MIRAY BOĞA BIOPHILIC PRODUCT DESIGN · 2018-07-24 · WHAT IS BIOPHILIA THEY SAY... “To look to...

BIOPHILIC PRODUCT DESIGN A BIO-INSPIRED APPROACH TO USER PREFERENCES

INSTR. MIRAY BOĞA (PHD CAND.) INDUSTIRAL PRODUCT DESIGN, ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, TURKEY

PROF. GÜLNAME TURAN (PHD) INDUSTIRAL PRODUCT DESIGN, ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, TURKEY

“BIOPHILIA IS THE LOVE OF LIFE”

ERICH FROMM (1964)

WHAT IS BIOPHILIA?

“THE INNATE TENDENCY TO FOCUS ON LIFE AND LIFELIKE PROCESSES.”

EDWARD O. WILSON (1984)

WHAT IS BIOPHILIA?

WHAT IS BIOPHILIA

THEY SAY...▸ “To look to the very roots of motivation and understand why, in what circumstances and on which

occasions, we cherish and protect life.” (Edward O. Wilson)

▸ “Urge to affiliate with other forms of life.” (Edward O. Wilson)

▸ “Biophilia, the innate affiliation people seek with other organisms and especially with the natural world.” (Edward O. Wilson)

▸ “Biophilia is humankind’s innate biological connection with nature.” (W. D. Browning, C. O. Ryan, J. O. Clancy)

▸ “Biophilia is the inherent human inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes especially life and life-like features of the non-human environment.” (Stephen Kellert)

▸ “The first basic dimension of biophilic design is an organic or naturalistic dimension, defined as shapes and forms in the built environment that directly, indirectly, or symbolically reflect the inherent human affinity for nature.” (Stephen Kellert)

▸ “The idea that humans possess a biological inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes instrumental in their health and productivity.” (S. Kellert & J. Heerwagen)

A product which was produced through the sustainability concerns may not be sustained because of using it in an unsustainable way. That would be a two-sided issue to be solved. One is raising awareness among the people; the other one is the guidance of products to be used in a more sensible way. The latter is the focal point of this study. Janine Benyus who is the first biomimic that comes to mind might have implied that kind of approach when she talks about ‘mimicking the nature holistically’ (Benyus, 1997/2002).

Benyus, J. M., (2002). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Harper Perennial.

biophilia?

BIOPHILIC EFFECT ON THE USER PREFERENCES

ARCHITECTURE - URBAN DESIGN - LANDSCAPE DESIGN“If the “savannah hypothesis” is true, we would expect to find that humans intrinsically like and find pleasurable environments that contain key features of the savannah that were most likely to have aided our ancestors’ survival and well being. These features include:

‣A high diversity of plant (especially flowers) and animal life for food and resources. ‣Clustered trees with spreading canopies for refuge and protection. ‣Open grassland that provides easy movement and clear views to the distance. ‣Topographic changes for strategic surveillance to aid long distance movements and to provide early warning of approaching hazards. ‣Scattered bodies of water for food, drinking, bathing, and pleasure. ‣A “big sky” with a wide, bright field of view to aid visual access in all directions.

Savannah “mimics” are obvious in many of our modern built spaces including shopping malls, department stores, golf courses, and parks. Research on the design of retail settings shows how the manipulation of space and artifacts influences purchasing behaviors. Many of these manipulations -- light, décor, sounds, food, flowers, smells, visual corridors -- are consistent with the savannah hypothesis and other research on environmental preferences.” (Heerwagen, 2003).

Heerwagen, J. H., (2003), Bio-inspired Design: What can we learn From Nature? Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/External/Docs8542.pdf on April 24, 2018.

ELEMENTS AND ATTRIBUTES OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN BY STEPHEN R. KELLERTEnvironmental features

Natural shapes and forms Natural patterns and processes

Light and space Place-based relationships

Evolved human-nature relationships

Color Botanical motifs Sensory variability Natural lightGeographic connection to place Prospect and refuge

Water Tree and columnar supports Information richness Filtered and diffused

lightHistoric connection to place Order and complexity

Air Animals (mainly vertebrate) motifs

Age, change and the patina of time Light and shadow Ecological connection to

place Curiosity and enticement

Sunlight Shells and spirals Growth and efflorescence Reflected light Cultural connection to

placeChange and metamorphosis

Plants Egg, oval and tubular forms Central focal point Light pools Indigenous materials Security and protection

Animals Arches, vaults, domes Patterned wholes Warm light Landscape orientation Mastery and control

Natural materials Shapes resisting straight lines and right angles Bounded spaces Light as shape and from Landscape features that

define building form Affection and attachment

Views and vistas Simulation of natural features

Transitional spaces Spaciousness Landscape ecology Attraction and beauty

Façade greening Biomorphy Linked series and chains Spatial variability Integration of culture and ecology

Exploration and discovery

Geology and landscape Geomorphology

Integration of parts to wholes Space as shape and form Spirit of place Information and

cognition

Habitats and ecosystems

Biomimicry Complementary contrasts

Spatial harmony Avoiding placelessness Fear and awe

Fire Dynamic balance and tension

Inside-outside spaces Reverence and spirituality

Fractals

Hierarchically organized ratios and scales

Kellert, S.R., (2011). Dimensions, Elements and Attributes of Biophilic Design. In Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (eds.) Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. loc. 441-990. [Kindle iOS version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Genzyme Building http://behnisch.com/work/projects/0104

Bastille Viaduct http://architectuul.com/architecture/promenade-plantee

Fallingwater https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/later-europe-and-americas/

modernity-ap/a/frank-lloyd-wright-fallingwater

METHOD

WHAT IS BIOPHILIC PRODUCT?

METHOD


WHO? a group of objective judges constituted by academic and professional designers

METHOD



WHY? an objective perspective to decide what makes products biophilic or not

METHOD



HOW?creating a concept pool through a brainstorming session with an introduction to biophilia, biophobia and non-biophilia

WHY? an objective perspective to decide what makes products biophilic or not

creating a product pool by evaluating a group of product samples in terms of being biophilic, biophobic and non-biophilic

METHOD

THE FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNERSA product pool was made to be used in the research of this study which includes 95 images of various

products. The following specifications were took in consideration in selection of the products:

•Formal reference to the natural and living beings

•Natural and artificial materials

•Reference to social status and/or prestige

•The products which are used in different areas

•The images of the same or similar products in front of different backgrounds (natural or artificial

backgrounds)

•The position of the function (if it heads off the other features or not)

•Permission to the user for interaction, intervention, inclusion to active usage process

•Different color and pattern alternatives of the same/similar products

METHOD

THE FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNERS

▸ Personal Information

METHOD


▸ Personal Information▸ Do you know biophilia? If not, what does it remind you?

METHOD


▸ Personal Information▸ Do you know biophilia? If not, what does it remind you?▸ Introducing biophilia, biophobia and non-biophilia by definitions

and giving information about the biophilic research and studies

METHOD




▸ Brainstorming for each concept to write any words connote them (as word, adjective, abstract concepts, idiom, color, verb, etc.)

METHOD





▸ Giving examples of products which they relate to the each concept

METHOD





▸ Giving examples of products which they relate to the each concept

▸ Evaluating the product samples by categorizing them ‘biophilic’, ‘biophobic’, ‘non-biophilic’ or not applicable.

RESULTS OF THE DESIGNER INTERVIEWS

THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNERS▸ 40 interviews

▸ 24 female - 16 male

▸ 31 academic - 9 professional

▸ work experience: 3 - 45 years; average: 14 years.

▸ most of them didn’t know the concept before the interview.


THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNERS▸ Frequently said ‘means neutral’ for the concept of ‘non-biophilic’. - vague concept

▸ There are more common expressions for ‘biophobic’ than the others. The expressions of ‘biophobic’ were more consistent while the biophilic ones were occasionally in contradictions and inconsistencies. It can be related to the effective role of the phobia in the evolutionary survival.

▸ The participants could be affected by the researcher’s way of define and express the concepts. Even the ‘philia’ part recalls the negative connotations like concepts of necrophilia and pedophilia they usually defined the biophilia as a positive concept and related it to positive emotions and words. Similarly, they defined the biophobia as a negative concept. Nevertheless all the participants were exposed to the same sentences and words and they responded differently in a way they understood the concepts.

▸ Each participant has evaluated the products according to their professional specialties and the effects of this was visible in their responses.


THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNERS▸ Although they have evaluated the products through their professional designer

identity instead of their user identity, they were obviously under the effect of their personal tastes and value judgments. Even they noticed the inconsistencies in their expressions frequently they named their favorites as biophilic.

▸ Even though they have tried to be consistent with the word pool that they created they conflicted with themselves occasionally. In some cases they tried to associate the products which they liked to the biophilic features that they said before. Especially they found the wooden objects biophilic.

▸ In some occasions some of them have defined a product biophilic while some said biophobic or they could agree being biophilic or biophobic on a product but with different justifications. Beside the innate dispositions of deciding if it is biophilic or biophobic; the differentiation of justifications may come from the differences of their cultural and professional backgrounds.


THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNERS▸ The word pool was created through a work of brainstorming. That’s why all

the words/concepts are not appropriate for the categories that Kellert put forward. The categories were specified for the architectural and urban design so it remained incapable for the product-specific design. And also in terms of scale and specific design elements products were out of context under the titles like “geomorphy”, “filtered diffused light”, the ones about the space and light, etc. Besides, some of them remained empty because there were no words about them in the review even though they could be related to the product design (e.g. Central Focal Point, Light as Shape and Form, Complementary Contrasts). The review showed that there is a need to add categories like “human scale / human friendly”, “Naturality (in detail)”, “Liveness / Animalism (in detail)”, “Energy”. And also it needs to elaborate the category of “Simulation of Natural Features” in accordance with product design.

BRIEF TABLE OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN BY STEPHEN R. KELLERT

Term Definition Function

UtilitarianPractical and material exploitation of

naturePhysical sustenance/ security

NaturalisticSatisfaction from direct experience/

contact with nature

Curiosity, outdoor skills, mental/ physical

development

Ecologistic- Scientific Systematic study of structure, function,

and relationship in nature

Knowledge, understanding,

observational skills

Aesthetic Physical appeal and beauty of nature Inspiration, harmony, peace, security

SymbolicUse of nature for metaphorical

expression, language, expressive thought Communication, mental development

HumanisticStrong affection, emotional attachment,

“love” for nature

Group bonding, sharing, cooperation,

companionship

Moralistic Strong affinity, spiritual reverence, ethical

concern for nature

Order and meaning in life, kinship and

affiliational ties

DominionisticMastery, physical control, dominance of

nature

Mechanical skills, physical prowess, ability

to subdue

Negativistic Fear, aversion, alienation from nature Security, protection, safety

Kellert, S.R., (1993)., The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature. In Kellert, S. R. and Wilson, E. O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothis (Shearwater Book) (p. 42). Island Press. Kindle Edition.

BRIEF TABLE OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN BY STEPHEN R. KELLERT

Term Definition FunctionUtilitarian (functional, primitive,

comfortable, safe, healthy, balanced)

Practical and material exploitation of

naturePhysical sustenance/ security

Naturalistic (natural, alive, interesting)Satisfaction from direct experience/

contact with nature

Curiosity, outdoor skills, mental/ physical

development

Ecologistic- Scientific (regular, random,

pollution)

Systematic study of structure, function,

and relationship in nature

Knowledge, understanding,

observational skills

Aesthetic (aesthetic, sympathetic, harmonious,

aversive, disproportionate, shiny)Physical appeal and beauty of nature Inspiration, harmony, peace, security

Symbolic (unknown, simple,

complicated)

Use of nature for metaphorical

expression, language, expressive thought Communication, mental development

Humanistic (cold, warm)Strong affection, emotional attachment,

“love” for nature

Group bonding, sharing, cooperation,

companionship

Moralistic (plastic, dirty / pollution,

hygienic)

Strong affinity, spiritual reverence, ethical

concern for nature

Order and meaning in life, kinship and

affiliational ties

Dominionistic (strong, forced /

unnatural)

Mastery, physical control, dominance of

nature

Mechanical skills, physical prowess, ability

to subdue

Negativistic (fear, harmful, dangerous) Fear, aversion, alienation from nature Security, protection, safety

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

form attitude material function sensory meaning psychologicalfractal geometry honesty / loyalty natural productivity texture connotations consistency

rhythm healthy artificial energy saving scent iconic value wellbeing

curve coherence ergonomy colorsymbolic value

(signs)feelings

organic /amorpheus ecologicalcomfort

vibration historical / story emotions

asymmetry familiarity sound identifiable calmness

contrast active taste protection

balance integrating the user

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

form attitude material function sensory meaning psychologicalfractal geometry honesty / loyalty natural productivity texture connotations consistency

rhythm healthy artificial energy saving scent iconic value wellbeing

curve coherence ergonomy colorsymbolic value

(signs)feelings

organic /amorpheus ecologicalcomfort

vibration historical / story emotions

asymmetry familiarity sound identifiable calmness

contrast active taste protection

balance integrating the user

form attitude material function sensory meaning psychologicaldisproportionate balanced natural functional cold interesting dangerous

regular hygienic shiny primitive warm strong safe

random dirty / pollution plastic comfortable alive healthy

simple forced (unnatural) unknown harmful

aesthetic harmonious aversive fear

complicated sympathetic

METHOD

THE FRAMEWORK OF THE USER SURVEYS

▸ Concept pool - constituted by the words which are the most frequent and related to the categorization made by Kellert

CONCEPT POOL THE MOST FREQUENT WORDS IN THE DESIGNER INTERVIEWS USED AS EVALUATION CRITERIA IN THE USER SURVEY

METHOD



▸ Product pool - constituted by the ones which became prominent by convergence and got the significant reactions by the designers.

PRODUCT POOL

METHOD



▸ Product pool - constituted by the ones which became prominent by convergence and got the significant reactions by the designers.

▸ User survey - the users were asked to relate the concepts to the products and rate how much the words express the product -and also if they would use the product or not.

HIGHLIGHTS OF USER SURVEY RESULTS

SEATING UNIT

▸ %70 biophilic

▸ positive use preference

▸ biophilic, according to the objective judges

▸ %84 sensory

▸ %74 psychological

▸ %71 meaning

▸ %66 attitude

▸ %77 material

▸ %68 function

▸ %76 naturalistic

▸ %77 aesthetic

▸ %84 humanistic

▸ fetal position

▸ sleeping figure on the photo

▸ protection, safety, trust, peace

▸ soft cushions, wood structure - natural materials


CUTLERY SET

▸ %66 biophilic - %52 non-biophilic



▸ %72 meaning

▸ %72 attitude

▸ %68 material

▸ %68 sensory


▸ %75 aesthetic

▸ %68 humanistic

▸ %76 dominionistic

▸ smooth lines and transitions

▸ elegant joints and the variations through the section

▸ may cause harm

▸ not functional

▸ matt metal and warmth of wood


SIEVE

▸ %62 biophilic


▸ n/a, according to the objective judges

▸ %72 meaning

▸ %72 attitude

▸ %68 material

▸ %68 sensory


▸ %75 aesthetic

▸ %68 humanistic


▸ plastic

▸ functional efficiency

▸ familiarity

▸ compatibility of form and use / function


SALT AND PEPPER

▸ %73 biophilic



▸ %73,5 meaning

▸ %72,5 psychological

▸ %70 function

▸ %87,5 attitude

▸ %86 material

▸ %69 sensory


▸ %88 aesthetic

▸ %69 humanistic


▸ %73,5 utilitarian

▸ natural material

▸ natural behavior / use

▸ clarity

▸ strong, clear, simple, direct


FAUCET

▸ %64 biophobic / non-biophilic

▸ negative use preference


▸ %76 meaning

▸ %75,5 attitude

▸ %70 material

▸ %76 aesthetic


▸ %76 symbolic

▸ mimicking

▸ pretending, fake

▸ scary living beings


KNIFE

▸ %69 biophobic / non-biophilic



▸ %73 sensory

▸ %76 meaning

▸ %71 aesthetic


▸ %80 symbolic

▸ %69 negativistic

▸ %73 humanistic

▸ harmful

▸ dangerous



SALT AND PEPPER▸ %63 biophilic


▸ biophobic / non-biophilic, according to the objective judges

▸ %71 sensory

▸ %73,5 psychological

▸ %71 humanistic

▸ %77,5 biophilic , %70,5 biophobic / non-biophilic attitude

▸ %68 biophilic , %62 biophobic / non-biophilic aesthetic

▸ pretending

▸ not compatible for the function

▸ form-function conflict


CUTLERY SET▸ %65 biophobic / non-biophilic



▸ %73 sensory

▸ %66 psychological

▸ %77,5 meaning

▸ %77,5 aesthetic


▸ %80 symbolic

▸ %73 humanistic

▸ mimicking

▸ pretending, fake


▸ not for use

▸ not hygienic


SEATING UNIT▸ %62 biophobic / non-biophilic



▸ %71 sensory

▸ %75 material

▸ %74 moralistic

▸ %71 humanistic


▸ plastic

▸ texture

RESULTS OF THE USER SURVEY

THE USER SURVEY

▸ visual appreciation but not find appropriate to use - the importance of the functionality on the product preferences.

▸ no direct relation between the words and the biophilic/biophobic values - so the percentage values are not sharply divided but show meaningful convergences.

▸ functionality, simplicity, clearness, familiarity and emotional intimacy were related to the biophilic tendencies as expected before the survey.

▸ conflict between designer survey results and the user preferences

▸ design education - visual relating to the biological things

▸ users - functional evaluation - ‘use’ preference

RESULTS OF THE USER SURVEY

THE USER SURVEY

▸ sensitivity for the material - plastic

▸ difference from architecture - functionality and efficiency is very important. direct relationship and effects and results are simultaneous

▸ prominence of material and function shows that they can be manipulative on the user preferences in terms of sustainability.

▸ the way the products communicate with people by symbolization -being scary, adorable, warm, cold, healthy, etc.- can be guiding light to motivate the user to prefer the sustainable products.

thank you for your patience…

Miray Boğa - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey.

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

MIRAY BOĞA BIOPHILIC PRODUCT DESIGN · 2018-07-24 · WHAT IS BIOPHILIA THEY SAY... “To look to...

Documents

Transcript of MIRAY BOĞA BIOPHILIC PRODUCT DESIGN · 2018-07-24 · WHAT IS BIOPHILIA THEY SAY... “To look to...