Author: veronica.bergonzoni

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.

Fig. 1: Hierarchical organization of biological structures. from:Frontires In public Healt

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

.

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

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.

Fig. 1: A schematic timeline of human evolution and technological-social development. From: https://www.habitarmonia.eu/nature-in-the-space-/-biophilic-design

The State of Smart-Home Technologies:

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.