Urban Biophilia and Restorative Spaces: A Design Framework for Multi-Scale Spatial Integration

Öz

In the 21st century, rapidly increasing urbanisation, the climate crisis, and global pandemics are weakening the interaction between humans and nature, significantly impacting urban quality of life and public health. In this context, this study aims to examine how the biophilic design approach affects users' restorative experiences through landscape integration at the urban scale. Using a qualitative research design, the study employs a multiple case study method to reveal the effects of biophilic design at different spatial scales. In this context, the examples of Gardens by the Bay (Singapore), The High Line (New York), and Masdar City (Abu Dhabi) are analysed to demonstrate how biophilic design is transformed into spatial strategies in different urban contexts. The findings show that biophilic components such as vegetation, natural light, and water function not only as aesthetic elements, but also as restorative spatial mechanisms supporting cognitive renewal, stress reduction, and environmental adaptation processes. Accordingly, it has been shown that biophilic design produces a holistic environmental experience that supports attention renewal within the framework of Attention Renewal Theory and stress reduction within the framework of Stress Reduction Theory. In conclusion, the importance of addressing biophilic design holistically at different levels, from macro-scale open spaces to micro-scale interior spaces, is emphasized. It is considered that integrating this approach into planning policies can contribute to the development of healthier and more resilient urban environments, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biophilic city
• sustainability
• environmental design
• interior design
• nature-based solutions.

Kentsel Biyofili ve Restoratif Mekânlar: Çok Ölçekli Mekânsal Entegrasyona Yönelik Bir Tasarım Çerçevesi

Öz

21. yüzyılda hızla artan kentleşme, iklim krizi ve küresel salgınlar, insan ile doğa arasındaki etkileşimi zayıflatarak kentsel yaşam kalitesi ve toplum sağlığı üzerinde önemli etkiler yaratmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, biyofilik tasarım yaklaşımının kentsel ölçekte peyzaj entegrasyonu aracılığıyla kullanıcıların restoratif deneyimlerini nasıl etkilediğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma desenine sahip çalışmada, biyofilik tasarımın farklı mekânsal ölçeklerdeki yansımalarını ortaya koymak amacıyla çoklu vaka analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda Gardens by the Bay (Singapur), The High Line (New York) ve Masdar City (Abu Dabi) örnekleri, biyofilik tasarımın farklı kentsel bağlamlarda nasıl mekânsal stratejilere dönüştüğünü ortaya koymak üzere analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, bitki örtüsü, doğal ışık ve su gibi biyofilik bileşenlerin yalnızca estetik bir unsur olarak değil; aynı zamanda bilişsel yenilenme, stresin azalması ve çevresel uyum süreçlerini destekleyen restoratif mekânsal mekanizmalar olarak işlev gördüğünü göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda, biyofilik tasarımın Dikkat Yenileme Teorisi kapsamında dikkat yenilenmesini, Stres Azaltma Teorisi kapsamında ise stresin azalmasını destekleyen bütüncül bir çevresel deneyim ürettiği ortaya konulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, biyofilik tasarımın makro ölçekli açık alanlardan mikro ölçekli iç mekânlara kadar farklı kademelerde bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele alınmasının önemine vurgu yapılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımın planlama politikalarına entegrasyonunun, Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefleri ile uyumlu, daha sağlıklı ve dirençli kentsel çevrelerin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayabileceği değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyofilik şehir
• sürdürülebilirlik
• çevre tasarımı
• iç mekân tasarımı
• doğa tabanlı çözümler.

Kaynakça

1. Andreucci, M. B., Loder, A., Brown, M., & Brajković, J. (2021). Exploring challenges and opportunities of biophilic urban design: Evidence from research and experimentation. Sustainability, 13(8), 4323. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084323
2. Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning and design. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9 Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328- 3345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083328
3. Bensehla, S. (2025). Urban development in arid regions: A comparative study of Masdar City and the new town of Hassi Messaoud. Glasnik Srpskog Geografskog Drustva, 105(1), 363-384. https://doi.org/10.2298/GSGD2501363B
4. Berghauser Pont, M., Barthel, S., Colding, J., Gren, Å., Legeby, A., & Marcus, L. (2022). Social-ecological urbanism: Developing discourse, institutions and urban form for the design of resilient social- ecological systems in cities. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8, 982681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.982681
5. Biophilic Cities, (2026). https://www.biophiliccities.org/singapore (Erişim Tarihi: 24.04.2026)
6. Blau, M. L., Luz, F., & Panagopoulos, T. (2018). Urban river recovery inspired by nature-based solutions and biophilic design in Albufeira, Portugal. Land, 7(4), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040141
7. Boutreux, T., Bourgeois, M., Bellec, A., Commeaux, F., & Kaufmann, B. (2024). Addressing the sustainable urbanism paradox: tipping points for the operational reconciliation of dense and green morphologies. npj Urban Sustainability, 4(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-024-00176-7
8. Cavanaugh, L. M. (2008). Redefining the green roof. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 14(1), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2008)14:1(4)

9. Colding, J., Samuelsson, K., Marcus, L., Gren, Å., Legeby, A., Berghauser Pont, M., & Barthel, S. (2022).
10. Frontiers in social–ecological urbanism. Land, 11(6), 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060929
11. el-Baghdadi, O., & Desha, C. (2017). Conceptualising a biophilic services model for urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27, 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.016
12. Gadhi, A., Tiwari, A., & Qurnfulah, E. (2024). Biophilic Urbanism’s Impact on Sustainable Development: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 17(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p1
13. Harms, P., Hofer, M., & Artmann, M. (2024). Planning cities with nature for sustainability transformations— a systematic review. Urban Transformations, 6(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-024-00066-2
14. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Revieuw of Public
15. Health 35: 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
16. Hayles, C., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2018). Well-being in vertical cities: beyond the aesthetics of nature. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, November. Melbourne, Australia (pp. 331-338).
17. High Line, (2026). https://www.thehighline.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 24.04.2026)
18. Hüsam, A., Öztürk, S., & Dönmez, Y. (2021). Parkların peyzaj mimarlığı açısından incelenmesi: Karabük kent merkezi örneği. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 11(2), 339-346. https://izlik.org/JA32ET74MK
19. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.
20. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
21. Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis, (Eds). Island Press, Washington, D.C
22. Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. Yale University Press.
23. Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
24. Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2021). A framework of biophilic urbanism for improving climate change adaptability in urban environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 61, 127104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127104
25. Lefosse, D., van Timmeren, A., & Ratti, C. (2023). Biophilia upscaling: A systematic literature review based on a three-metric approach. Sustainability, 15(22), 15702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215702
26. Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, C., & Yang, Y. (2024). A review of attention restoration theory: Implications for designing restorative environments. Sustainability, 16(9), 3639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093639
27. Mashaly, E. T. (2025). The Symbiotic City Rethinking Urban Design for Human-Nature-Technology. Nile Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.21608/njace.2025.362738.1018
28. Mohammedani, E. A., Refai, M. A. S., Shaheen, L. A., & Basheer, R. A. O. (2026). Biophilic urbanism for mental well‑being: a framework for culturally sensitive urban design. Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43995-025-00286-y
29. Newman, P. (2014). Biophilic urbanism: a case study on Singapore. Australian Planner, 51(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.790832
30. Reeve, A., Hargroves, C., Desha, C., & Newman, P. (2012). Informing healthy building design with biophilic urbanism design principles: a review and synthesis of current knowledge and research. HB 2012 Healthy Buildings.
31. Salih, K., Saeed, Z. O., & Almukhtar, A. (2021). Lessons from New York high line green roof: conserving biodiversity and reconnecting with nature. Urban Science, 6(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6010002
32. Sedghikhanshir, A., & Montelli, R. (2026). Biophilic Design Interventions and Properties: A Scoping Review and Decision-Support Framework for Restorative and Human-Centered Buildings. Buildings, 16(3), 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16030515
33. Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2022). How the biophilic design social movement informs planning, policy and professional practice. Sustainable Earth, 5(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-022-00051-2
34. Totaforti, S. (2020). Emerging biophilic urbanism: The value of the human–nature relationship in the urban space. Sustainability, 12(13), 5487. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135487
35. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). Boston, MA: Springer US.
36. Xue, F., Gou, Z., Lau, S. S. Y., Lau, S. K., Chung, K. H., & Zhang, J. (2019). From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1444-1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.277
37. Yılmaz, D., & Öztürk, S. (2024). Kentsel Isı Adası Oluşumuna Karşı Dirençli Kentlerin Rolü Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 14(2), 81-91. https://izlik.org/JA88CD93YP
38. Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114- 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006