Optimizing Quality of Life Through an Adaptive Biophilic Architecture Sensory Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58526/jsret.v5i2.1128Keywords:
Quality of Life, Sensory Approach, Biophilic Architecture, Adaptive Architecture.Abstract
Massive urbanization has created the phenomenon of "urban-nature disconnect," where city dwellers spend over 90% of their time indoors, shielded from natural elements (Kellert, 2008). This condition negatively impacts mental and physical health, often referred to as nature deficit disorder. Biophilic architecture emerged as a design solution aimed at reconnecting humans with nature through the built environment (Wilson, 1984). However, many current biophilic applications remain focused on purely cosmetic visual aspects, such as the placement of ornamental plants, without considering deeper sensory experiences. Juhani Pallasmaa (2005), in his theory of "The Eyes of the Skin," emphasizes that architecture should engage all human senses to create a sense of "presence" and a holistic sense of well-being. Therefore, a sensory approach is needed that is not merely statistical but also adaptive to environmental changes to optimize the quality of life of its occupants. The purpose of this research is to formulate biophilic design parameters that incorporate the senses of touch, smell, and hearing as adaptive elements in buildings. The contribution of this research is expected to be a guide for architects in designing spaces that support circadian health and human psychological comfort through dynamic natural stimulation.
Downloads
References
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kellert, S. R. (2008). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. John Wiley & Sons.
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. John Wiley & Sons.
Terrapin Bright Green. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the covid-19 pandemic: students' perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1).
Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. John Wiley & Sons.
Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, A. S. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.
Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green spaces and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3-4), 264-275.
Heerwagen, J. H. (2009). Biofilia, Kesehatan, dan Kesejahteraan. Dalam Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. John Wiley & Sons.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kellert, S. R., & Calabrese, E. F. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. www.biophilic-design.com.
Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667-688.
Salingaros, N. A. (2015). Biophilia and Healing Environments. Levellers Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421.
Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural Environments - Surrounding Objects. Birkhäuser
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gaizka Royhan, Lisa, Febby

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright @2022. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) which permits unrestricted commercial used, distribution and reproduction in any medium
JRSET is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


