Joyce Chan-Schoof’s dissertation ‘ is about valuing Biophilia. Biophilia is a concept that describes the innate biological connection between people and nature. A growing body of research demonstrates biophilia’s restorative and stimulating effects on individual emotions; several studies find that biophilia is associated with improved cognitive functions and productivity. Recently, many organisations have renewed interest in incorporating this concept into workplace-built environments. However, biophilic design is still being regarded as a luxury when considering an investment in workplace improvement, even though it is widely acknowledged that employees represent about 90% of business operating costs for most organisations. While there is an extensive body of research on sustainable healthy buildings, the process of creating the value of well-being has not been well established. This study addressed multiple gaps in occupancy evaluation and intangible benefits realisation; it explored the real-world challenge of evidencing and communicating the design value and confronted the short-term thinking of a traditional economic model.
This study aimed to develop a Biophilic Value Framework to influence decision-making for biophilia in the workplace. It applied practice-based research and a mixed-method approach to explore the value proposition of biophilia. Through real-world Preliminary and Development Studies, they experimented with iterated versions of this value-based framework. These case studies employed questionnaires, environmental measurements, workshops, and interviews to collect quantitative and qualitative data, before and after introducing biophilic interventions. The outcomes of Development Study 1 demonstrated that biophilic scenarios have a higher value of approximately 1.3 to 1.6 times that of a do-nothing scenario (as existing), and Development Study 2 showed that the organisation gained £2.7 for every £1 invested in biophilic strategies in their workplace. The insights gained from these case studies created a new intersection of knowledge to link biophilia and positive value outcomes using willingness-to-pay and well-being valuation economic models. However, this study demonstrated that those monetary value outcomes are highly specific to the given contexts and occupants within a particular timeframe, and so it can be difficult to generalise the cost-benefit ratios as a single measure of improvement for other biophilic scenarios. Therefore, it is important to recognise the limitations of measuring design values numerically as it may not be the most effective way to advocate for well-being by design if the diverse nature and long-term impacts of biophilia are not considered.
Quantifying complex and rich outcomes of biophilia can be easily misinterpreted, this study found that qualitative outcomes and engagement with an integrated approach were important factors to influence positive changes. The findings highlighted that meaningful value monetisation requires comparability with a do-nothing baseline and other design strategies when employing it in a business case process. Although the study has successfully demonstrated the positive value outcomes of biophilia, several limitations need to be acknowledged, such as conducting fieldwork during the COVID lockdown, relatively small sample size and limited generalisability, and the constraints posed by continuous indoor environmental measurement.
This study contributed to knowledge by extending the limited research on understanding well-being and environmental value by biophilic design; it is among the first to consider a whole-life approach to valuing biophilia through a Critical Realist lens. When making a business case, these values were used as a common currency to compare capital costs and benefits. The findings of the Development Studies contributed to practice by enabling an actionable pathway for workplace designers to quantify well-being in relation to a range of biophilic design strategies. The Biophilic Value Framework will support designers in playing a more prominent role as an ‘integrator’ in the decision-making process of a healthy workplace.’
For more info, see: https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Valuing_biophilia_a_value-based_framework_for_well-being_by_design_in_the_workplace/28919369
Or read one of the papers connected to this thesis
- Chan-Schoof J., Lofthouse V., Schmidt-III R., Clements-Croome D. (2022). The Well-being Effects of Biophilic Design in Workplaces: A Value-Based Approach. Proceedings of the 3rd Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference. Pg 312-326. https://www.twrnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/TWR-III-Proceedings.pdf
- Chan-Schoof J., Clements-Croome D., Lofthouse V., Schmidt-III R. (2020) An abstract and a poster submission. The Effects of Biophilic Design: Measuring Emotional Well-being in the Workplace. The 2nd Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference.
- Chan-Schoof J., Clements-Croome D, Willits S. (2023). Reap What You Sow. PLP Lab. https://plplabs.com/reap-what-you-sow-2/
- Clements-Croome D., Chan-Schoof J., PLP Architecture, Winata P (2021). Use of Wearables in the Office: A Review and Examples in Practice. The British Council for Offices (BCO). https://research.bco.org.uk/resources/clients/3/user/resource_1015.pdf
- Chan-Schoof, J. and Sapwell, C., (2024). The Circular Economy in Action. In Intelligent Buildings and Infrastructure with Sustainable and Social Values, Third edition (pp. 153-171). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/978-1-83549-818-720243012