journal of sustainable rural development

journal of sustainable rural development

Investigating the Indicators and Factors Affecting the Sustainability and Development of Biophilic Architecture in Rural Areas: A Case Study of Garmsar County

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Arezoo Momenian 1
masood Safari 2
shahram mohammadiani 3
Elahe kavosi 4
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Technical and Engineering, Garmsar, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Rural Planning, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture and Urbanism, Ker.C., Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.
4 PhD in Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geographical Sciences and Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
10.22034/jsrd.2026.593698.1252
Abstract
Purpose: Biophilic architecture, as an emerging approach in designing the built environment, emphasizes redefining the relationship between people and the natural environment. The present study aims to investigate the indicators and factors affecting the sustainability and development of biophilic architecture in the rural areas of Garmsar County.
Methods: This research is applied in purpose and descriptive–analytical in design and was conducted through a survey design. The data collection tool was a researcher-developed questionnaire. Experts addressed the questionnaire's validity, and its reliability was verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (which exceeded 0.7). The statistical population consisted of all households residing in 10 selected villages of Garmsar County, totaling 2,310 households. Based on Cochran’s formula, a sample size of 329 households was determined and selected using random sampling, with the sample allocated appropriately across the selected villages. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software at both descriptive and inferential levels (including exploratory factor analysis, one‑sample t‑test, and one‑way analysis of variance ANOVA).
Results: Results from exploratory factor analysis showed that biophilic architecture indicators can be categorized into four main factors: objective, subjective (non‑objective), climatic–functional, and perceptual–functional, which together explain more than 61% of the total variance.
The one‑sample t‑test indicated that the overall status of the indicators was above the scale midpoint. However, a significant gap was observed between the objective and subjective indicators, suggesting greater attention to visible and tangible aspects of nature compared to its perceptual and sensory dimensions.
One-way ANOVA results further revealed significant differences among the three housing types (traditional, renovated, and newly built) across the subjective, climatic–functional, and perceptual–functional indicator categories. Traditional housing demonstrated the highest level of biophilic architecture realization, while newly built housing showed the lowest. In contrast, objective indicators were preserved at relatively similar levels across all three housing types.
Conclusion: By treating perceptual–functional indicators as an independent factor and comparing three housing types in a rural region with a hot, dry climate, this study offers a noteworthy innovation in the field of biophilic architecture. The findings indicate that during the transition from traditional architecture to contemporary architecture, the greatest damage has occurred in the qualitative, perceptual, and climate‑responsive dimensions of rural architecture. What has largely persisted throughout this transition are primarily the visual and tangible aspects.
Keywords
biophilic architecture
objective and subjective indicators
sustainability
Garmsar County
Almusaed, A. (2010). Biophilic and bioclimatic architecture: Analytical therapy for the next generation of passive sustainable architecture. Springer Science & Business Media.
Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328–3345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083328
Chawla, L. (2012). Biophilic design: The architecture of life. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 346–347. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0346
Cramer, J. S., & Browning, W. D. (2008). Transforming building practices through biophilic design. In S. R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 335–346). Wiley.
Ebrahimpour, M. (2020). Proposing a framework of biophilic design principles in hot and arid climate of Iran by using grounded theory. Civil and Environmental Engineering, 16(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/cee-2020-0008
Fadli, F., Bahrami, P., Susorova, I., Tabibzadeh, M., Zaina, S., & El-Ekhteyar, E.-S. (2016). Bio-facades: An innovative design solution towards sustainable architecture in hot arid zones. In Qatar Foundation Annual Research Conference Proceedings (Article EEPP3394). https://doi.org/10.5339/qfarc.2016.EEPP3394
Gadhi, A., Tiwari, A., & Qurnfulah, E. (2024). Biophilic urbanism's impact on sustainable development: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 17(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p1
Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305
Kabinesh, V., Vennila, S., Baranidharan, K., Ravi, R., Krishnamoorthi, S., & Thirunavukkarasu, M. (2024). Sustainable spaces—The evolution of biophilic design in modern architecture: A review. Asian Journal of Environment & Ecology, 23(5), 64–77.
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (Eds.). (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. Wiley.
Kuponiyi, A., & Akomolafe, O. O. (2024). Biophilic design: Health, well-being, and sustainability. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 5(1), 1746–1753. https://doi.org/10.54660/.IJMRGE.2024.5.1.1746-1753
Lestari, T. (2025). Identification of biophilic patterns in the vernacular architecture of Kampung Naga. RUAS, 23(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.ruas.2025.023.01.9
Pordeli, B., & Kavosi, E. (2025). Evaluating biophilic architectural indicators in rural housing and strategies for sustainable rural housing: A case study of Zabol County, southeastern Iran. Journal of Sustainable Rural Development, 9(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsrd.2025.507909.1212
Raeisi, E., Davtalab, J., Ghasemi, M., & Norouzi, M. (2025). An analysis of the role of biophilic design in creating climate-responsive and culturally attuned architecture in Iran. Bagh-e Nazar, 22(145), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.22034/BAGH.2025.499293.5743
Reeve, A. C., Desha, C., Hargreaves, D., & Hargroves, K. (2015). Biophilic urbanism: Contributions to holistic urban greening for urban renewal. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2014-0057
Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., & Kallianpurkar, N. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 8(2), 62–76.
Salameh, M., & Touqan, B. (2023). From heritage to sustainability: The future of the past in the hot arid climate of the UAE. Buildings, 13(2), 418. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020418
Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: A review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4), 950–969. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950
Tabesh, T., & Sertyesilisik, B. (2016). An investigation into energy performance with the integrated usage of a courtyard and atrium. Buildings, 6(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings6020021
Tekin, B. H. (2026). From greenwashing to grounded practice: A context-specific biophilic design framework for hot arid climates. Building and Environment, 292, 114295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2026.114295
Ucer, H. B., Tzortzi, J. N., Lux, M. S., & Ogut, O. (2024). Sustainable urban landscapes in hot–dry regions: Climate-adaptive courtyards. Land, 13(7), 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13071035
Vafamehr, M., Yosefzade, A., & Mahdinia, M. H. (2024). Presenting a conceptual model of living space components with a biophilic view. Geography and Regional Planning, 14(3), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.22034/jgeoq.2024.259164.2835
Varmaghani, H. (2025). Biophilic reading of the livable landscape through the courtyards in the old houses of Qazvin. Manzar, 17(73), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.22034/manzar.2025.516151.2343
Vennila, S., Roghan, B. H., Fernandaz, C. C., Manivasakan, S., & Kala, S. (2026). Biophilic architecture for achieving sustainable development goals: A critical review. Asian Journal of Environment & Ecology, 25(4), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajee/2026/v25i4922
Wijesooriya, N., & Brambilla, A. (2021). Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124591
Woods, V., & Knuth, M. (2023). The biophilia reactivity hypothesis: Biophilia as a temperament trait, or more precisely, a domain-specific attraction to biodiversity. Journal of Bioeconomics, 25, 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-023-09342-w
Zargar, A., Sartipipour, M., Miri, S. H., & Sheikhtaheri, H. (2017). Traditional architects' accounts of the processes of rural and country housing design and construction (Case study of Garmsar & surrounding townships). Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 36(158), 3–20. http://jhre.ir/article-1-1205-fa.html
Zhong, W., Schröder, T., & Bekkering, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006
journal of sustainable rural development
Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 17
Spring and Summer
Autumn 2026