Author: veronica.bergonzoni

Introduction

Can technology be limited to only reproducing or simulating nature? In many fields, it has been shown that technology can interact directly with real living organisms, influencing their care, growth, and management. For the purpose of this research, we explore some of these interactions, focusing in particular on those that take place within the domestic environment.

Today, technology no longer mediates only our relationship with nature, but also shapes the way we live in, organize, and care for our homes.

Types of Home Automation

Domotics

The term domotics, or home automation, refers to a set of technologies designed to automate private homes and provide services that improve comfort, safety, energy efficiency, and system management.
In addition to common functions such as lighting and climate control, domotics also includes applications like multimedia entertainment systems, automatic plant irrigation, and systems for feeding pets.

From a structural point of view, domotic systems can be organized according to different architectures: v

• Centralized – a single central device collects data from sensors and decides which actions to activate.
• Distributed – each device has its own “intelligence”: sensors and actuators make local decisions and communicate with each other without a single central controller.
• Mixed – a combination of both systems, where some devices process data locally while being coordinated by central units.

Smart Home

A more advanced definition is that of the smart home, as described by the European Commission. A smart home is a dwelling where an organized home automation system connects electrical devices to manage lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, security, audio-video systems, energy control, door and window automation, presence sensors, and technical alarms. [2]

By connecting previously separate systems into a single network, the smart home reduces the need for human intervention and increases comfort and safety. A smart home therefore represents a more advanced stage of domotics

Examples of Real Applications

We can distinguish five levels of home automation, [1] but the term smart home applies only from the third level onward. This evolution from domotics to smart homes can be clearly understood by observing how plant care changes within the domestic environment.

Level 1 – Homes with intelligent objects

At the simplest level, an automatic irrigation system performs a repetitive task by watering plants at fixed times, without sensors or environmental feedback.

Level 2 – Homes with communicating intelligent objects

At this level, soil moisture sensors can indicate when a plant needs water, but irrigation still happens in a mostly autonomous and isolated way.

Level 3 – Connected homes

Sensors and irrigation actuators coordinate with each other, and users can control plant watering remotely, for example through a mobile application.

Level 4 – Learning homes

At this stage, irrigation systems can self-regulate by analyzing data over time, adapting watering patterns based on user behavior, climate conditions, and seasonal changes.

Level 5 – Attentive homes

In the most advanced systems, the activity and location of people and objects are constantly monitored. This information is used to anticipate needs, such as advanced sensors that monitor plant conditions and provide real-time feedback, automatically adjusting irrigation, light, and environmental conditions.

References

[1] D. Ardu, M. G. Bellino, and G. Di Giorgio, Domotics and Smart Homes. Italy: EDISCO Editrice, n.d. Domotics_and_smart_homes_

[2] B. Dvoršak, J. Havelka, E. Mainardi, H. Pandžić, T. Selič, and M. Tretinjak, Smart Home Systems. SHVET Project, co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission, n.d. Smart_Home_systems_FINAL

[3] Elecrow, “Arduino Automatic Smart Plant Watering Kit,” Elecrow Electronics, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.elecrow.com/arduino-automatic-smart-plant-watering-kit.html. [Accessed: n.d.].

[4] TechPunt, “Xiaomi Mi Flower Care Plant Sensor,” TechPunt, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.techpunt.nl/de/xiaomi-mi-flower-care-plant-sensor.html. [Accessed: n.d.].

[5] GARDENA, “Smart Irrigation Control,” GARDENA GmbH, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.gardena.com/at/produkte/bewaesserung/sprinklersystem/smart-irrigation-control-bewaesserungssteuerung/970658701.html. [Accessed: n.d.].

[6] RainPoint, “Manuals, Downloads & Support,” RainPoint Irrigation, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.rainpointonline.com/pages/manuals-downloadssupport. [Accessed: n.d.].

[7] GARDENA, “Smart System,” GARDENA GmbH, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.gardena.com/it/c/in-evidenza/prodotti/smart-system. [Accessed: n.d.].

Introduction

When we talk about biophilia, we refer to the definition proposed by the Biophilic Society: “Biophilia refers to the innate human affinity for the natural world – a love of life. It emphasizes the importance of integrating natural elements and patterns into our built environment to enhance physical, emotional, and psychological well-being.” [1]

However, recent technological advances, such as virtual and augmented reality, can offer benefits that are similar to those gained from direct contact with nature. The technologies that mediate, simulate, or enhance our experience of nature are commonly called technological nature. Virtual reality, for example, can help people experience nature when access to real natural environments is limited. Recent studies show that older adults who used VR nature experiences felt less socially isolated, had a better mood, and reported improved overall well-being.

This raises an important question: to what extent can technological nature truly satisfy our need for nature?

Pros and Cons of Technological Nature

Important insights into both the strengths and limits of technological nature come from research by Peter Kahn and his colleagues. In one study, large plasma screens showing real-time natural scenes were placed in windowless university offices. Over 16 weeks, participants reported better psychological well-being, improved cognitive performance, and a stronger sense of connection to nature. This suggests that a digital view of nature can be better than having no nature at all.

However, a second study revealed clear limitations. When researchers compared a real window with a nature view, a digital window showing the same scene, and a blank wall, only the real window helped people recover from stress more quickly. The digital window did not perform better than the blank wall. Overall, these results show that technological nature can be helpful when nature is absent, but it is not as restorative as real nature [5].

Further research confirms that technological nature cannot fully replace direct contact with the natural world. Without physical and multisensory experiences—such as wind, temperature, and natural smells—these digital experiences can become repetitive over time. Easy access to technological nature may also reduce people’s attention to real nature and lead to a simplified idea of what “nature” is [3].

This is important because current VR nature experiences cannot provide all the benefits of real nature. Some of these benefits depend on natural biochemical processes that technology cannot recreate. Relying too much on technological nature may also reduce spontaneous social interactions in natural spaces, which are important for well-being and social connection.

Conclusion

Technological nature is a useful resource in a world where access to real nature is often limited or uneven. However, research shows that it cannot replace real, living nature. Instead of asking whether technological nature can take the place of real nature, we should focus on how it can work together with it and support it.

Reference

[1]  “Technological Nature,” UW HINTS Lab, https://sites.uw.edu/hints/research/technological-nature/ (accessed Dec. 9, 2025).

[2]  “The Biophilic Society is born,” Living Future Europe, https://living-future.eu/the-biophilic-society-is-born/ (accessed Dec. 9, 2025).

[3]. Kellert, S. R. in Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations (eds Kahn, P. H. & Kellert, S. R.) 117–151 (MIT Press, 2002)

[4] Lin, X. C., Lee, C., Lally, D. & Coughlin, J. F. in Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population (Applications in Health, Assistance, and Entertainment, 10927) (eds. Zhou, J. & Salvendy, G.) 89–100 (Springer, 2018).

[5]P. H. Kahn Jr., R. L. Severson, and J. H. Ruckert, “The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2009

Introduction

From physiology to psychology, research points to a clear truth: contact with nature restores us in ways no technology can.

A recent article in Frontiers in Public Health by a team of researchers, including Stefan Zerbe, Hannah-Lea Schmid, Claudia Hornberg, Julius Freymüller, and Timothy Mc Call highlights the importance of better understanding how nature, with its elements, qualities, and processes, affects human health and well-being. [3]

The outcomes of the research are clear: different dimensions and scales of nature have distinct impacts on human health and well-being. Saying “nature is good for us” is far too generic. We need to ask ourselves: which nature, at what scale, in what form?

Mapping the Three Scales of Nature

The notion of “scale” here does not refer to the physical size of a space, but to the ecological level at which we observe nature.

In the study mentioned above, a multidisciplinary team of scholars analyzed primary research, examining key theories, concepts, and nature-based therapeutic approaches. Through iterative discussion, they identified and mapped three distinct scales of nature—species, ecosystems, and landscapes—showing how each of these levels affects human health and offering an overview of the concepts and therapies associated with them.

The results of this research are reported in the table below.

Table 1 . Definition of the biological and ecological scales regarding species, ecosystems, and landscapes with selected key references. – From Zerbe et al., Frontiers in Public Health (2025).

Ecological scales provide a useful way to describe nature in health research, because they help us understand how different levels of natural complexity may influence human well-being in different ways. The authors demonstrate that certain concepts and therapeutic interventions directly correspond to these scales. For example:

• At the species/individual scale we find interventions such as Animal-Assisted Therapy.
• At the ecosystem/land-use scale, we encounter Forest Therapy, Green Care, and garden-based therapeutic approaches.
• At the landscape level, broader conceptual frameworks emerge, including Therapeutic Landscapes, which consider the symbolic, cultural, and spatial dimensions of place.

Biophilia: The Most Comprehensive Framework

In the end, nature does not affect us in the same way: its forms, its levels of complexity, and our own individual dispositions shape how we experience it. This variability supports what Zerbe’s team highlights: there is no single, universally beneficial “nature,” but rather a variety of scales and forms. And biophilia—our evolutionary tendency to benefit from the living world—provides the broadest framework for understanding why some natural experiences restore us deeply while others do so much less.

References

1. Nejade RM, Grace D, Bowman LR. What is the impact of nature on human health? A scoping review of the literature. J Glob Health. (2022) 12:04099. doi: 10.7189/jogh.12.04099, PMID: 
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aerts R, Honnay O, Van Nieuwenhuyse A. Biodiversity and human health: mechanisms and evidence of the positive health effects of diversity in nature and green spaces. Br Med Bull. (2018) 127:5–22. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldy021, PMID: [Google Scholar]
3. Zerbe S, Schmid H-L, Hornberg C, Freymüller J and Mc Call T (2025) Nature’s impact on human health and wellbeing: the scale matters, Front. Public Health 13:1563340, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1563340

.

Abstract

Can technology bring nature back into our daily lives? This research explores how nature and technology can work together to strengthen the human connection with the natural world in indoor spaces. It examines the integration of biophilic design principles within smart-home systems and identifies key gaps and opportunities in the field of interaction design.

Overview

The rapid urbanization and the technological progress of the modern world have profoundly transformed everyday life, especially in domestic environments.
Today, most people spend the majority of their time indoors, separated from the natural environments in which human beings have evolved for over 99% of their history [1].” This growing separation from nature is due to many factors and reflects the mindset of a technologically driven, sedentary society that views contact with nature as outdated or secondary.

Over the past decades, architecture has begun to acknowledge the importance of reconnecting people with nature. In response to the growing awareness of the psychological and ecological benefits of natural contact, several projects have sought to integrate greenery and natural elements into urban contexts. Initiatives such as the Vertical Forest exemplify these efforts, showing how architecture can merge built and natural environments to restore a sense of balance and connection with the living world [1]. However, the integration of biophilic principles within modern smart-home technologies remains at an early stage.

The State of Smart-Home Technologies:

The term “domotics” refers to the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) within domestic environments to automate and optimize household functions [3]. Contemporary smart-home systems encompass a wide range of applications, from lighting and climate control to security, entertainment, and energy management. Current smart-home systems manage lighting, climate, security, entertainment, and energy consumption. Yet, these technologies mainly address physical comfort and efficiency, overlooking deeper human needs linked to emotion, perception, and connection with nature [3]. This gap represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the future of home automation.

The Emergence of Biophilic Design

According to the biophilia hypothesis, humans seek more than comfort. Edward Wilson described biophilia as humanity’s evolutionary need to connect with nature, an “life and lifelike processes” [4]. That’s why humans need and prefer environments that evoke sensory richness, emotional resonance, and ecological awareness [1], [2]. Biophilic design aims to restore this connection by incorporating natural elements, materials, and processes into built spaces. Research shows that such environments can enhance well-being, reduce stress, and support mental restoration [1], [2]. Biophilic architecture often uses light, vegetation, and natural patterns to evoke the sensations and rhythms of the natural world [1].

Methodology

The research adopts a two-phase methodological framework to explore how biophilic principles can be integrated into smart-home systems. The first phase involves a descriptive analysis of how experts understand the relationship between biophilia and domotics, including:
– Mapping current technologies, perceptions, and design frameworks in domotics
– Reviewing existing literature on biophilic design, smart-home technologies, and human–nature interactions
The second phase is exploratory, focusing on speculative design scenarios that imagine new ways for humans, nature, and technology to coexist in domestic settings.

The Role of Interaction Design

Interaction design plays a decisive role in bridging the gap between unctional efficiency and biophilic engagement. By developing interfaces that are sensory, emotional, and ecological, designers can transform smart-home systems from passive regulators of comfort into active mediators of human–nature connection. Gamification elements can further motivate users to care for plants, monitor environmental data, or follow natural cycles, turning routine tasks into meaningful rituals.

Expected Challenges

A major challenge in biophilic domotics is ensuring accessibility and inclusivity. Not everyone has the same access to technology, natural resources, or ecological knowledge. Therefore, hould be intuitive, adaptable, and sensitive to different levels of engagement. Another challenge lies in integrating biophilic features within existing smart-home infrastructures. Many homes were not designed with biophilia in mind, and retrofitting can be costly or technically complex.
In conclusion, as we design the homes of the future, we must remember that true well-being does not come from mastering artificial environments but from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the living world.

References

[1] S. R. Kellert, J. H. Heerwagen, and M. L. Mador, Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken, Nj: Wiley, 2008.

[2] S. H. Kellert and E. O. Wilson, The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, 1993.

[3] J. Heerwagen and B. Hase, “Building biophilia: Connecting people to nature in building design,” Environ. Des. Construct., vol. 3, Jan. 2001.

[4]E. O. Wilson, Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1984.