Over the course of this past week, I have been busy organising my online panel discussion.
The panel aims to bring hospitality businesses together with biophilic and biomimetic experts to establish the most effective, innovative and manageable applications of nature that could be introduced into hospitality spaces to re-connect people with nature. My project is looking to develop small scale applications of nature that can make an effective and impactful difference in the hospitality spaces, but that do not require full scale schemes and refurbishments of businesses; due to the time and monetary pressures large scale applications pose.
Consequently, the key question for discussion in the panel is: How can nature be applied in hospitality businesses that serve food and drink to re-connect people with the natural world?
There will be a series of prompts, which will guide the discussion but the discussion will be predominately free forming.
Guideline of the prompts:
What aspect of nature do you think may be most impactful in hospitality businesses eg: light, sound, colour, planting? And how might effective introductions of these aspects look?
How may biophilic or biomimetic deigns be utilised to create impactful, smaller scale applications into hospitality businesses that serve food and drink?
What aspects of the hospitality businesses that serve food and drink may benefit most from applications of nature? Eg: seating/ furniture
How do you think these applications nature could be utilised to measure a connecting to nature, are measures such as the Nature Relatedness Scale, Inclusion of Nature with Self, and Emotional Affinity to Nature enough?
At present the confirmed speakers are as follows, with a few speakers in the hospitality industry still to finalise:
Kristina Libby – Biophilic Design
Leonardo Binetti – Biomimetic Design
Rajalakshmi Iyer – Biophilic Design
Simon Gardner – Hospitality Business General Manager
The panel is to take place on the 4th June 2021 at 1pm via Stream Yard, where an audience can view the discussion live via the link to Nature. In’s YouTube channel and comment any questions they have. The panel discussion will also be recorded and later uploaded to Nature. In Youtube channel so that it can be reattached at later stages.
I am still in the process to quirking extra representatives of the hospitality industry to take part in the discussion.
Design a Healthy Home
Additionally, over the past week I have started reading ‘Design a Healthy Home’ by Oliver Heath. This book is incredibly insightful into different aspects of applications of biophilic design that can be utilised in the home. So far I have been reading about the use of colour in Biophilic design and how colour can be utilised to replicate different moods and emotions conveyed in nature. Some of they key points and favourite pages are shown below, but I will continue to read through the chapters of this book and make detailed note some the coming weeks.
Heath, O. (2021) Design a Healthy Home, Penguin Random House, London.
Throughout the evolution of my enquiry the term hospitality has developed within my research question. However, I have been advised to focus in on a more precise area of the field or a unifying term that describes the range of spaces I wish to address.
Hospitality spaces are being utilised as the focus for my project, as they are currently overlooked in biophilic design schemes and research. There is a growing volume of work looking to apply biophilic design in workspaces, healthcare spaces, hotel accommodation and even homes. However, hospitality spaces are largely left out. Hospitality has also been hit very hard by pandemic restrictions in the UK and I have a vested interest in the hospitality industry having worked a number of jobs in the sector and enjoy discovering new hospitality spaces in my free time; which drives my passions for this project.
Scalability:
Additionally, focusing on hospitality spaces is a way to make the aims of my project achievable in the scale of my masters project. Therefore, if my work is successful it could be scaled up to other sectors of the hospitality industry. When looking to ‘dream big’ into the future, if successful my work may even be scaled up to vastly larger schemes such as the ‘BiodiverCity’ in the Penang Islands, Malaysia that is currently being developed by BIG; the architectural firm ran by Bjarke Ingles (who I examined in my box of uncertainties project) (GQ, 2021). The BiodiverCity is pioneering in creating a sustainable global destination, connected by autonomous transport, transforming the mudflats of Penang into a greater future for Malaysia (DeZeen, 2020). My work in hospitality spaces could be incorporated into the hospitality spaces in a city scheme similar to this, to help achieve incredible large scale connections to nature.
What Is Hospitality?
Due to the ambiguity surrounding the term hospitality, I aim to eventually remove the term in my research question altogether to one more specific to an area of hospitality. Changing the term hospitality aims to narrowing the focus of my research further and making it truly achievable in the time scale. Consequently, the work below explains my process of working towards narrowing my research field in relation to the term ‘hospitality’.
When exploring the topic of hospitality further, I discovered hospitality and the hospitality industry to host two distinct definitions:
Hospitality:
A contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual wellbeing of the parties concerned through the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink (Brotherton, 1999).
or
The friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors or strangers (Oxford, 2021).
Essentially hospitality involves voluntarily entertaining people and hospitality spaces include any space that is utilised to entertain people.
Hospitality Industry:
The hospitality industry is comprised of commercial organisations that specialise in providing accommodation and/or, food, and/or drink, through a voluntary human exchange, which is contemporaneous in nature, and undertaken to enhance the mutual well being of the parties involved (Brotherton and Wood, 2000).
So, the hospital industry essential monetises the service of hospitality. Therefore, the hospitality industry more accurately represents the spaces I wish to target in my project. the hospitality industry includes businesses which can implement applications of nature, that allow a connection to nature to be fostered by numerous individuals who frequent those spaces.
I discovered that this slight difference between the entertaining and hospitality is a nuanced concept (Tefler, 2000), but may be useful in distinguishing between the precise outcome of the experience in the space that I am trying to achieve.
Brainstorming around why hospitality spaces are utilised:
largely informal spaces
social interactive spaces
business meetings
work drinks
meeting friends/family
personal time – enjoying entertainment/ food or drink
networking
social media work – gathering content for posts or ad work promoting spaces
necessity, in need of food or drink
Different Sectors Of The Hospitality Industry – Which To Focus Upon?
Working from the definitions of the hospitality industry, there is a clear split of 2 key sectors within the hospitality industry, those that look to provide accommodation and those that provide food and drink. Subsequently, I explored biophilic design application in these different settings.
Hotels/ Accommodation Spaces
Hotels are one of the most widely utilised hospitality spaces in Biophilic deigns schemes, specifically in relation to their accommodation spaces (The Resident, 2019). They are seen most frequently with pioneering designs and huge comprehensive schemes re-energisning the spaces. For instance, in Singapore the Park Royal collection hotel at Marina Bay (Panpacific, 2021). Therefore, hotels having large comprehensive schemes require a large budget from the hotel and scale of consultancy operation to conduct the work. Both of which are out of the scale for my MA project. Additionally, due to these spaces already having a biophilic focus, my work will arguably have a lesser effect in these arenas. However, a way in which my work could have a small impact in hotel spaces would be to target struggling hotels with minimal budgets to build connections to nature in these spaces that cannot employ the big schemes. However, it is arguable the profound nature that this change would have, due to the amount of attention hotels are receiving, it will only be a matter of time before the large scale adaptations trickle down into the smaller hotels.
Pubs/ Bars – Restaurants – Pop-ups/ Events
Pubs/bars, restaurants and events spaces have very minimal focus at present in applying biophilic design. When biophilic design is applied in such areas it predominately includes simply adding a few plants into the space, making little impact. At present there are very few companies looking to employ biophilic deign specifically into events, but one company at the forefront of this venture into biophilic events is ‘Planted’. Planted Cities aims to run zero waste, biophilic events and is the first of its kind (Planted, 2021). Protype events for which was held last September and the first real event to hopefully take place in September 2021 at Kings Cross, which I have already signed up to attend. I have also reached out to contact Planted in the hopes of working with them in some capacity to achieve the goals of my project. Therefore, there is huge scope for addressing the spaces of pubs/bars, restaurants and pop-ups/ events with applications of nature. So, what do all of these spaces have in common? They serve food and drinks.
Reflection:
My project will not be focusing upon hotels, so I needed to find a term that encompasses spaces that involve the hospitality industry, entertaining, excludes hotel accommodation and serves food and drinks. The term needs to unify the spaces that I do wish to focus upon, being pubs/bars, restaurants, pop-ups and events. Consequently, my field for enquiry in my question became “commercial entertaining spaces which serve food and drink”. The term aimed to target the business element of the hostility industry, focusing upon the aim of pleasure from entertaining and removing ambiguity as to what constitutes hospitality; whilst specifying that the spaces sell food and drink.
However, I will continue my stakeholder engagement further to attempt to narrow in even further within the subsection of commercial entertaining spaces, which can be scaled to up include other fields of hospitality if successful.
Stakeholder Feedback/ Realisation:
When talking with stakeholders, both in hospitality businesses and biophilic experts, I began utilising the term ‘commercial entertaining spaces that serve food and drink’. However, when utilising this term multiple stakeholders needed greater clarification of which spaces I was in fact referring to. From these conversations I realised that the term ‘commercial entertaining spaces that serve and food and drink’ wasn’t actually effective in engaging with my stakeholders. Although the term does accurately represent the area I am aiming to target according to academic studies, it isn’t easily understandable from a public perspective, you have to be an expect in defining hospitality and what determines hospitality vs entertainment to understand the area I am targeting. Consequently, it was ineffective and required changing.
Decision – Working Phrase For The Area Of Hospitality
Therefore, I stepped back and looked again into a term that could be easily understood and accurately represented the field I am aiming to target. I also looked back at prior engagement with my stakeholders and when utilising the term hospitality I didn’t have any issues of understating the areas I aimed to target. Therefore I looked back further at utilising hospitality, but instead of hospitality spaces keeping the clear commercial element by stating hospitality businesses and the defining into serving food and drink. Subsequently, my working term is now ‘hospitality businesses that serve food and drink’.
Bibliography
Brotherton, B. (1999)”Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality management.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11(4): 165- 173.
Brotherton B., Wood R.C. (2000). “Hospitality and hospitality management.” In: In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates (eds. C Lashley, A Morrison), pp. 134- 156. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
GQ (2021) “‘BiodiverCity’ is an alluring glimpse at how designers will take on climate change” GQ [Online] https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/lifestyle/article/bjarke-ingels-biodivercity Accessed 02/05/21
Telfer, E. (2000). “The philosophy of hospitableness.” In: In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates (eds C Lashley & A Morrison), pp 38-55. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
The Resident (2019) “Experience urban forest bathing in London’s first biophilic hotel suites” The Resident [Online] https://www.theresident.co.uk/lifestyle-london/londons-first-biophilic-hotel-suites-filled-with-houseplants/ Accessed 01/05/21
Once I had decided that the direction of my project was moving towards developing connections between people and nature, I began by brainstorming my ideas around connections to nature, which you can see below.
From this initial thinking, I developed 3 key areas that need to be addressed:
Why do we need to connect, or more precisely re-connect, with nature?
How will this re-connection be achieved?
How will this re-connection be measured?
1- Why do we need to re-connect with nature?
Humans have an innate connection to nature. However, due to technological advancements, extended working hours and processes such as urbanisation we have become distant from the natural world (Bragg et al., 2013). On average people spend 90% of their time indoors (Opinium, 2018), and given the current restrictions with the pandemic this figure has undoubtedly been heightened even further! Subsequently, being indoors already immediately removes us from the natural world in its traditional sense. However, there are many different methodologies which will be tested and adapted throughout the course of this project to bring the natural world to the indoors; effectively bringing the natural world to the people.
Connecting to nature is the amount that an individual includes nature in their personal identity (Schultz, 2002). Connection includes understanding the complexities of nature, good and bad and accepting it as a whole (Nisbet et al., 2009). Connectedness to nature is also an indicator for subjective reports of wellbeing, for example connection to nature has been taken to include feelings of peacefulness, developing a sense of place and a respect for nature (Hine et al., 2009).
Having a strong connection with nature is important because…
Nature Deficit Disorder is the human implications of a disconnect from nature. The disorder involves costs of diminished attention rates, increased mental and physical illness and reduced use of the senses (Louv, 2005). Originally this disorder was focused upon children, however in more recent academic study it has also been observed in adults. Reconnecting adults with the natural world is not only important for their personal health and lives, it is also important to pass on experiences of the natural environment to their children, otherwise connection to nature will eventually be lost due to a term referred to as ‘extinction of experience’ whereby children spend less and less time in nature as adults are disconnected from it (Pyle, 2003).
The implications for connecting people with nature, in the setting of hospitality spaces that serve food and drink is demonstrated again through the diagram below.
2- How will this re-connection to nature be achieved?
Reconnecting with nature will be achieved through implementing biophilic, biomimetic and natural design features into hospitality spaces.
Therefore, the connections will be developed through exposure. Exposing people to natural design in informal spaces that they typically visit for leisure allows people the freedom to explore the applications of nature and soak in their benefits, consequently developing their personal relationship and connection with nature.
Through applications of biophilic design, many spaces that we spend a great deal of time in are being adapted to bring in the benefits of nature, such as in the workplace, healthcare spaces and hotel accommodation. Consequently, providing an opportunity to learn from these applications of nature and build off them to apply nature into hospitality spaces but instead aimed to evoke re-connection to nature.
The scientific evidence for the exposure to nature having a positive correlation with improvements to personal health both physical and mental, is continuing to increase (Defra, 2011). Subsequently, re-connecting people with the natural world via exposure to natural elements is firstly of benefit to the individual and their health; secondly it may allow for increased attention to be paid the future survival of the natural world.
3- How will this re-connection with nature be measured?
A baseline level of connection to nature will need to be established to conduct this work. Baseline studies of general populations and granges already exist in academic work and so they may be utilised in my project.
To measure the changes in connection to nature there are limited measures, as it is an emerging concept (Schultz et al., 2004).
Key measures of connectedness to nature :
Connection to Nature Scale
Single-factor measure
Developed by Mayer and Frantz, 2004
Based on the principle of the ‘Land Ethic’ by Leopold (1966)
Defines connection to nature as “an individual’s affective, experiential connection to nature” (Mayer and Frantz, 2004, pp.504)
Considered primarily a trait measure but there is an adapted version for measuring state (which previous University of Essex research has shown to be responsive).
Nature Relatedness Scale
3-factor measure – self, perspective and experience
Developed by Nisbet, Zelenski and Murphy, 2009.
Nature relatedness describes individual levels of connectedness with the natural world and comprises the cognitive, affective, and physical connection we have with nature (Nisbet et al., 2011).
“Self” = “an internalized identification with nature, reflecting feelings and thoughts about one’s personal connection to nature” (Nisbet et al., 2009).
“Perspective” = “an external, nature-related worldview, a sense of agency concerning individual human actions and their impact on all living things” (Nisbet et al., 2009)
“Experience” = “a physical familiarity with the natural world and the level of comfort with and desire to be out in nature” (Nisbet et al., 2009)
Considered a trait measure.
Inclusion of Nature with Self
Single-item question
Developed by Schultz, 2002
Designed to measure the extent that individuals include nature as part of their identity. Schultz considers ‘inclusion’ to involve caring about nature (affective), connectedness (defined here as cognitive) and commitment (behavioural).
The question asks participants to rate their connectedness to nature by choosing one of seven pairs of circles that differ in their degree of overlap.
The question can be used as either a state or a trait measure (there are two different wordings) (Schultz, 2002).
Environmental Identity Scale
Developed by Clayton, 2003
Designed to assess the extent to which individuals identify with the natural environment and environmental causes.
24-item scale which looks at spending time in nature, enjoyment of nature, learning about nature, responsibility for nature and ‘oneness’ with nature.
Emotional Affinity to Nature
Developed by Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, 1999
4-factor measure
Emotional affinity toward nature is described as being the love or affection towards nature (107) and the hypothesis is that this emotional affinity should increase nature-protective behaviours.
The 16-item scale consists of four subscales: Love of nature, Feelings of Freedom, Feelings of Safety, and Feelings of Oneness with Nature.
Considered a state measure.
At present, for my project I am looking to employ the measures of connectedness to nature of: Nature relatedness scale, Inclusion of nature with self, and emotional affinity to nature. These scales may be employed by following a group of regular customers to a specific hospitality business over a period of time, if the relationship is built up with customers and business owners to allow this. Otherwise, the measures may be employed on an individual visit by visit basis. The nature relatedness scale may be useful in gaining a sense of how peoples opinions to the wider natural world differ depending on their interactions with nature. Emotional affinity to nature may be utilised to gauge personal feelings towards nature, perhaps pertaining to changes in emotional state and wellbeing. Inclusion of nature with self may allow individuals to define succinctly, due to the one question nature of the measure, the connectedness to nature. However, I will continue to explore if any other measures of connection to nature may be more suitable for my project, as my work evolves.
Re-connecting With Nature
In the endeavour to re-connect with nature I have developed a working title for a consultancy or organisation that I aim to form to establish this goal. ‘Nature. In’ aims to bring nature back into spaces in which it is currently excluded. This inclusion of nature will begin in hospitality spaces that serve food and drink and will be scaled up to other hospitality settings if it proves to be successful.
The aim to reconnect people with nature in hospitality spaces, which are typically visited for leisure provides people with the freedom to explore feeling connected to nature, along with feeling its benefits, such as becoming re-energised. Consequently, people will return to nature to feel the benefits once again, thus growing their relationship. People may even give back to the natural world that they have formed a relationship with, by caring for it and subsequently helping to tackle the climate crisis.
Creating this re-connection is not a step away from the change I previously proposed at the end of Project 5 (see below). Instead forming a re-connection to nature, as proposed, is the single-strand accumulation of all the different aspects that were involved in my previously proposed change; thus, it embodies the same change I wish to see.
Change I want to see…(Project 5)
Bibliography
Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J. and Pretty, J. (2013) “Measuring connection to nature in children aged 8-12: A robust methodology for the RSPB.” University of Essex.
Clayton, S. (2003) “Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition.” Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature, pp.45-65.
Defra (2011) “The natural choice: securing the value of nature, Natural Environment White Paper.” The Stationery Office, London.
Hine R, Pretty J and Barton J. (2009) “Research Project: Social, Psychological and Cultural Benefits of Large Natural Habitat & Wilderness Experience: A review of current literature. Report for the Wilderness Foundation.” Available at: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ces/occasionalpapers/Kerry/Literature%20Review%20for%20WF.pdf
Kals, E., D. Schumacher, and L. Montada (1999) “Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature.” Environment & Behavior 31, no. 2: 178–202.
Louv, R. (2005) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder North Carolina, Algonquin Books.
Leopold A. (1966) “A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays On Conservation from Round River.” Oxford University Press.
Mayer FS and McPherson Frantz C. (2004) “The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515.
Nisbet E, Zelenski J and Murphy S. (2009) “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.” Environment and Behavior vol. 41 no. 5 715-740
Nisbet E, Zelenski J and Murphy S. (2011) “Happiness is in our Nature: Exploring Nature Relatedness as a Contributor to Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol 12, 2, pp. 303-322.
Opinium (2018) “Brits spend 90% of their time indoors” Opinium [Online] https://www.opinium.com/brits-spend-90-of-their-time-indoors/ Accessed 30/04/21
Pyle RM. (2003) “Nature Matrix: reconnecting people and nature.” Oryx 37(2): 206–214
Schultz, P. W. (2002) “Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations.” In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development pp. 62-78. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Schultz, P.W., C. Shriver, J.J. Tabanico, and A.M. Khazian (2004) “Implicit connections with nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, no. 1: 31–42.
Measures has been an uncertainty facing my project over the coming weeks, which I have aimed to be as transparent about as possible in my previous blog posts. Consequently, the journey to determining a measure that I feel accurately represents the aim I wish to achieve with my project into the WWHI brief has been a long one, which I will break down throughout this post.
Following On From Project 5
Whilst working on my project up to and including Project 5, I have been looking at measuring the success or failure of applications of nature through measures around wellbeing, social interactions; and subsequently customers attracted to the space which increases profits of the venues.
When presenting my projects in my tutorial group, it was advised by my tutor that wellbeing would be an adequate measure, if I could demonstrate the methodology I would employ to measure it. It was advised that I should perhaps step away from attempting to measure social interactions, as this is a less tangible measure. Consequently, I invested a great deal of time into investigating different forms of wellbeing and how they are measured in academic settings, which you can see summarised below.
MeasuringWellbeing
In the UK measuring wellbeing as an indicator for societies’ progress is debated nationally with the Office for Nation Statistics driving the discussion (Seaford, 2011). Consequently, demonstrating that wellbeing is being seriously considered as a measure of experience in society.
Hedonic Wellbeing:
This includes recording emotive feelings or moods, such as happiness and sadness, that are associated with differing states of wellbeing (Steptoe et al., 2015).
To record this form of wellbeing, individuals are often asked to rate their experience utilising adjectives such as anger, stress, relaxed. The adjectives are utilised don’t simply showcase opposites, the positive and negative adjectives are required to determine a point in which that individuals lies between the two associated dimensions of the positive and negative emotions (Kahneman et al., 2004).
Eudemonic Wellbeing:
This revolves around reporting a sense of purpose and meaning in life to determine states of wellbeing (Steptoe et al., 2015).
To record this diverse measure of wellbeing and resultantly there are multiple methods to measure it . One of the most used measures involves structured self report scales to measure self acceptance, which looks to encourage the acceptance of personal strengths and weaknesses (Ryff et al., 2004). Unlike Hedonic wellbeing, this measure requires reflective self report, which can cause complications in what standards the individual is comparing their current status to.
Life Evaluation:
This measure involves a people’s wholistic assessment of the quality or goodness of their life (Steptoe et al., 2015).
Applying this measure includes utilising processes such as the 11 step Cantril Ladder, where individuals place themselves on the scale from 1 being the worst life possible, to 11 being the best life possible (Cantril, 1965).
Analysis of Measuring Wellbeing:
The measures of eudemonic wellbeing and life evaluation are harder to apply in the setting of my project, as they involve wholistic assessments of a person’s life. Therefore, external factors to my applications of nature may be impacting the outcome of this measure of wellbeing. Such wholistic measures are also conducted over a long time scale, which isn’t suitable for the parameters of my MA project and would be work conducted in the future out of the MA setting. Additionally, all of these self reporting measures of psychological states can be unreliable sources of data, due to both unconscious and conscious biases that lie in individuals.
Alternative Methods of Measuring Wellbeing:
Brainwave Technology
Brainwave technology to measure wellbeing was something suggested to me in the feedback from my dragons den presentation.
Upon further research I have discovered that brainwave activation occurs naturally during active and resting states, but external forces can create activity waves (Desai et al., 2015). This activity is recorded via electroencephalograms to measure differences in waves (alpha, beta, the and gamma) (Desai et al., 2015).
Therefore, there is the possibility of measuring brainwaves before and after an interaction with natural elements incorporated into spaces.
The technology needed to measure such brainwaves would be difficult to access and bring to the setting of a hospitality space.
However, brainwave technology could be useful if hospitality spaces were to remain closed due to pandemic restrictions, as it could be a way to quantify people’s emotions towards biophilic design elements if they were shown a digital rendering of the designs, rather than physically experiencing the design applied in the space.
Reflection:
After conducting this research into measuring wellbeing and then talking with Dr Nigel Oseland (Environmental Psychologist and Professor at UCL), I began to consider that wellbeing may not be the most advantageous measure for my project. I noted that the most suitable measure of wellbeing to apply in my project would be hedonic wellbeing, however due to the subjective psychological reporting nature of this measure I was unsure of its academic validity and rigour. In my meeting with Dr Oseland, he suggested that utilising social interaction may be more specific and beneficial measure of the success of my biophilic design. This was due to the issues I had raised, but also resultant from wellbeing being vastly studied in the field and most beneficially examined over a long period of time. From my research into measure of wellbeing I concurred that there is an overwhelming quantity of research in the field of biophilic design, linking biophilia to improved wellbeing (Browning et al., 2014).
Due to these issues raised around utilising wellbeing as a measure, I looked to move away from wellbeing in its general sense and move towards measuring social interactions. Social interactions are spontaneously evoked through the application of biophilic design (Salingaros, 2015) and they improve personal wellbeing through creating a release of oxytocin, which creates physiological anti-stress responses; thus, reducing stress and anxiety.
Measuring Social Interactions
I considered the following methods to measure social interactions in spaces which may occur resultant from applying nature into hospitality spaces.
Group Sizes
I considered measuring how groups increase over the durations of their visit – this was suggested to me in my stakeholder engagement with Katarina Libby, a Biophilic Design expert.
Length of Stay
Looking at how long customers stay and how many people they interact with whilst they’re in the space, through observational study
Customer Satisfaction
However, other elements can impact satisfaction and it is hard to gain base sample for before and after interaction with the biophilic elements, as it is so subjective.
Quantity of Social Interactions
Either the quantity of interactions between one group/party and other in the space, or possibly measuring the quantity of individual social interactions that occur in the space before and after biophilic elements are introduced into the space.
Quality of Social Interaction
Quality of the interaction linked to wellbeing
Reflection
After exploring many avenues of how to measure social interactions in spaces and their bearing on applications of nature, I still felt this wasn’t the exact direct I was trying to articulate within my project. Measuring social interactions is very hard to determine whether that exact application of nature is what is causing the social interactions and I erased that socially interacting with each other wasn’t what I was trying to achieve, I was trying to achieve people interacting with the application of nature. Subsequently, I explored getting people into the spaces to interact with the applications of nature in the first place. I therefore examined how people are attracted to spaces and nature, and whether the profits of the spaces could be increased by the application of nature.
Attracting Customers and Increasing Profits
Attracting customers and increasing profits is the driving factor for hospitality spaces, to make money, and so this is what will get the businesses involved in my project. Getting the businesses involved in my project is crucial in allowing biophilic design to be widely applied and consequently creating lasting change.
I considered measures such as:
Measuring quantity of customers before and after the nature is added
Asking customers what attracted them to the space
ie: did they come due to the design features or was it something else such as the food offering?
Measuring if customers interacting with certain elements of nature more than others, to suggest that element hosts greater attraction?
Recording business profits before and after biophilic elements are added
This would be extremely hard to pinpoint what was causing the changes in profits and many businesses would be very reluctant to hand over the details of their books.
However, when engaging with my stakeholder in the hospitality industry, I discovered that actually many hospitality business are paying increased attention towards being more sustainable and creating a natural environment for their customers (see below images of conversations with stakeholders). This revelation allowed me to set away from the thinking that the only way I would get hostility businesses involved would be if I could prove that the application of nature would increase their profits. Therefore, I was able to step back and really pin point the exact measure and catalyst for the change I am trying to see.
Reflection, Realisation and Change – Getting to my true aim and measure…
After conducting all of this work and delving deep into different measures to utilise in my project, I still felt that my question and direction of my project was missing the mark of what I was aiming to achieve overall. The reason for this I now realise is that I had so many aims floating around in my head that I didn’t even know the true aim of the project myself. Therefore, I decided to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
Consequently, I began to try and succinctly write the aim for my project, as I mentioned, I felt that I was trying to examine too many issues at once which was really holding me back. So, what is it that I want to achieve? I began by attempting to write down my aims, which initially led to around 300 words of blurring lines and unclear sentences. However, after a lot of personal introspection, I finally rooted down to the core of what I really want, this being to get people connecting with nature and appreciating its benefits in a way that I have; especially over the lockdowns where I spent lots of time in the garden at home. Additionally, growing people’s connection with nature in such a way will allow a relationship to form between the person and the natural world, which will hopefully raise their awareness and want to protect the natural world, in small ways in their lives, to tackle climate change.
In my stepping back and re-evaluation, I also looked back over my body of work in investigating measures. I realised that when assessing social interactions, what I was actually trying to achieve was to get people to interact with nature, rather that measuring interactions between people in the spaces. Also, in regard to wellbeing, I was trying to achieve an internal improvement to wellbeing through exposure and interactions with nature. Even when looking at attracting people to the spaces to increase profits, I was really trying to bring people to interact with the nature and form a… CONNECTION, that would ultimately result in them spending time and money in the spaces boosting profits for the venues.
So there is it the link between everything that I had been completely missing and the summary what I wish to measure and develop through the work in my project is a CONNECTION WITH NATURE. The diagram below aims to visually display this.
To the left you can see my representation of the endless loop and cycle of my ideas that I was looking to measure and explore. They all fed into each other in some way and from stakeholder feedback and secondary research I viewed them all to be of near equal importance, making no clear stand out direction for my project. Hence, the feeling of an endless loop whereby all measures were fair measures but none truly encapsulating the essence of the work I wish to conduct. However, looking to the diagram on the right hand side, it can be seen that when the various measures are put together there is a clear link between them all, which combines them. This link being that they are all rooted in people forming a stronger connection to nature. Developing upon individuals’ connection to nature will consequently impact factors of improving wellbeing (Browning et al., 2014), evoking social interactions (Salingaros, 2015), attracting customers an increasing profits (Browning et al., 2012) that have been seen to be resultant from exposure and interaction to nature in existing academic works, as outlined.
Additionally, forming a connection between people and nature steps my project away from the realms of the predictable in what is already being studied in the field, into a new arena. The new arena of a connection also provides opportunity to get individuals to take agency over their relationships with the natural world and care for it, aiding the climate crisis. This aims to tackle getting those people who would be typically uninterested in the climate crisis engaged in a refreshing way.
I will go on to unpack how I look to measure and test forming a connection with nature, as well as the importance of connecting with nature in my next blog post.
Bibliography
Browning, B., W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O. (2014). “14 Patterns of Biophilic Design.” New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.
Browning, B., Garvin, C., Fox, B., Cook, R. (2012) “The Economics of Biophilia” New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC
Cantril, H. (1965) “The pattern of human concerns.” Rutgers University Press; New Brunswick, NJ.
Desai, R., Tailor, A. and Bhatt, T. (2015) “Effects of yoga on brain waves and structural activation: A review.” Complementary therapies in clinical practice, 21(2), pp.112-118.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N. and Stone, A.A. (2004) “A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method.” Science, 306(5702), pp.1776-1780.
Ryff, C.D., Singer, B.H. and Dienberg Love, G. (2004) “Positive health: connecting well–being with biology.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), pp.1383-1394.
Salingaros, N. A. (2015) “Biophilia & Healing Environments: Healthy Principles For Designing the Built Environment.” New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
Seaford, C. (2011) “Time to legislate for the good life.” Nature, 477(7366), pp.532-533.
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A. and Stone, A.A. (2015) “Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing.” The Lancet, 385(9968), pp.640-648.
When looking to identify the key arena in which to create the change I want to see, around behavioural change in approaches to intrinsically incorporating nature into the built environment; I needed to unpack spaces in which food is consumed. Currently my question states the arena of ‘spaces in which food is consumed’ but I feel this needed to be narrowed down and made more precise in order to be able to create lasting change in my arena. Consequently, I developed the mind map shown below to demonstrate my thinking around the most suitable arena to create my change in and to help in trying to define this arena.
Reflection/ Analysis:
The key struggles still facing my decision in narrowing down my arena for change are as follow:
Inside Vs Outside
I am still in the debate of whether my change should focus upon tackling inside or outside spaces in which food is consumed. Outside spaces are massively rising in popularity due to the restrictions imposed as a result of the pandemic. Outdoor spaces also have a more accessible link to nature due to the spaces being in the outside world; potentially making the task of intrinsically incorporating nature into these spaces easier or more seamless. But, as much as that may seem a pro for choosing outside spaces, the is an argument it is in fact a pro for choosing inside spaces, as inside spaces require more work to intrinsically incorporate nature into; thus, creating change inside may be more profound and lasting. Additionally, inside spaces in which food is consumed will most likely once again be the predominate spaces in which food is consumed after they reopen and so maybe they are the more impactful space to make change in?
Which Aspect of Hospitality?
In exploring my arena for change further, it became clear that a natural progression in the evolution of my question should be to change the vague wording of ‘spaces in which food is consumed’ to be ‘hospitality spaces’. Hospitality spaces encompasses all the areas I have been looking to address and helps to keep the scope of my research more precise and refined. However, the struggle I now face is what aspect of hospitality should I tackle to evoke change in? I have decided to work on identifying this distinction within the hospitality arena after further work with my stakeholders, so that I can identify which sector of hospitality perhaps requires change more or that I would create greater lasting and meaningful change within.
Background To Narrowing In On My Arena For Change:
My research identified that biophilic design and the incorporation of nature into spaces is being readily applied mostly (that I have discovered so far) to be in the sector of the workplace. There are multiple models and academic works looking at the application of biophilic design in the spaces of offices and workspaces to improve the wellbeing of those working in these spaces; consequently making them more productive and generating a greater profit for their employers. A selection of the key takeaways from such research can be seen in the infographics I have put together, below.
Subsequently, I decided to tackle the hospitality arena, as this seems to be a much less explored sector to intrinsically incorporating nature to improve wellbeing within. Additionally, the hospitality sector is a space I am much more interested in as I love cooking and have had a passion for discovering new foods, restaurants and spaces to visit in the hospitality sector for the majority of my life.
Biophilic Design In Hospitality
Some hospitality spaces are presenting groundbreaking models of biophilic design, one such space is the Parkroyal Collection, Marina Bay, Singapore. The hotel boasts a strong biophilic design developed by architect John Portman whilst making sensible design decisions. Some of these designs can bee seen in the images below collated form the hotel’s website and information about which can be seen in the summary taken from LinkedIn. Aspects and inspiration from this hotel can help to establish how nature can be intrinsically incorporated into other hospitality spaces.
Background Research Around Advancements in ‘Green’ Sustainability
It can be seen through this collection of news images I have selected there are vast advancements in incorporating ‘green’ sustainability across a multitude to sectors, which are all largely due to technological advancements.
Reflection: I look to build off these technological improvements that allow sustainability to be pushed even further and tie concepts from different sectors together to create a meaningful change in how nature is incorporated into the built environment.
Biophilic Design
The concept of biophilic design fully embodies the nature of the change I wish to make, by unifying people with the natural environment.
Analysis: A study conducted by researchers from Terrapin Bright Green in New York highlighted the importance of biophilic design and connecting to nature in relation to wellbeing, especially in the built environment. The research also demonstrates how nature can be utilised for human restoration; as well as noting the 14 key patterns of biophilic design which explore the different possibilities for the use of nature in spaces. This research is extremely useful in highlighting the benefits of applying biophilic design in spaces, as well as how this application can be conducted successfully. Consequently, this study will be highly beneficial when looking at how to best utilise natural structures to apply the concept of biophilic design in spaces where food is consumed in order to maximise the possible improvements to wellbeing.
“Biophilic design can reduce stress, enhance creativity and clarity of thought, improve our well-being and expedite healing; as the world population continues to urbanise, these qualities are ever more important.”
Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O. (2014). “14 Patterns of Biophilic Design.” New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC.
The World’s Most Sustainable Restaurants
Azurmendi – World’s Most Sustainable Restaurant 2018
Full integrated multifaceted sustainable restaurant experience
3 Michelin star
In costal northern Spain, near bay of Biscay
Bioclimatic structure- designed by Naia Eguino
Works with the environment – “uses local wood, stone and recycled materials, renewable energy photovoltaic solar panels on glass roofs, storage batteries, geothermic energy, rainwater harvesting, electric charges for cars, and LEED certification for the complex’s design and construction.”
Interior garden – edible flowers and germplasm seed bank
Utilises quotes on walls to transport diners to consider different aspects whilst enjoying the food
Provides customers with a book listing the local products used at the restaurant
Business cards featuring seeds so they can be planted
Open to ideas to improve from anywhere – staff can anonymously add feedback to a board
Analysis/ Reflection: From examining the most sustainable restaurants in the world in depth, I noticed that even in the most sustainable spaces in relation to spaces where food is consumed, there is still room to incorporate nature more intrinsically into the spaces. The restaurants predominately focus upon promoting food sustainability and renewable energies to foster as close to a carbon natural ethos as possible. Therefore, there is a gap to incorporate nature into the spaces through increased Biophilic design. In particular, Azurmendi aims to utilise the astonishing view at their site to bring the outside in, but nature could be greater introduced inside the space or through natural structures.
Biophilic Design in Restaurants
From my research into the benefits of biophilic design when applied to the spaces of restaurants, I uncovered that primary biophilic design helps customers to feel at ease and relax in the space and to make connections with others; thus helping to improve wellbeing. I discovered the following features that encourage the beneficial attributes of biophilic design to be aroused:
Application of plants, tall trees and pampas grass
Plants utilised to create partition walls – this can aid social distancing in Covid-19 times
Natural materials and textures
Help to engage the senses and create features in spaces
Organic Shapes
Flowing shapes replicating organic forms
Outdoor View
Highlight a view wherever possible or attempt to create a view
Water
Focal point – or can replicate the feeling of water through light and material, if utilising physical water isn’t appropriate
Mystery and Refuge
Creating cosy nooks or an alternative mysterious mood to a space utilising nature eg: blackened room with green planting utilised to bring intrigue
Risk
Add playful elements that help guest to remember the space
Reflection: It will be very useful to keep these features in mind when looking at the different natural structures that could be utilised to evoke social interaction in spaces where food is consumed. Especially, when deciding upon the characteristics natural structures need to successfully apply biophilic design.
How Biophilic Design Drives Social Interaction
Several studies have highlighted that biophilic design can actually help to promote social interactions in spaces which in turn improve personal wellbeing through the benefits of the interactions. Such benefits include the release of oxytocin in to the brain when social interaction occur, which creates strong anti stress physiological effects. Socialising is also linked to longer life expectancy, reduced depression and anxiety; all benefits massively impacting wellbeing.
Humans crave nature just as socialising is a natural and essential aspect of society
One study showcased how social interactions in an old persons assisted living home were increased when the plastic products were substituted for wooden products.
Anme, T., Watanabe, T., Tokutake, K., Tomisaki, E., Mochizuki, H., Tanaka, E., Wu, B., Shinohara, R., Sugisawa, Y., Tada, C. and Matsui, T. (2012) “Behaviour Changes in Older Persons Caused by Using Wood Products in Assisted Living.” Public Health Research, 2(4), pp.106-109.
Reflection: Therefore, highlighting how natural products can help to evoke social interactions; a principle I aim to apply and build upon in my work.
Another study conducted by Terrapin Bright Green, highlights how biophilic spaces can allow social interactions to occur more spontaneously.
Salingaros, N. A. (2015) “Biophilia & Healing Environments: Healthy Principles For Designing the Built Environment.” New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
Reflection: Trying to formulate spontaneous social interactions is something I am interested in exploring further with my work. I believe spontaneous, naturally formed social interactions are the most beneficial types of interaction to wellbeing, as they are not forced or awkward. Such interactions are therefore most important to try to create, in my opinion. So, the focus becomes about prompting these interactions through nature in a way that people aren’t aware they are being encouraged into this way of acting the space.
Nature In Structures/ Natural Structures
Ellison, M.S. (2013) Engineered Biomimicry: Chapter 10. Biomimetic Textiles. Elsevier Inc. Chapters.
Analysis and Reflection: The principle of biomimetics involves mimicking aspects of nature to develop new materials and solutions, as outlined in the definition above. When looking to incorporate the natural world through natural structures into spaces where food is consumed to evoke social interactions, biomimetics will be paramount. I will look to incorporate biomimetics in developing natural sustainable structures themselves; but also keeping an open mind as to how this principle could be utilised to tackle other issues that may arise in my examination of developing social interactions to improve wellbeing in spaces where food is consumed.
For my box of uncertainties project, I began by examining in depth the topic of sustainable building, which is a topic I am very interested in investigating further from my undergraduate studies. Exploration of sustainable building led to big uncertainties being raised, such as what is the future of the traditional brick in construction? As well as questions around the possible role that nature can play in sustainable building developments. The examination of the possibilities nature holds led to my study into coral and the current coral bleaching crisis; investigating how the crisis could be overcome through sustainable building or even if coral could be utilised as a material or design feature in building.
Consequently, my chosen items to place into my box of uncertainties was a BRICK and a piece of CORAL.
Key Points From the Project:
Discovering the work of Neri Oxman really revolutionised my thinking on this project, to thinking of how structures can be grown with nature rather than developed and nature added later to the infrastructure. Prior to discovering how Neri and her team at the MIT Media lab are developing ways to utilise nature’s processes to build, I was really struggling to form ideas as to how the current model of ‘green’ building could be challenged/ changed. I knew that I wanted to make nature more intrinsic to the fabric of buildings, but I wasn’t sure of any possible ways that this could be achieved. But, Neri’s work really opened my eyes and got me excited to explore ways to achieve this harmonious blend of nature and building.
Below I have included my reflective journal for this project which documents all of the decisions I made and why I made them, to result in my outcome.
