Biophilic School Design – Great for Students, Teachers, and the Planet They Live On 

When biophilic design principles are applied at places where people are learning and teaching, good things happen—moods and cognitive performance improve (for students and teachers!)—which is always a plus, whether trigonometry or Latin grammar or colour theory feature in the lesson plan for the day.

When schools are biophilically designed they feature:

• Loads of natural light but mechanisms to eliminate glare. Natural light is great for elevating our mental performance, whether you’re trying to think creatively or not, but glare causes stress and stress keeps us from performing to our full potential.  Adding blinds can eliminate glare (but ones that return to the up position automatically are best because once people pull down blinds they often don’t return them to their original position) and so can set up desks, screens, etc. at an angle from windows.  Clerestory windows, which are smaller and placed on walls above adult standing eye level, can help keep glare down while admitting natural light, but they can’t let in views.  If people will be in school at night, circadian lighting is a big plus for a space.
• It’s great when schools can be located with views of nature outside; views of at least 50 feet through available windows are crucial (no matter what those views are of, less viewing distance is stressful).  Seeing nature, particularly diverse, native plantings, is good for both our mental performance and also our stress levels (which can help us pay attention to whatever we’re being taught, for example).  So is seeing the sky.  When views of nature outside (ideally scenes reminiscent of meadows with trees and a brook) aren’t possible, art that depicts the same sorts of scenes that are so desirable when seen outdoors are a real plus.  Even screen savers on monitors can support biophilic design if they feature these sorts of welcoming nature scenes.  Youngsters and oldsters and in-the-middlesters with ADHD get an especially large mental performance boost from having views of nature.
• Moderate levels of visual inputs. When schools have too much going on visually learning performance falls and students can be distracted.  This all relates back to our early days as a species when we needed to be able to see danger nearby; when we couldn’t we are stressed.  Being stressed diverts some of our mental processing power from the task at hand, whatever that might be.  Being in a place that’s too stark is also stressful.  What’s best?  Aim for a moderate level of visual stimulation, about the same number of colours, shapes, and patterns you’d find in a residential interior designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, all arranged with the same level of order or sort of apparent plan as you’d find in that FLW house.
• Green leafy plants. Seeing green leafy plants has been tied to better cognitive performance (even creativity) as well as helping to eliminate mental refreshment, after people have gotten mentally exhausted, whether by learning or by teaching.  One of two plants in view is best, more elevates visual clutter.  Have lots of allergic kids in class?  Artificial plants are as effective at improving what goes on in our heads as real, natural plants—as long as they’re such “good fakes” that you need to touch them to determine if they’re real or plastic.
• Natural materials. Studies have directly tied improved learning performance to being around natural materials, such as stone and wood with visible grain (ideally with a warm finish). Ideally, the wood should not cover more than about 50% of the surface area in a room.
• “Safe” seats with a view. We are most comfortable when we sit in a seat that gives us a good view of the area around us as well as the door to the room that we’re in and we feel secure in that seat, for example that nothing might sneak up on us from behind (say another second grader).  This is known in the psych biz as being in a space with prospect and refuge and is an important tenet of biophilic design.  When as many people in a classroom or library or other learning space as possible have prospect and refuge, life for all is better.  We feel protected from the rear when we back up to a wall, full height or shorter, or a tall plant or a large sturdy piece of furniture, for example.  Research has shown that university/older students prefer to study in places with prospect and refuge.  Not all seats in any space can allow prospect and refuge but the more the better, and circulation routes right behind student chairs need to be kept to the absolute minimum.
• Curving lines and straight lines thoughtfully deployed. We learn better when curving lines  (in 2-dimensions in patterns on fabrics, for example, and in 3-dimensions in shapes of the backs of chairs) are more plentiful than straight ones, but we move along more quickly and act more efficiently when straight lines are more plentiful than curving ones (which can be good to know if you’re designing a hallway that lots of students will need to travel between class sessions).
• Nature sounds. When we hear nature soundscapes (the sounds for example, of birds peacefully singing, or gently flowing water, or quietly rustling leaves and grasses) we relax, refresh, and effectively process the information flowing into our brains.
• Seeing water (with or without fish) is just as mentally refreshing and stress-reducing as hearing it.  A human-sized man-made fountain in a courtyard without plants or other natural elements in it can be just as refreshing to view as a Spring meadow with a few trees.
• Windows that open. When windows open people can take control of their environments and add (hopefully!) fresh air to a space, resulting in levels of carbon dioxide, etc., that are low enough to have insignificant effects on learning outcomes.
• Access to the outdoors. Outdoor spaces that are accessible promote learning among students of all ages, helping with managing energy levels, for instance, and reducing stress levels.
• Include multiple biophilic elements. With biophilic design, the effects of one biophilic element are definitely enhanced by the addition of another and another!

For more information on biophilic school design, take a look at:

Lindsay Baker and Harvey Bernstein.  2012.  “The Impact of School Buildings on Student Health and Performance:  A Call for Research,” http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/…

Peter Barrett, Alberto Treves, Tigran Shmis, Diego Ambasz, and Maria Ustinova.  2019. “The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning:  A Synthesis of the Evidence.” The World Bank, Washington, DC, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329402892_The_Impact_of_School_…

Peter Barrett, Yufan Zhang, Fay Davies, and Lucinda Barrett.  2015. “Clever Classrooms:  Summary Report of HEAD Project.”  University of Salford, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/902e4a_6aa724a74ba04b46b716e528b92ad7fc.pdf

Matthew Browning and Alessandro Rigolon.  2019. “School Green Space and Its Impact on Academic Performance:  A Systematic Literature Review.”  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 429, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030429

Jim Determan, Mary Anne Akers, Tom Albright, Bill Browning, Catherine Martin-Dunlop, Paul Archibald, and Valerie Caruolo.  2019. “The Impact of Biophilic Learning Spaces on Student Success.” https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/The-Impac…

Karrie Godwin, Audrey Leroux, Peter Scupelli, and Anna Fisher.  2022. “Classroom Design and Children’s Attention Allocation:  Beyond the Laboratory and Into the Classroom.”  Mind, Brain, and Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 239-251, https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12319

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.  2017. “Schools for Health.” https://schools.forhealth.org

Astrid Roetzel, M. DeKay, A. Kidd, A. Klas, A-M. Sadick, V. Whitterm, and L. Zinkiewicz.  2020. “Architectural, Indoor Environmental, Personal and Cultural Influences on Students’ Selection of a Preferred Place to Study.”  Architectural Science Review, vol. 63, no. 3-4, pp. 275-291, https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1691971

2008. Tanner. 2008. “Explaining Relationships Among Student Outcomes and the School’s Physical Environment”. Journal of Advanced Academics, vol. 19, pp. 444-471.
2009. Tanner and Jeffrey Lackney.  2006.  Educational Facilities Planning:  Leadership, Architecture, and Management.Pearson; New York.

Nicole van den Bogerd, S. Dijkstra, Sander Koole, Jacob Seidell, and Jolanda Maas. 2021. “Greening the Room:  A Quasi-Experimental Study on the Presence of Potted Plants in Study Rooms on Mood, Cognitive Performance, and Perceived Environmental Quality Among University Students.”  Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 73, 101557, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101557

Nicole van den Bogerd, S. Dijkstra, Karin Tanja-Dijkstra, Michiel de Boer, Jacob Seidell, Sander Koole, and Jolanda Maas. 2020. “Greening the Classroom:  Three Field Experiments on the Effects of Indoor Nature on Students’ Attention, Well-Being, and Perceived Environmental Quality.”  Building and Environment, vol. 171, 106675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106675

Rotraut Walden (editor). 2015. Schools for the Future: Design Proposals from Architectural Psychology.  Springer Fachmedien, Wiessbaden, Germany.

This article was first published in the Education issue of The Journal of Biophilic Design.