Ahşap Yapıların Biyofilik Tasarımla Entegrasyonu: Doğaya Dönüş ve Sürdürülebilirlik

Öz

Biyofili, insanların doğayla doğuştan bir bağa sahip olduğunu öne süren bir kavramdır. Biyofilik tasarım, artan çevresel zorluklar sebebiyle ‘sürdürülebilirlik’ bağlamında giderek daha kritik hale gelmiştir. Bununla birlikte, hem teorik hem de pratik anlamda ‘doğa’yı kavramsallaştırma konusunda temel stratejiler içermektedir. Bu makale, biyofilik tasarımın insan ve doğa arasındaki bağları nasıl güçlendirdiğini ve doğayı rasyonel olarak yorumlamak üzere ahşap yapıların bu tasarım felsefesiyle mimariye nasıl entegre edilebileceğini incelemektedir. Çalışmada, teorik bir çerçeve oluşturulmuş ve biyofilik tasarım dinamiklerini anlamak amacıyla Norveç Bergen’deki "The Tree", Avustralya Sydney’deki “International House” ve Fransa Lorient’teki “Lorient-Bretagne Sud Tren İstasyonu” projeleri incelenmiştir. Bu projeler, ahşabın biyofilik tasarımla nasıl etkili bir şekilde entegre edildiğini ve ahşap malzemenin doğayla bütünleşik, enerji verimliliği yüksek ve insan psikolojisine olumlu katkılar sağlayan yapılar oluşturmadaki rolünü sergilemektedir. Sonuç olarak, biyofilik tasarımla entegre ahşap yapıların, hem insan sağlığı hem de çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından gelecekte mimaride daha geniş bir yer bulması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• biyofili
• ahşap
• sürdürülebilirlik
• enerji verimliliği
• psikoloji

Integration of Wooden Structures With Biophilic Design: Return to Nature and Sustainability

Öz

Biophilia is a concept that suggests humans have an innate connection to nature. Due to increasing environmental challenges, biophilic design has become more critical within the context of sustainability. It encompasses key strategies for conceptualizing "nature" in both theoretical and practical terms. This paper examines how biophilic design strengthens the bond between humans and nature and explores the integration of wooden structures into architecture through this design philosophy to rationally interpret nature. The study establishes a theoretical framework and examines the dynamics of biophilic design through case studies of The Tree in Bergen, Norway, International House in Sydney, Australia, and the Lorient Multimodal Hub in Lorient, France. These projects illustrate how wood is effectively integrated into biophilic design and how it plays a vital role in creating buildings that are not only energy-efficient and environmentally harmonious but also psychologically beneficial for occupants. In conclusion, wooden structures integrated with biophilic design principles are expected to play a broader role in future architecture, benefiting both human health and environmental sustainability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• biophilia
• wood
• sustainability
• energy efficiency
• psychology

Kaynakça

1. ArchDaily. (2022, March 2). The Biophilic Response to Wood: Can it Promote the Well-Being of Building Occupants? ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/974790/the-biophilic-response-to-wood-can-it-promote-the-wellbeing-of-building-occupants
2. AREP. (2018). Lorient Multimodal hub: A Wooden Showcase for Mobility in Brittany. AREP Architecture.
3. Bakar, E. S., Othman, N., & Roslan, A. H. (2019). Sustainable Wood Construction: A Review of Cross-Laminated Timber and Biophilic Architecture. Journal of Timber Research, 45(3), 210-220.
4. Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of Biophilic City Planning & Design. Island Press.
5. Brown, R. J. (2019). Technological Advancements in Timber: The Rise of Wooden Skyscrapers. Architecture Journal, 22(3), 45-53.
6. Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design: Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
7. Burnard, M. D., & Kutnar, A. (2015). Wood and Human Stress in the Built İndoor Environment: A Review. Wood Science and Technology, 49(5), 969-986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-015-0747-3
8. Chang, C. Y., & Chen, P. K. (2020). Human Responses to Window Views and İndoor Plants in the Workplace: Biophilic Design in Action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38(1), 35-43.

9. Chen, F., Bao, Y., & Wang, J. (2019). Biophilic Design and Energy Performance: A Case Study on Tamedia Office Building. Energy and Buildings, 185, 181-192.
10. Coutts, A. M., Tapper, N. J., Beringer, J., Loughnan, M., & Demuzere, M. (2021). The İmpact of Green Spaces on Heat Stress Reduction and Well-Being: A Biophilic Design Approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127253.
11. Depledge, M. H. (2015). Healing Environments: The Role of Wood in Hospitals and Healthcare Settings. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 25(2), 151-162.
12. Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., & Sathre, R. (2019). Primary Energy İmplications of End-of-Life Management of Wood-Based Building Materials. Energy and Buildings, 43(7), 1928-1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.03.015
13. Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (2020). Building Green: Biophilic Design and Health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 134-143.
14. Fell, D. R. (2010). Wood in the Human Environment: Restorative Properties of Wood in the Built İndoor Environment. University of British Columbia.
15. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Optimal Books.
16. Gilani, S., Carter, M. A., & Green, M. (2021). Mass Timber in Tall Buildings: Cross-laminated Timber and its İmpact on Biophilic Design. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 27(2), 04021005.
17. Gregory, M. D., & Andrews, A. (2020). Biophilic Architecture: Trends in Urban Sustainability. Green Building Reports, 36(4), 79-89.
18. Hansen, V., & Berker, T. (2016). Wood Use in Norwegian Homes: The Role of Materiality in Everyday Practices. Building Research & Information, 44(3), 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1085266
19. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2021). Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 199-213.
20. Hollweg, K. S., & Palmer, J. (2017). Biophilic Design and Well-Being in the Built Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 074001.
21. Jimenez, P., Smith, M., & Robinson, J. (2018). The İnfluence of Biophilic Design on Wood Material Choice in Modern Architecture. Journal of Sustainable Building Design, 12(3), 46-60.
22. Karacabeyli, E., & Gagnon, S. (2014). CLT Handbook: Cross-Laminated Timber. FPInnovations.
23. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
24. Kellert, S. R. (2015). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley.
25. Kellert, S. R., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green LLC. https://www.biophilic-design.com
26. Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. L. (2008). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley.
27. Kim, J., Lim, Y. W., & Kim, J. T. (2019). Impact of Biophilic Design Elements on Occupants’ Psychological Health in Office Buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 28(9), 1124-1135.
28. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and Crime in the İnner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
29. Lindström, K. (2021). The İmpact of Wood in Healthcare Environments: A Biophilic Perspective. Journal of Healthcare Design, 45(1), 74-85.
30. Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2015). Cross-Laminated Timber: Status and Research Needs in Europe. BioResources, 10(3), 6247-6267.
31. Markus, A. (2018). Timber Construction: A Sustainable Future for Urban Architecture. Building & Environment Journal, 54(3), 112-119.
32. McGee, C., Frank, S., & Huang, Y. (2020). Wooden Materials and Biophilic Design in Workspaces. Journal of Sustainable Architecture, 34(2), 29-39.
33. Mehta, V. (2011). The street: A Quintessential Social Public Space. Routledge.
34. Rakhee, B. (2021). The Psychological İmpact of Natural Materials in Built Environments: A Focus on wood. Journal of Environmental Science, 47(6), 203-215.
35. Rahim, A. A., Iqbal, S. A., & Sharif, R. A. (2021). The Role of Wood in Enhancing LEED and BREEAM Certification. International Journal of Green Building, 16(2), 91-101.
36. Robertson, A. B., Lam, F. C., & Cole, R. J. (2020). Wood’s Potential to Enhance Building Sustainability: A Review of Biophilic Design and Energy Performance. Journal of Building Physics, 43(3), 251-268.
37. Ryan, C. O., & Browning, W. D. (2014). Biophilic Design Patterns: Emerging Nature-Based Parameters for Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment. Journal of Sustainable Design, 8(4), 16-23.
38. Schiavon, S., & Altomonte, S. (2014). Influence of Wood on Indoor Comfort and Stress Levels.
39. Schweizer, D., & Goetzke, F. (2017). Biophilic Urban Design and the Future of Sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 103-112.
40. Song, J., Chen, C., & Zhang, X. (2017). The Role of CLT in Modern Wooden Building Construction: A Review. Wood Science and Technology, 51(1), 1305-1321.
41. Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y., & Sato, H. (2010). Physiological Effects in Humans İnduced by the Visual Stimulation of Room İnteriors with Different Wood Quantities. Journal of Wood Science, 56(6), 494-499.
42. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View Through a Window May İnfluence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
43. Watchman, M., Potvin, A. and Demers, C. M. (2016) Wood and Comfort: A Comparative Case Study of Two Multifunctional Rooms. BioResources,12(1), 168–182.
44. Wells, N. M. (2019). Green Buildings and Health: Biophilic Design’s İmpact on Occupants. Journal of Environmental Health, 81(8), 8-12.
45. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
46. Zellweger, M., Ban, S., & Huber, N. (2020). Timber in Modern Office Building Designs: A Case Study of the Tamedia Office Building. Architectural Science Review, 63(4), 295-306.