From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders' perspectives

被引:35
|
作者
Xue, Fei [1 ]
Gou, Zhonghua [2 ,3 ]
Lau, Stephen Siu-Yu [3 ]
Lau, Siu-Kit [3 ]
Chung, Kin-Hung [3 ]
Zhang, Jian [2 ]
机构
[1] Shenzhen Water Planning & Design Inst Co Ltd, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
[2] Griffith Univ, Sch Engn & Built Environm, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
[3] Natl Univ Singapore, Sch Design & Environm, Singapore, Singapore
关键词
Biophilia; Biophilic design; Biophilic urbanism; Stakeholders; Cost-benefit; Singapore; OUTDOOR THERMAL COMFORT; STRESS RECOVERY; INDICATORS; HEALTH; SPACES; TRANSPORTATION; SUSTAINABILITY; ENVIRONMENTS; PERCEPTION; GREENSPACE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.277
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper distills and examines 42 biophilic strategies ranging from immediate sensorial effects (Biophilia Design) to systematic urban life changes (Biophilia Urbanism). A Biophilia Workshop gathering experienced biophilic project stakeholders (N = 30) from Singapore was conducted to evaluate the selected strategies using multicores including Effectiveness, Cost, Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Voting Portio (VP). "Biophilic infrastructure", "sensorial design" and "green space place-making" were the most cost-effective strategies; "biophilic infrastructure" and "sensorial design" were the most favoured strategies. On the other side, "using natural elements as a decoration or ornamentation" would not be either cost-effective or favored by stakeholders. Generally, Biophilic Design related strategies were more likely to be agreed on by the majority of stakeholders since their impacts and benefits have been well documented; while Biophilic Urbanism related strategies which set long goals to shape a new urban lifestyle, might be associated with higher cost while the impact is less known. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1444 / 1452
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条