INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER 19


cultural buildings (34%). Evidently architects are currently being very selective about which types of projects they currently consider biophilic design for, and it was not being chosen by a majority of respondents in any sector. Taking this a step further, we then asked our cohort if there are any sectors they believe biophilia isn’t appropriate for. While around half of respondents said they didn’t believe it was inappropriate in any sector, those that did generally cited one or more of three sectors – healthcare, education, and industrial. Verbatim comments include “laboratories and surgery rooms,” “in hospitals,” and “industrial factories.” One respondent said both “healthcare and education because of adverse effects it may cause on patients, students, teachers.” Another pointed out the confl icting factors in healthcare that meant that “ironically,” the wellness benefi ts of biophilia couldn’t be explored: “We proposed a biophilic design for a health & education hub, but this was refused due to concerns over sterile conditions.”


Most other comments referred to more industrial settings being unlikely to see biophilia used, such as factories, and “sectors with hazardous waste or byproducts would be diffi cult to employ biophilia into e.g. waste treatment plants.” This respondent did then caveat that comment by also pointing out that “low risk sectors like education and housing should employ biophilia regularly.” Despite the overall health and wellness benefi ts biophilia can provide, there is clearly also an argument that it can actually bring risks to health as well and that it doesn’t easily slot in to certain settings.


Products & materials


When it comes to materials and other product and design features, while some are being highly utilised, others are being specifi ed very infrequently, if at all. We asked what bio-based materials respondents are specifying, and of all the options we provided, once again all but two were selected by less than 50% of respondents. Some are arguably niche and highly specifi c such as pressed seaweed, which nobody selected. Other options included fl axboard (2%), reed fi bres (5%) and mycelium (5%), again all seeing a very low uptake.


There was a marginally higher percentage selecting some of the other options, such as bio-laminate fl ooring (12%) and cork (15%). Hemp-based products are only being specifi ed by 20% despite having received some having received a reasonable marketing push in recent years, and bamboo by only 32%. Overall it’s clear many of the bio-based options available aren’t being highly utilised, though this could be because of the drawbacks involved with some of them. For example, while an effective insulator, hemp can be expensive and is thought to require twice the thickness of other insulators such as PIR.


There are also ways of emulating natural effects and atmospheres, and generally these had a higher uptake than bio- based materials. Some options, however, were still selected by only a few respondents: ‘circadian rhythms using shadows and fractal shapes’ were only chosen by 6%, and ‘tunable lighting’ designed to support user wellness by only 11%. Plant-like patterns in furnishing, walls & artwork were also only selected by a relatively low number of respondents (28%). While it could be the case again that these are quite niche or specifi c, and also not necessarily appropriate or applicable for some settings, there is also an argument to say there are product options and design features out there that aren’t being used to their full potential yet.


ADF JANUARY 2025 What is your overall experience in employing ‘biophilic design’ in your projects? Solutions


Although there are quite clearly some barriers preventing architects from fully exploring the potential of biophilic design, our survey also had some more positive fi ndings as well. In general, architects understand the benefi ts of biophilic design and many would evidently like to see it become more commonplace where appropriate. Exactly half of our respondents say they are already ‘explicitly’ employing biophilic design in their projects, which is an encouraging sign. We then asked those 50% what their reasons are for pursuing


it, giving them a selection of answers and asking them to rate their top fi ve, with their fi rst being given fi ve points, second choice four points and so on. Many of the choices scored relatively highly, demonstrating there are a good number of reasons architects are choosing to explore biophilia.


The top factor chosen as a reason why biophilia is chosen, with a score of 69 points, was ‘end user wellness & enjoyment’, followed by ‘passive cooling & passive environmental benefi ts’ (61 points) and ‘staff wellness’ (53 points). This shows that not only do architects recognise the benefi ts in terms of the wellbeing of both building staff and users, but also the positive impact biophilic design can have on environmental performance. ‘Aesthetics’ was the next most popular choice (47 points), which correlates with our question on rating the biggest challenges. The risks of ‘compromising clean-looking aesthetic with cluttered jungle’ and ‘compromising function of spaces’ were among the lowest scoring options, meaning they are generally not viewed as key challenges.


Benefi ts: wellness & environmental impact When we asked our cohort if they have encountered signifi cant cynicism about the tangible benefi ts from various stakeholders, the majority said ‘no’ for each option. 64% said they haven’t received cynicism from clients, 56% from contractors, 84% from end users and 86% from suppliers. This is hugely encouraging, demonstrating the benefi ts are clearly being understood in the majority of cases, though would also indicate that there is perhaps


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68