern or attribute be forced into every project.

Context matters.

Climate matters.

Architecture matters.

Culture and place matter.

The people using the space matter.

And the appropriate relationship with nature will be different in a city apartment, a rural house, a school, an office and a hospital.

This is why I find biophilic design most useful when it is approached as a way of thinking rather than a decorative formula.

Instead of beginning with:

Which biophilic products should I buy?

we can begin with more fundamental questions.

What relationship does this space have with daylight?

Can we see or experience nature from inside?

How does air move through the space?

What materials are we touching and seeing?

Do they retain qualities that connect us with their natural origin?

How does the space make us feel as we move through it?

Does it offer openness as well as places of shelter?

Does the design respond in any meaningful way to its climate, landscape or location?

Not every project will answer every question in the same way.

That is precisely the point.

The SID takeaway

Biophilic design is much more than a room filled with plants.

It grew from a broader idea about the human relationship with the natural world and developed into a field that explores how architecture and interiors can support that relationship.

Different frameworks provide different ways of understanding and applying those ideas.

None should be treated as a decorative checklist.

For homeowners, biophilic design can provide a different way of thinking about the spaces in which we live.

For designers and architects, it offers a much broader question:

How can the built environment maintain meaningful connections between people and the natural world?

That question can lead us towards plants.

But it can also lead us towards daylight, air, materials, views, spatial relationships, sensory experiences and a deeper understanding of place.

And that is where biophilic design becomes considerably more interesting than an interior trend.

Sources & Further Reading

Edward O. Wilson — Biophilia (1984)

Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen & Martin L. Mador (eds.) — Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life (2008)

Stephen R. Kellert & Elizabeth F. Calabrese — The Practice of Biophilic Design (2015)

University of Minnesota — Biophilic Net-Positive Design Project: Biophilic Design Frameworks

William D. Browning, Catherine O. Ryan & Joseph O. Clancy — 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (2014; 10th Anniversary Edition 2024, revised 2026)

Weijie Zhong, Torsten Schröder & Juliette Bekkering — Biophilic Design in Architecture and Its Contributions to Health, Well-being, and Sustainability: A Critical Review (2022)

Inas Al Khatib, Fatin Samara & Malick Ndiaye — A Systematic Review of the Impact of Therapeutical Biophilic Design on Health and Wellbeing of Patients and Care Providers in Healthcare Services Settings (2024)