In the era of digital transformation, game design and interaction design are increasingly being integrated. Game principles are used not only to entertain, but also to enhance the user experience of everyday applications and services. The goal is to make interactions clearer, more engaging, and easier to understand, helping users participate more actively and consciously.
Core Principles of Gamification
Gamification aims to make common activities more interesting and enjoyable. To work, an app must be able to maintain the user’s attention and motivate them to continue using it. This happens when the proposed challenges are balanced with the user’s abilities, creating a sense of continuous engagement, called flow. According to Rigby and Ryan, a good gamified experience is based on three main elements: autonomy, competence, and relevance. Autonomy concerns the ability to choose and feel in control, competence is linked to improvement and the feeling of succeeding in what one does, while relevance concerns the meaning of the activity and the connection with others. [1.
] Another fundamental aspect is progression: the user is guided step by step through increasingly complex objectives, receiving rewards and clear feedback. Feedback must be simple, immediate, and useful, so as to help the user understand the effect of their actions. Narration, understood as a coherent theme or purpose, also contributes to making the experience more memorable.
Fig 1: The intrinsic Motivation RAMP – from Gamified UK
Senso: A Gamified Approach to Plant Care
These principles can also be intertwined with the biophilic design field. One example of these principles is Senso, a smart, gamified sensor for plant care. Senso monitors data such as soil moisture, temperature, and sunlight in real time, using artificial intelligence to provide helpful suggestions to the user. The experience is made more engaging thanks to a small pixel-art-style digital character that communicates information and guides the user in caring for the plant. This way, everyday tasks such as watering or controlling the light become more intuitive and less repetitive. Senso transforms plant care into an interactive experience, demonstrating how gamification can improve usability and engagement even in non-gaming contexts.
Fig: 2 – Fig 3 – Fig 4: Senso a gamified Plant sensor from Prelaunch
References
[1] S. Rigby and R. M. Ryan, Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us Spellbound. Santa Barbara, CA, USA: Greenwood Press, 2011.
[2] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, “From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining ‘gamification’,” in Proc. 15th Int. Academic MindTrek Conf.: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere, Finland, 2011, pp. 9–15, doi: 10.1145/2181037.2181040.
Why is pothos the best plant for starting to care for plants? And why is pothos a simple and natural example of how good interaction works? In recent years, more and more people are becoming interested in the world of plants, often living in cities, in small apartments, and with little time to spare. However, caring for a plant isn’t just about adding a decorative element to the home; it’s also about starting to observe how something can change over time.
Pothos is a very simple plant to care for, making it ideal for learning. Its changes are easy to notice: the leaves become softer when thirsty, the color changes depending on the light, and growth slows or accelerates. By observing these signals, we begin to understand what the plant needs and how to respond.
This mechanism helps us understand a key principle of interaction design: feedback. Our actions produce a result that modifies a feature of the interface and allows us to understand the next steps to take. In the natural world, feedback arrives slowly, over time. It is not as immediate as a digital interface, but for this very reason it requires attention and observation skills.
Pothos: a Great Plant for Beginners
Pothos (Epipremnum aureum) is often recommended as a first plant, and for good reason. It is a tropical climbing plant, capable of adapting to a wide range of conditions. It thrives in both bright light and partial shade, requires little watering, and survives even minor care mistakes. [1]
But its real strength is how easy it is to understand its needs. When thirsty, the leaves lose vigor. When too much light hits, the color changes. When healthy, it grows rapidly.
Looking at pothos, we learn that good feedback doesn’t have to be complicated. It just needs to be visible and consistent. This form of slow, natural interaction helps us understand how, even in the design of digital interfaces, feedback is essential for building intuitive, accessible, and learning-oriented experiences.
Slow Feedback and Interaction Design
In the field of interaction design, one of the fundamental principles is feedback. An interaction works when the system responds to the user’s actions in a legible and coherent way. The pothos works exactly like this. Humans act, the plant responds over time. This relationship isn’t as immediate as the digital one, but for this very reason, it’s educational. It teaches us to recognize patterns and respect timing.
Nature-Based User Interfaces: The Makey Makey Example
In recent years, interaction design has begun to explore nature-based user interfaces, or interfaces that use natural elements as inputs, outputs, or communication mediums. Among the various examples is Makey Makey—a sensor that, like a keyboard or mouse, can become an input for the computer. It is a system designed to create tangible interfaces simply and immediately, without the need for programming or building complex circuits. Its unique feature is that it does not require specific technological materials. It can also work with natural elements such as plants, leaves, soil, fruit, or simply the human body. [2] Sensors, digital models, or nature-based interface platforms can therefore amplify existing signals, without replacing them.
Fig 3 & Fig4: Makey makey and scratch plant playgrounds
We have become an indoor generation. We spend most of our lives inside buildings, on public transportation, and in enclosed spaces. Home, school, office, gym, and shops: we rarely spend time outdoors, even though we often think otherwise. Recent studies show that people believe they spend about 60–70% of their time indoors, but the reality is very different: on average, we spend up to 90% of our day indoors. This change has occurred in a very short time compared to the history of human evolution, which has seen us live outdoors for hundreds of thousands of years, following the natural cycles of light and dark. This distance from nature affects the body, the mind, and the way we relate to the environment. In this context, caring for plants becomes a simple yet meaningful gesture, especially for certain generations more sensitive to these issues.
The Physical and Mental Effects of an Indoor Lifestyle
Living primarily indoors has concrete consequences.
Indoor air is often more polluted than outdoor air, even in cities.
Building materials, furniture, cleaning products, and simple daily activities like cooking or breathing increase levels of CO₂ and harmful substances.
The lack of natural light also has a significant impact. Our bodies use daylight to regulate our sleep-wake cycles. Spending little time outdoors can cause sleep problems, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and mood swings. In many cases, it also contributes to stress, anxiety, and seasonal depression.
Despite this, we’re often unaware of how little contact we have with nature. This creates a gap between perception and reality that makes it difficult to change habits.
Fig 2. Graph showing average time spent indoors over 24 hours – from Bauenmitholz
Why Millennials and Gen Z Are More Drawn to Plant Care
Fig 3. Graph with the different generations divided by age group- from Fineco Bank
Research shows that millennials and Gen Z are currently the generations most involved in caring for indoor plants. This doesn’t mean they have more plants than other generations, but they purchase and care for them more frequently and with greater attention. There are several reasons:
They more often live in apartments without gardens
They have a strong connection to mental well-being
They are more sensitive to environmental issues
They use plants as a form of self-care For many young adults, caring for a plant isn’t just a hobby, but a way to slow down, take responsibility, and reconnect with something alive. It’s no coincidence that a large percentage of millennials say that plants make them happier and more optimistic about the future.
Indoor Plants as a Response to Disconnection from Nature
Indoor plants can mitigate some typical problems of indoor living:
They improve the perception of air quality
They introduce natural variations into the space
They make the passage of time visible
They promote routine and attention Even when the biological impact is limited, the psychological effect is strong. A plant changes, grows, and reacts. It’s the opposite of a screen that’s always the same. This opens up an interesting space for interaction design.
Nature-Based Interaction Design: From Screens to Living Interfaces
We are the indoor generation, but that doesn’t mean we have to give up contact with nature. Younger generations, accustomed to complex digital interfaces, seem to increasingly appreciate simple, natural interactions. Plants offer just that: interaction based on observation, time, and slow feedback. For interaction design, this means rethinking the role of interfaces:
fewer screens
more living objects
more relationships, less control Nature-based user interfaces can help rebuild a connection with the environment, especially for those who mostly live indoors.
[2] A. Author et al., “Article title,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 12, Art. no. 7454, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7454
[5] P. Ahmmadi, M. Rahimian, and R. G. Movahed, “Theory of planned behavior to predict consumer behavior in using products irrigated with purified wastewater in Iran,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 296, 2021, Art. no. 126359, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126359.
[6] P. T. Thuy, N. T. Hue, and L. Q. Dat, “Households’ willingness-to-pay for mangrove environmental services: Evidence from Phu Long, Northeast Vietnam,” Trees, Forests and People, vol. 15, Art. no. 100474, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100474.
[7] C. J. Armitage and M. Conner, “Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 471–499, 2010.
[8] X. Liu, H. Lindhjem, K. Grimsrud, E. Leknes, and E. Tvinnereim, “Is there a generational shift in preferences for forest carbon sequestration versus preservation of agricultural landscapes?” Climatic Change, vol. 176, no. 9, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10584-023-03588-z.
[9] B. Satinover, J. Nichols, and J. W. Holt, “A comparison of sustainability attitudes and intentions across generations and gender: A perspective from U.S. consumers,” Cuadernos de Gestión, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 51–62, 2023, doi: 10.5295/cdg.211647bs.
[10] X. Li, J. Dai, X. Zhu, J. Li, J. He, Y. Huang, X. Liu, and Q. Shen, “Mechanism of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence the green development behavior of construction enterprises,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 266, 2023.
[11] W. J. Fisk, “Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, vol. 25, pp. 537–566, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.537
How can home automation help make the invisible life processes of plants perceptible? Over the last few decades, both scientific research and artistic practices have shown a growing interest in plant life and in the hidden processes that regulate growth, health, and interaction with the environment.
Some of the most emblematic experiments combining technology, plants, and perception can be found in the field of music and sound. These works explore how biological signals from plants can be translated into audible forms, allowing humans to sense processes that are normally invisible.
Plants and music experiments
One of the most well-known examples is the musical project by Mort Garson. In 1976, he released the album Mother Earth’s Plantasia, a collection of electronic compositions created entirely with synthesizers. Each track was associated with a specific houseplant and was intended to accompany and support plant growth. [2] Although the album was not initially very successful, since it was not released for the commercial music market, it has gradually gained recognition among a niche audience as an early work of electronic music. [3]
In other experiments, plants have been used as actual musical instruments, or as sources of data that are transformed into music.
Composer Mamoru Fujieda, for example, worked with a bioelectric interface developed by botanist Yuji Dogane. This system, known as the Plantron, uses electrodes attached to plant leaves to measure changes in their electrical activity. These signals are then translated by a computer into MIDI data and converted into musical patterns using digital software.
Furthermore, Mileece, an English sound artist and environmental designer, gives a voice to plants by creating installations and performances based on generative music [4]. Her installation Soniferous Eden (2010) reflects her intention to create a bridge of communication between humans and plants, and even between plants themselves. In this work, plants become sensitive to one another and respond when humans touch the leaves of a neighboring plant.
Another notable example is Data Garden, a collective inspired in part by Mileece’s work. Their installation Data Garden: Quartet consists of four plants connected to galvanometers through electrodes attached to their leaves. The electrical signals collected from each plant are translated into MIDI notes, with each plant controlling a different musical instrument. [6]
From Artistic Experiments to Interaction Design
These experiments invite us to reflect on the possibility of linking sound to dynamic interfaces. Sound, in particular, is a powerful tool for turning biological data into a sensory and perceptible experience. In the field of interaction design, for example, biometric data collected from plants can become parameters that influence technological objects or interfaces.
Within a domestic environment, it would be interesting to integrate a musical or sonic layer into plant care. Following Garson’s early intuition, sound could be used to support plant growth and overall well-being, since research has shown that certain audible frequencies and musical patterns can support physiological processes in plants, such as nutrient absorption, photosynthesis, and protein synthesis [5].
Alternatively, a generative soundscape could be linked to the real-time condition of plants: a stressed plant could produce more tense or dissonant sounds or environmental balance could be expressed through harmonic and stable melody tones.
In this way, home automation systems could help make the perception of plants and their well-being more active and dynamic.
[2] R. F. M. Lêdo, Music with Plants: Cultivating Bonds Between Grade-Schoolers and Nature Through Sound Design, Master’s thesis, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/121890/2/346398.pdf. [Accessed: n.d.].
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.
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
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.
Pros and Cons of Technological Nature
This raises an important question:
To what extent can technological nature truly satisfy our need for 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].
Fig. 1 The image illustrates examples of technological nature, where digital or artificial systems simulate natural experiences. It includes plasma screens used as “virtual windows” displaying real-time outdoor nature scenes in both office and laboratory settings, as well as a robot dog (AIBO) designed to evoke responses similar to interactions with a real animal. From: The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature [3]
Fig. 2 Visual representation of VR experience simulating a natural environments. from: nature human behaviour
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.
[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
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.
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
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
Biophilic Timeline
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:
In a Smart-home environments all the devices can gather information and transfer it to a special app, or perform certain actions automatically. Current smart-home systems manage lighting, climate, security, entertainment, and energy consumption.
Overall, 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].
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.
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.
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.
