Mimaride Biyofilik Tasarım Seviyesinin Sayısal Olarak Ölçümlenmesine Yönelik Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Biyofili, insanın doğaya ve diğer canlılara karşı hissettiği içgüdüsel yakınlık olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu yakınlık duygusunu, doğanın iyileştirici veya rahatlatıcı psikolojik etkilerinin olduğunu öne süren hipotez açıklamaktadır. Mimaride biyofilik unsurların kullanımı, psikolojik etkileri nedeniyle vazgeçilmez olarak görülmekte ve tasarım açısından ise iç mekân kalitesini artırarak ilgi çekici hâle getirebilmektedir. Bununla birlikte biyofilik tasarımın, bitkilerin iç mekânda konumlandırılmasının ötesinde, doğanın tüm yönleriyle iç mekâna dahil edilmesi olarak görülmesi gerekmektedir. Bu kapsamda çalışmada, yapıların biyofilik tasarım kriterleri çerçevesinde biyofilik tasarım düzeyinin sayısal veriler ile tespitini sağlayacak bir yaklaşım geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Biyofilik tasarım algısının oluşumu; doğanın doğrudan kullanımı, dolaylı kullanımı ve mekândaki deneyim başlıklarına indirgenmiştir. Bu ayrıştırma, farklı uyaran seviyelerine göre bir değerlendirme çerçevesi ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır. Çalışmanın temelini oluşturan bu yaklaşım ile, farklı coğrafyalarda yer alan sırasıyla ofis, konut ve havalimanı işlevine sahip üç yapı örneği incelenmiştir. Bu örnekler, yazar tarafından yapılan ön değerlendirmeye göre farklı seviyelerde biyofilik tasarım unsurları içermeleri nedeniyle seçilmiştir. Buna göre ilk incelenen ofis örneğinin en düşük düzey olan birinci seviye biyofilik tasarım seviyesi kapsamında olduğu, konut yapı örneğinin ise daha yüksek düzeyde ikinci seviye biyofilik tasarım etkisine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Üçüncü yapı örneğinin ise güçlü bir biyofilik tasarım yaklaşımı ile üçüncü seviye biyofilik tasarım değerine sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Buna göre biyofilik tasarımın değerlendirilmesine yönelik nicel veri ortaya koymayı amaçlayan bu çalışma, gelecekte tasarlanacak yapılarda tasarım niteliğini artıracak bir arayışın parçası olarak görülmelidir. Bu arayış, mimari tasarımın farklı başlıklarında da kullanılabilecek ve sayısal veri elde etmeyi sağlayabilen bir anlayışın temellerini oluşturacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyofili
• Biyofilik tasarım
• Mimari
• iç mekan

An Aproach to Numerically Measure the Level of Biophilic Design in Architecture

Abstract

Biophilia is defined as the instinctive closeness that humans feel towards nature and other living things. This feeling of closeness is explained by the hypothesis that nature has healing or relaxing psychological effects. In architectural structures that are at the center of human life, biophilia gains importance as a method of increasing psychological and physical positive effects. The reflection of biophilia in architectural design includes the integration of elements belonging to nature or evoking nature into the built environment. The immediate and distant surroundings of the structure, general design decisions, and interior design approach reveal the biophilic design concept as a whole. In this context, it has been evaluated that determining the biophilic design level of architectural structures is necessary to understand the positive effects on the structure, and that an innovative approach is needed for this. As a result, an approach has been developed that will allow the determination of the biophilic design level of any structure with numerical data based on biophilic design criteria. With this approach, three examples of structures located in different parts of the world, which are evaluated to contain biophilic elements with different functions, were selected and analyzed. In this way, it is aimed to facilitate the numerical measurement of the level of biophilic design in any architectural structure and to provide a helpful understanding for designers.

Keywords

• Biophilia
• Biophilic design
• Architecture
• Space

Kaynakça

1. Abkar, M., Kamal, M., Maulan, S. ve Mariapan, M. (2010) Influences of viewing nature through windows. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 4, 5346–5351. https://www.ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2010/5346-5351.pdf
2. Aristizabal, S., Byun, K., Porter, P., Clements, N., Campanella, C., Li, L., Mullan, A., Ly, S., Senerat, A., Nenadic, I. Z., Browning, W. D., Loftness, V. ve Bauer, B. (2021). Biophilic office design: Exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101682
3. Annerstedt, M., Jönsson, P., Wallergård, M., Johansson, G., Karlson, B., Grahn, P., Hansen, A. S. ve Währborg, P. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest–results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023
4. Banaei, M., Hatami, J., Yazdanfar, A. ve Gramann, K. (2017). Walking through architectural spaces: The impact of interior forms on human brain dynamics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00477
5. Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P. ve Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400
6. Browning, B., Garvin, C. ve Ryan, C. (2012). The economics of biophilia-why designing with nature in mind makes financial sense. https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/the-economics-of-biophilia
7. Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O. ve Clancy, J. O. (2014). Patterns of biophilic design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green, 3-4. https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-Patterns-ofBiophilic-Design-Terrapin-2014p.pdf
8. Chang, C. Y. ve Chen, P. K. (2005). Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience, 40(5), 1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.21273/ HORTSCI.40.5.1354

9. Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., Kenett, Y., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., Navarrete, G., GonzálezMora, J. ve Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 126, 217-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009
10. Dai, A., Wang, J., Yu, J. ve Fukuda, H. (2022). The influence of viewing time and color on architectural aesthetic judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752996
11. Esan-Ojuri, O. ve You, H. (2021). How does the biophilic design of building projects impact consumers’ responses? –Case of retail stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102637
12. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A.ve Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape Urban Plan, 83, 115–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.003
13. Gómez-Tone, H., Escapa, J., Escapa, P. ve Martín-Gutiérrez, J. (2021). The drawing and perception of architectural spaces through immersive virtual reality. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13116223
14. Herath, H., Perera, M. ve Chadrasekara, D. (2023). Taste of architectural space: A study of user perception. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0366
15. Jaglarz, A. (2023). Perception of color in architecture and urban space. Buildings, 13(8), 2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13082000
16. Jewel Changi, (2025). Fotoğraflar. 9 Ocak 2025, tarihinde https://www.archdaily.com/915688/jewel-changiairport-safdie-architects adresinden alınmıştır.
17. Kellert, S., Heerwagen, J.H. ve Mador, M.L. (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science & practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com.tr/books? id=FyNer_nQrW4C&printsec
18. Kellert, S. ve Calabrese, E. (2015). The practice of biophilic design. https://biophilicdesign.umn.edu/sites/biophilic-net-positive.umn.edu/files/2021-09/2015_Kellert%20_The_Practice_of_Biophilic_Design.pdf
19. Khaleghimoghaddam, N. (2023). A neurological examination of gender differences in architectural perception. Architectural Science Review, 67(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2264822
20. Kılıç, O. ve Baş, D. (2020). Tasarım- uygulama birlikteliğinin kurgulanmasında uyarlanabilirliği sağlayan mimari detay tasarımına yönelik bir analiz yöntemi. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.682420
21. Lee, K. (2022). The interior experience of architecture: An emotional connection between space and the body. Buildings, 12(3), 326. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030326
22. Lee, E. ve Park, S. (2022). Biophilic experience-based residential hybrid framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148512
23. Lipovac, D., Podrekar, N., Burnard, M.D. ve Sarabon, N. (2020). Effect of desk materials on affective states and cognitive performance. Journal of Wood Science. 66(43) https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s10086-020-01890
24. Malewczyk, M., Taraszkiewicz, A. ve Czyż, P. (2024). Visual perception of regularity and the composition pattern type of the facade. Buildings, 14(5), 1389. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051389
25. Mcsweeney, J., Rainham, D., Johnson, S.A., Sherry, S.B. ve Singleton, J. (2015). Indoor nature exposure (INE): a health-promotion framework. Health Promotion International, 30, 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau081
26. Mekki, O., Dupuis, P., Hbaieb, C., Canale, L., Zissis, G. ve Cheikhrouhou, M. (2022, 1-3 Haziran). Light quality, color perception and emotions in the interior space. 11th International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting & 17th International Symposium on the Science and Technology of Lighting (EEDAL/LS:17), Toulouse, France. https://eedal-ls21.sciencesconf.org/
27. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 20, 430–434. https://doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013
28. Mouratidis, K. ve Hassan, R. (2020). Contemporary versus traditional styles in architecture and public space: A virtual reality study with 360-degree videos. Cities, 97, 102499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102499
29. Park, S.H. ve Mattson, R.H. (2008). Effects of flowering and foliage plants in hospital rooms on patients recovering from abdominal surgery. Horttechnology, 18, 563-568. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.18.4.563
30. Richardson, M. ve Butler, C. W. (2021). Nature connectedness and biophilic design. Building Research & Information, 50(1/2), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2006594
31. Rusevich, T. ve Tsys, A. (2020). An existential approach to interior design. Contemporary Architecture and Urban Planning Issues, (58), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.32347/2077-3455.2020.58.272-282
32. Skyscanner, (2024). Fotoğraflar. 14 Aralık 2024, tarihinde https://officesnapshots.com/2015/12/01/skyscanner-budapest-offices/ adresinden alınmıştır.
33. Skaza, M. (2019). Architecture as a consequence of perception. Materials Science and Engineering, 471. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/2/022033
34. Söderlund, J. ve Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2, 950-969. https://doi.org/10.3934/ENVIRONSCI.2015.4.950
35. Tabassum, R. ve Park, J. (2024). Development of a building evaluation framework for biophilic design in architecture. Buildings. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103254
36. Tekin, B. ve Gutiérrez, U. (2023). Human-centred health-care environments: a new framework for biophilic design. Frontiers in Medical Technology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2023.1219897
37. Tran, B. (2021). Psychological and emotional architecture. Research Anthology on Rehabilitation Practices and Therapy, 2. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3432-8.ch016
38. Orman Evi, (2024) Fotoğraflar. 27 Aralık 2024 tarihinde https://www.archdaily.com/790847/jungle-housestudiomk27-marcio-kogan-plus-samanta-cafardo adresinden alınmıştır.
39. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, 6:85–125.43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
40. Ünal, N. ve Özen, E.S. (2021). Biophilic approach to design for children. Iconarp International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2021.187
41. Wang, L. ve Wang, Y. (2024). Research on the optimization of interior design of architectural space considering user perception. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9. https://doi.org/10.2478/amns2024-1648
42. Wang, J., Zhan, L., Dai, A., Dewancker, B. ve Gao, W. (2024). Influence of architectural interior design on human perception and emotion with the consideration of neural aesthetics. Indoor and Built Environment, 33(8), 1486-1501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x241247218
43. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Harvard. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674074422
44. Xue, L. ve He, C. (2024). Application of modern architectural color layout in interior design. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/amns.2023.2.00589
45. Zhong, W., Schröder, T. ve Bekkering, J. (2021). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006