Biophilic Design: Quantifiable Metrics

We used percentages like 100% of students are exposed to... or 20% of play areas are... 
But we are just now submitting.

A specific example I included in the project's biophilic strategic plan pertaining to the "Material Connection with Nature" (14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, 2.3 Nature-Design Relationships) criteria was to quantify the square footage/linear feet of salvaged material (timber) reused on the interior of the building, and the specific locations they were to be installed. This also was noted as a "critical timing issue", outlined in the design with nature documentation template provided by UGSBC, as the site where the material was to be salvaged from needed to be surveyed, and the amount of material estimated, to plan for in the interior design of the building. 

A few thoughts on Biophilic metrics:

I could see using daylight metrics and the view quality metrics that Lisa Heschong has developed. I heard her speak recently on the impact of quality views - more than just daylight - had on user's experiences of a building, and how much they raved about their workplace as a result.

During design, we might consider a variation on a visual-preference survey where users provided a range of images - could be architectural design options, daylight simulations, simulated views of exterior spaces or interior atrium, finish materials, carpet patterns, artworks.. and are asked to rank their preferences. Images could be selected that offer a range of strong to weak alignment with bioiphilic design principles.  The design team could then see if the visual preferences correlate strongly with those principles. Besides just providing metrics, this could provide useful input for selecting design options.  

We could also look for metrics that could help compare a company's current workplace with a proposed design - % of a "viewshed" that is homogenous vs biophilic; # of biophilic "instances" a user would encounter moving from entry to their workspace;  quantity, variety or length of views;  

We've discussed trying to evaluate façade designs or other architectural compositions in terms of levels of complexity, or how much they embody hierarchies of scale, or evoke other biophilic design patterns. For those who are into this sort of thing, Christopher Alexander's later books on the Nature of Order offer some interesting food for thought. One example is the 15 properties listed in the Building Blocks of Wholeness and explored at https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/fifteen.htm

The properties can seem pretty subjective and maybe too mushy for metrics, but they may help capture and articulate some of the vagaries of human perception and visual preferences:

1. Levels of Scale

2. Strong Centers

3. Thick Boundaries

4. Alternating Repetition

5. Positive Space

6. Good Shape

7. Local Symmetries

8. Deep Interlock and Ambiguity

9. Contrast

10. Gradients

11. Roughness

12. Echoes

13. The Void

14. Simplicity and Inner Calm

15. Not Separateness

We included square footage that has access to the element, or identified that 100% (or all) of the population had another.

Our project was a major renovation of a public assembly space, so we used percent of population or percent of renovated square footage with access. We targeted for 1% of all people to have access to areas of refuge and 5% of all renovate finishes to use natural analogues.

Here are some examples from documentation we have done:

14 Patterns of Biophilic Design notes that prospect facilitates “reductions in stress, boredom, irritation, fatigue and perceived vulnerability; as well as improved comfort.” Distance prospect greater than 100 feet is preferred for the benefits of reducing stress and enhancing comfort. This project's spaces are often in mid- to high- rise buildings and elevated above the ground level, these office spaces offer preferred open and high views of cityscape often well over 100 feet.

14 Patterns of Biophilic Design indicates that spaces of refuge typically provide protection overhead and at one’s back, (preferably up to three sides.) These spaces should be smaller than the larger adjacent space, feeling separate but a part of them and can be defined as rooms with ceiling heights at least 18-24 inches lower than the ceiling of the primary space with distinct lighting conditions from the larger area. These conditions are typically provided in the following amenities.....

Our project had a canal on the site, so we included the length of the canal in reference to the "Presence of Water" criteria. Clearly, not all aspects will be quantifiable, but I think the more specific you can be, the better. For example, when referencing views to nature, describe the topography of the area and reference specific names if metrics are not available.

Our project is core and shell and the scope of the plan covers common areas of the building and areas under landlord control – lobby, staircases, restrooms, and building envelope.

Our quantifiable metrics include:

"(...) At least 1 plant per person is provided within the core and shell scope. (...)"

"(...) Water wall that is 2 metres in height and 8 square metres in total is installed in the main lobby. (...)"

"(...) Five beehives with approx. 300 thousand bees. (...)"

"(...) 159 operable windows accesible to the occupants allowing for airflow variability. (...)"

"(...) access to daylight and quality views in over 90% of regularly occupied areas and over 25% of non-regularly occupied areas (...)"

I am sure that the project meets the intent of the credit; my main concern is if these strategies are appropriately described in the documentation. We are awaiting review at the moment - I will update you when we receive review comments.

I proposed the following: % of wall area; % of desks, % of working spaces; % of building users; at least one space per building.

Some of the Biophilic Patterns are easier to quantify, depending of what you choose to measure.   Our project has attempted to measure the Dynamic and Diffuse Light by looking at ratios of available window for daylighting vs. solid wall.  This was early on a priority of the client, since they were coming from a windowless space.  However, with the goal being to avoid uniform distribution of light vs. extreme differences/glare, it would seem that a definitive measurement is not the intent of the authors.   They have provided metrics for the credits (such as measuring heart rate or blood pressure).

Quick update: our core and shell project is now certified and the proposed biophilic design metrics were accepted with no comments from the reviewers. Based on this I guess that the metrics are totally up to the design team and, when correctly justified, won't be called into question.

Valuable inputs, thanks! Our interior project will attempt a combination of described measures, including the percentage of floor area covered, number of rooms or percentage of occupants with access to natural elements/features.

Thanks for the update! 

Thanks!

For our project, having a variety of space types offering prospect and refuge, as well as considering the sequence through the space for mystery meant we were designing for 100% of occupants to have this experience, but not 100% of the spaces offer each. We're under review now, but I believe the variability of the space is specifically what provides the biophilic benefits. somewhat qualitative by nature.

About the quantifiable metrics of this pilot credit, it seems that it is more explanatory of the strategy and it doesn´t have a minimum threshold for achievement, as you have to describe your reasoning and/or research for determining threshold. Do you agree?

Where are you getting the references to determining the threshold?