Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Depaertment of Urban Planning and Design, Ma.C., Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.
Abstract
Highlights
This article emphasizes the fundamental relationship between placemaking and biophilia.
Biophilic placemaking indicators are categorized into five core dimensions.
Natural peri-urban spaces are identified as key platforms for rebuilding the human–nature connection.
The concept of “biophilic placemaking” is proposed as an emerging theoretical framework.
Introduction
Rapid and often unregulated urbanization has profoundly disrupted natural ecosystems, degraded green infrastructure, and weakened the physical and psychological bonds between humans and nature. These disturbances have exacerbated environmental issues such as air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, and the urban heat island effect. As a result, contemporary urban design is compelled to adopt strategies that address ecological degradation while also enhancing human health and well-being.
This study investigates how integrating biophilic design principles into placemaking processes can provide a nature-based framework for reshaping urban environments—enhancing livability, fostering environmental resilience, and supporting healthier communities. Specifically, it examines how nature-based solutions, grounded in ecological and psychological principles, can respond to pressing urban and planning challenges while encouraging citizens to reconnect both emotionally and functionally with their surroundings.
Placemaking is an interdisciplinary approach aimed at designing meaningful, inclusive, and sustainable spaces that foster a sense of belonging, identity, respect for nature, and social participation. While previous research has explored various social, cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions of placemaking, the incorporation of nature-centric design principles—often referred to as biophilic or nature-based urbanism—remains relatively underexplored.
Accordingly, the central research question is: How can nature-based design principles be effectively integrated into urban placemaking to enhance the quality of urban life and the built environment?
To answer this, the study conducts a qualitative meta-synthesis of global scholarly literature to explore the intersection between placemaking and biophilia. By synthesizing current research, this study seeks to uncover patterns, identify key findings, offer conceptual insights, and evaluate how the integration of these paradigms has evolved in recent years.
Theoretical Framework
This research is anchored in two interrelated theoretical foundations: placemaking and biophilic design.
Placemaking is conceptualized as a holistic, people-centered approach to designing urban public spaces. It emphasizes the creation of meaningful environments that promote social interaction, inclusivity, cultural identity, and emotional attachment. In parallel, biophilic design builds on E.O. Wilson’s hypothesis of humans’ innate affinity for nature, asserting that integrating natural elements into built environments can enhance mental, emotional, and physical health.
Through a comprehensive literature synthesis, the study explores how these two frameworks intersect—uncovering synergies where biophilic strategies can enrich place-based urban design, especially in nature-adjacent and peri-urban contexts.
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative meta-synthesis approach, based on the seven-step model introduced by Sandelowski and Barroso. This method facilitates the systematic aggregation and reinterpretation of qualitative findings from diverse case studies, aiming to generate new theoretical insights.
The literature review was conducted across major academic databases—including Web of Science, Scopus, and Semantic Scholar—focusing on peer-reviewed publications from 2017 to 2023. A total of 25 qualitative studies were selected using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data analysis was performed through inductive coding using MAXQDA software. The extracted themes were then validated using the CASP checklist and reviewed by experts in urban design to ensure credibility and transferability.
Results and Discussion
The analysis resulted in the identification of five main thematic dimensions—environmental, social, economic, functional, and physical—encompassing 12 subcategories and 28 indicators. These themes reflect how placemaking and biophilia converge across spatial and disciplinary scales to enhance urban quality.
Environmental Dimension: Integration with nature enhances biodiversity, regulates microclimates, and improves air and water quality.
Social Dimension: Biophilic public spaces strengthen community ties, promote inclusivity, and support psychological well-being.
Economic Dimension: Green infrastructure contributes to increased land value, stimulates tourism, and reduces operational and maintenance costs.
Functional Dimension: Biophilic design enhances usability through improved comfort, sensory engagement, and spatial adaptability.
Physical Dimension: The use of natural aesthetics and materials reinforces place identity, emotional attachment, and cultural continuity.
These findings demonstrate that placemaking and biophilic design are not isolated frameworks but mutually reinforcing paradigms. Together, they form the conceptual foundation for biophilic placemaking—an integrated strategy for creating healthier and more sustainable urban environments.
Conclusion
This study concludes that biophilic placemaking provides a compelling, multidimensional strategy for addressing the social, environmental, and psychological needs of urban populations. By bridging the divide between built environments and nature, this approach fosters the development of spaces that are not only sustainable and resilient but also restorative, inclusive, and culturally meaningful.
As an emerging theoretical framework, biophilic placemaking offers new possibilities for reimagining urban futures—through designs that are ecologically grounded, socially engaging, and deeply connected to human well-being.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)