My first encounter with “biophilia” was during a consultancy project where I worked with a lovely client who had built their new headquarters at an eye-watering budget of $300 million. I still remember how I stood effortlessly in one of the newer, modern boardrooms filled with stone-faced executives, obnoxiously boasting over the “termite air” ventilation system that had just been installed. Little did I know that I would later mark the first blunder of many with the words “and this serves as a stark example of biophilic design.” With no shred of doubt, I could hear the crickets chirping after I concluded my five-minute long monologue on how employees will construct a deeply emotional bond with nature—emotion—through the circulation of air-in-nature.
This was only a clear shot at missed and miscalculated biomimicry, or rather.. complete analogy if you may. It’s safe to say the “humorish” CEO kept lightening the post presentation ice.”
In my defense, I can say without reservation that this was 2018 – way too soon if you look at the widespread gap in terminology being ignited. After all, many have claimed to be worse than me, my so-called peers. For reference, the client spent some serious dough in a system that emulates the way a termite mound regulates and conserves energy – often referred to as officers of deep called biomimcry.
And yes, my attempt at distinguish two loosely sounded terms resulted from a failure to stem—self-eluding frame stubbornly anchoring chuckled adventures into exploring university Tokyo anchoring gage bursting exhorting outburst notions.”
Tara, my colleague, cheerfully filled in the gaps while I was blushing from embarrassment. Later that evening, while sipping on what I can assure you was not my first glass of wine, she walked me through the basic differences I should have known ages ago.
“While they’re overlapping, they are different,” she said while drawing on a napkin. “Biomimicry is about solving problems by emulating nature’s patterns and strategies—it’s functional. Biophilic design is about incorporating elements that foster connection to nature—it’s experiential.”
That cringeworthy instance made me realize that I needed to learn more about these two ways that, although used in relation to one another, have sustainable design intentions. I have to admit, not five years ago, I have been obsessively gathering and implementing both concepts—and to prevent myself from having that kind of public humiliation again—and I decided to write down what I have learned about the differences, applications, and possibilities of both biomimicry and biophilic design.
What does the phrase biomimicry mean? It refers to innovation that is inspired by nature. It looks at nature’s models and uses designs and processes to help solve human problems. This word was popularized by biologist Janine Benyus who framed it as “learning from nature, not about nature.”
Consider Velcro. It was created from the way the burrs can attach themselves to animal fur and clothing. Or the nose of Japan’s Shinkansen bullet train, which was redesigned to a kingfisher’s beak to eliminate the essence boom problem when the train exits tunnels. Or those termite inspired ventilation systems, which rely on the ability of termite mounds to maintain constant temperatures despite extreme external conditions, use a fraction of the energy of conventional HVAC systems.
It asks, “How would nature approach this problem?” It refers to the billions of years of R&D evolution conducts to find efficient, sustainable solutions. And let me tell you, nature is one heck of a design engineer.
On the other hand, biophilic design emphasizes wellness attained through nature interaction. This comes from E.O. Wilson’s “biophilia”, which denotes man’s natural inclination to connect with nature and other life forms. To bridge the gap between nature and the built environments, biophilic design incorporates the elements, materials, and patterns of nature, satisfying our biological need to come in contact with nature.
Portland-based Workspace designer Miguel tells me, “Biomimicry is doing what nature does. Biophilic design is bringing nature into our spaces—or at least making our brains think nature is there.”
Some examples of biophilic design are living walls, water features, wood and stone, and abundant natural light. Nature views, fractal patterns of nature, spaces that evoke a sense of prospect and refuge (cozy nooks with views) or spaces that incorporate natural materials are also included in biophilic design.
The body of research that supports the benefits of biophilic design is quite impressive. It’s shown that spaces with biophilic elements can lower stress levels, improve cognitive abilities, enhance creativity, and even speed up healing in healthcare settings. In my experience, projects where an office lobby water feature was added showed a measurable decline in stress level reports among employees.
In order to grasp the difference, let us analyze a practical case that I personally undertook in the previous year, which is a case study revolving around the renovation of a community library located in North Portland.
We used both approaches for this project, but with differing objectives. The biomimicry aspects included:
– A roof that used to gather rainwater for the building’s systems was palm leaf-inspired
– The exterior walls used paint that had a microscopically bumpy lotus like texture making them self-cleaning (reducing maintenance costs)
– A ventilation system parodying prairie dog burrows that lowered energy usage by 32%
Biophilic elements emphasized user experience:
– Reading areas positioned to provide optimal views of the adjacent park and natural sunlight.
– The local wood and stone were used for other furnishings together with park-views
– Natural materials incorporated included the walls of the central atrium featuring a living wall, and small water feature.
– Canopy trees inspired ceiling patterns
– Social and protected nook are created by arranging the furniture setting (that prospect and refuge thing again).
The outcomes were quite impressive. Measurable sustainability benefits (decreased energy and water consumption, lower maintenance requirements, and reduced carbon footprint) were achieved through the use of biomimicry features. Meanwhile, biophilic elements changed how the people interacted with the space. The average time spent per visit increased by 40%, and in the post-occupancy surveys, 87% of users expressed that they felt “more relaxed and focused” in the new environment.
There was something astonishing that Elena, the library director, said. “It’s more than the renovation, people used to show up here and get what they needed, as quickly as possible and leave. Now they linger. They tell me they feel good here. Some even claim it as ‘their place’ in a way the old space never did,” she claimed.
This is the latent magic of biophilic design – the people-centered spaces that seek to respond to our inherent need to link with nature and natural patterns, even while we are indoors.
While I’ve been focusing on their differences, the truth is that biomimicry and biophilic design can harmoniously coexist. To some extent, at least, I would argue that the most successful sustainability projects are those that use both techniques. Biomicry efficiently deals with fuctional issues, whereas biophilic design makes human experience, health, and well-being the centerpiece.
Let me illustrate with the project I’m currently working on – a mixed-use development in Northeast Portland. For this project, we are applying the principles of biomimicry to the building’s structural system. It draws inspiration from how tree branches redistribute loads within a tree and is reducing the amount of concrete needed by 23% compared to conventional methods. For stormwater management, we designed a system that works like a forest floor in that it absorbs and filters rainwater.
Simultaneously, naturalistic design principles have been implemented throughout the user experience—the more palpable elements such as an abundance of natural light and greenery, as well as the more discreet features such as urban sound masking via nature inspired acoustics, and circulation patterns reminiscent of forest glades with shifting spatial configurations of openness and enclosure.
Some of the project’s lead architects, like Damon, resisted some of the biophilic aspects as “excessive decoration.” That changed after their trip to Seattle’s Bullitt Center—arguably the most environmentally friendly commercial building in the world and one that uses both methods brilliantly. “I was just considering sustainability as form of efficiency,” he confessed. “Being in that space changed how I felt. I felt like a switch flipped in my brain. We weren’t just designing to energy metrics; we were designing for humans.”
Having said that, achieving these goals comes with other obstacles. For one, these approaches are generally lacking in understanding, as my disastrous presentation showed. Even if the ideas are well positioned, there are always practical barriers.
Translating nature’s solutions to human problems is an issue in biomimicry. An example is a biological process that works at the cellular level. Nature has a different set of edicts compared to human engineers and architects. It is more difficult to scale something like a functioning biological process to a larger system. Alternatively, some amazing materials that are considered natural tones may be deemed impossible to mass produced with technology at our disposal.
My classmate Wei, who focuses on biomimetic materials, tried to develop a building cladding based on shark skin’s ability to resist microbial growth. Her principles were highly logical, although economically unfeasible from a manufacturability standpoint.
As Wei explained, “sometimes we clearly see what nature is doing, but our means to do it are less than adequate. Other times, the option we have for the means does not make sense logically from a cost perspective, despite the fact that we can replicate the process.”
Different issues arise for biophilic design, including what I refer to as biophilic washing. This involves using superficial nature elements for non-meaningful purposes. Involving the top level of a building are some tubed plants which are officially ‘biophyilic, missing out on the much deeper principles that need to be followed.
There’s also the concern of upkeep. Living elements need to be cared for. I’ve seen amazing living walls turn into sad, brown, frail heaps because the upkeep plan was an afterthought. Nothing hastens biophilic benefits being supplanted faster than the presence of dead of dying nature components. (Trust me, that poor office ficus is doing just about nothing to help anyone’s wellbeing.)
And sometimes, there is conflict between biomimicry’s functional aims and biophilic design’s experiential aims; one embodies function while the other emphasizes experience. One case example is a recent healthcare facility where the most energy-efficient building envelope would result in significantly reduced window area. That seemed reasonable from a biomimicry angle – copying how some organisms regulate their temperature by minimizing exposure.
The design team managed to incorporate deeper building daylighting features, making the structure seem more open. The overall approach optimized humanity’s experience in the building while still addressing sustainability constructs.
With how deeply I’ve explored these perspectives throughout the years, I feel very strongly that they are no longer just design methods. Rather, they are part of how we redefine the philosophies underlying our interactions with the living environment around us.
Positioning buildings as either separate from or opposed to nature has been the norm in the Western World for centuries. Humanity has always sought to kept nature out, to conquer what can be collaborated with. Different forces of nature, both biomimicry and biophilic design, have worked towards fixing this paradigm in their own unique ways.
“Mankind is struggling with so many problems which can be simplified by nature,” is what biomimicry defines. Claiming to be based on humility, this concept admires the logic behind 3.8 billion years of evolution that has provided us with beauty, elegance, and long standing solutions instead of human-engineered alternatives built solutions.
Claiming humans can only thrive when connected to nature, biophilic design states: “We need nature.” A fact that suggests our body’s evolution relied on natural systems, not confined boxes of steel and concrete, which once urbanized turned into the need of the hour.
The combination of both perspectives work towards facilitating a connection to the living world while allowing buildings to function like natural systems.
While explaining the differences between biophilic design and biomimicry, I have come to accept them both as parts of one single design approach and a shift towards the remedy to the disparity between human ecosystems and nature.
When at their most optimal, both concepts are executed in unison. The goals of biomimicry assist us in fashioning buildings and products that are more akin to natural systems functioning in an efficient, regenerative, and scoped manner. Biophilic design, on the other hand, ensures that these solutions improve the experience of human beings and fulfill the biological need to be in nature. Together, they help us improve environments that are ecologically responsible and environmentally nurturing for its human occupants.
I do not mix up the terms during presentations anymore, as in my case. I now conduct workshops aimed at helping people differentiate and understand the power both approaches offer. That cringe moment with the executives has ended up being one of the best moments in my career. Every once in a while, something drastic needs to go wrong in order to finally get it right.
That CEO, the one who confronted me? I came across her at a conference last year. I appreciated her for the wake up call, and she chuckled. “I might have overdone it a little,” she said. “But you know what? Two years after we put that termite-inspired system, we put a living wall and water fountain in the lobby. It turns out employees do not only appreciate efficiency—they appreciate a connection to nature as well.”
Biomimicry and biophilic design. Two distinct approaches, yet one objective: restoring balance between humans and the environment that raised us. These strategies are the ones we need to be smart with.
