Assessing the level of Biophilia: Portsmouth as a case study. by Kawanna Peña Cepeda

Assessing the level of

Portsmouth as a case study

Silvia Kawanna Pena Cepeda UP 877445

MA Sustainable Cities

Unit 512 - Thesis Done by: Silvia Kawanna Pena Cepeda UP877445 Supervised by: Silvio Caputo

ASSESSING THE LEVEL OF BIOPHILIA

Portsmouth as a case study

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family for the constant love and support, my friends back home, the distance has not change my love for you. To the Dominican group in Harry Law, you made this experience the most amazing of all; and to my masters mates and teachers, knowing you all changed me forever.

Special thanks to my supervisor Silvio Caputo, without you this wound not have been possible.

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

Unit 512 Thesis - 13th September 2018

This is to declare and certify that the contents included within this thesis are to the best of my knowledge, my original work. It is also to state that in the case that any work or text has been retrieved from various other sources, it has explicitly been referenced within the text and the bibliography.

This thesis is conducted as part of the course requirements for the Unit 512 - Thesis and as part of completion of the MA Sustainable Cities . I thereby consent to its use in whichever manner is necessary for completion and ful lment of the MA Sustainable Cities.

Silvia Kawanna Pena Cepeda - UP877445

ABSTRACT

Biophilic urbanism is an urban design principle that incorporates nature in every scale and dimension possible of cities, to make them more resilient and healthy for its inhabitants. This dissertation focuses on constructing a tool to measure the level of biophilia in cities, to help orient urban designers and planners the condition of the city they are analysing and what is the step to follow. This achieved by rst, doing an extensive study of the literature which showed what the dimensions of biophilic cities are and what elements constitute them. Then, cities that are considered biophilic were studied to gather the information to establish the standards to measure biophilia, and de ning the di erent levels of biophilia. The application of the tool in a section of Portsmouth showed that the city is 47% Biophilic, making it a city "with biophilic tendencies".

TABLE OF CONTENT

02 01

16 | 2.1 Introduction 17 | 2.2 Biophilic urbanism 17 | 2.3 Bene ts of having biophilia in our cities 19 | 2.4 Characteristics of the biophilic city

14 |

1.2 Aims and objectives

23 | 2.6 Case studies - Assessment tools

14 |

1.3 Need for the study

24 | 2.7 Conclusion

22 | 2.5 Limitations for biophilic cities

1.1 Research questions

13 |

BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

LITERATURE REVIEW

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26 | 3.1 Introduction 27 | 3.2 Research approach 28 | 3.3 Research design and methodology 28 |

3.3.1 Research strategy

28 |

3.3.2. The study aproach

29 |

3.3.3 Research limitations

29 |

3.3.4 Research Design

29 |

3.3.5 Selection of sample

31 |

3.4 Construction of the instrument for data collection

38 | 3.5 Methods of data analysis

04 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

05 CONCLUSION

52 | 4.1 Introduction

72 | 5.1 Introduction

53 | 4.2 Context of Portsmouth

73 | 5.1 Summary of ndings and conclusions

54 | 4.3 Project development

73 | 5.2 Recommendations

54 |

74 | 5.3 Concluding comments

4.3.1. Analysis and calculations

64 | 4.4 Findings and discussion

74 | 5.4 Word count statement

30 |

Figure 2: Wards in Portsmouth and location of the studied area. (Source: modi ed from UK Census Data, 2011)

36 |

Figure 3: Indian Bean (Catalpa Bignonioides), (Source: Primary)

36 |

Figure 4: Weeping Beech (Fagus Sylvatica ‘Pendula’), (Source: primary)

37 |

Figure 5: Rose (Rosa Hybrid), (Source: Primary)

37 |

Figure 6: Pampa grass (Cortaderia sellona), (Source: primary)

37 |

Figure 7: Seagull (Laridee), (Source: primary)

37 |

Figure 8: Guinea Pig (Cavia Porcellus), (Source: primary)

53 |

Figure 9: Location of the city (Source: modi ed from Conceptdraw, 2018)

53 |

Figure 10: Portsmouth’s wards. (UK Census Data, 2011)

53 |

Figure 11: Charles Dickens bird view. (Source: Google Maps, 2018)

53 |

Figure 12: Ba ns bird view. (Source: Google Maps, 2018)

59 |

Figure 28: Perception answers summary - Q4 (Source: Primary)

53 |

Figure 13: Milton bird view (Source: Google Maps, 2018)

59 |

Figure 29: Perception answers summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

54 |

Figure 14: Indoor planted vegetation answers (Source: Primary)

60 |

Figure 30: BBPPL answer summary - Q1 (Source: Primary)

54 |

Figure 15: Data collection process - Green Roofs (Source: Primary)

60 |

Figure 31: BBPPL answer summary - Q2 (Source: Primary)

55 |

Figure 16: Data collection process - Green wall (Source: Primary)

60 |

Figure 32: BPPL answer summary - Q3 (Source: Primary)

55 |

Figure 17: Data collection process - Urban equipment (Source: Primary)

60 |

Figure 33: BBPPL answer summary - Q4 (Source: Primary)

56 |

Figure 18: Data collection process - Parks and picket parks (Source: Primary)

60 |

Figure 34: Biophilic BPPL answer summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

56 |

Figure 19: Data collection process - Urban farms (Source: Primary)

61 |

Figure 35: BAK answer summary - Q1 (Source: Primary)

57 |

Figure 20: Data collection process - Green corridors (Source: Primary)

61 |

Figure 36: BAK answer summary - Q2 (Source: Primary)

57 |

Figure 21: Data collection process - Green infrastructure (Source: Primary)

61 |

Figure 37: BAK answer summary - Q3 (Source: Primary)

58 |

Figure 22: Data collection process - Tree Canopy (Source: Primary)

61 |

Figure 38: BAK answer summary - Q4 (Source: Primary)

58 |

Figure 23: Environment roam (Source: Digimap)

62 |

Figure 39: BAK answer summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

58 |

Figure 24: Data collection process - Natural areas (Source: modi ed from Digimap)

62 |

Figure 40: BAK answer summary - Q6 (Source: Primary)

59 |

Figure 25: Perception answers summary - Q1 (Source: Primary)

62 |

Figure 41: BAK answer summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

59 |

Figure 26: Perception answers summary - Q2 (Source: Primary)

62 |

Figure 42: BAK answer summary - Q6 (Source: Primary)

59 |

Figure 27: Perception answers summary - Q3 (Source: Primary)

70 |

Figure 43: Bird View of Portsmouth (Source: Primary)

Figure 1: Taxonomy of biophilic elements. (Source: Adapted from Reeve et al., 2012)

20 |

ffi

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of biophilic design elements at the building, neighbourhoods and city scale.(Source: Reeve, 2014)

32 |

Table 2: Initial list of biophilic elements (Source: modi ed from Beatley, 2011 )

32 |

Table 3: Complete list of Biophilic elements (Source: see legend)

33 |

Table 4: Characteristics of the biophilic dimensions (Source: Beatley (2011)

34 |

Table 5: Biophilic conditions and infrastructure standards. (Source: primary)

49 |

Table 6: Summary of the value of each item. (Source: primary)

50 |

Table 7: Summary of the characteristics of the levels of the biophilic city (Source: primary)

64 |

Table 8: Summary of the results (Source: primary)

65 |

Table 9: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic conditions and infrastructure (Source: primary)

66 |

Table 10: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic behaviours, patterns, practices and lifestyle (Source: primary)

67 |

Table 11: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic attitudes and knowledge. (Source: primary)

68 |

Table 12: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic institutions and governance. (Source: primary)

21 |

09 | I N T R O D U C T I O N

INTRODUCTION

tendencies walk and cycled the double amount of those living in typical suburban neighbourhoods.

The environment that we inhabit has the ability help us thrive or perish, reduce or increase our stress; motivate us to be more active or encourage us to

Biophilic cities are resilient cities. They are able to protect, learn and adapt to

stay inside; help us live a more active and healthy life. One of the factors that

the e ects of climate change. According to Beatley and Newman (2013) making

have a direct impact on the quality of life of its residents is the presence or

cities greener, more natural, more biophilic, will also help to make them more

absence of nature in their immediate environment. According to the Attention

resilient. The presence of nature can help reduce the Urban Heat Island E ect, a

Restoration Theory and Kellert & Wilson, (1993); Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador,

phenomenon that causes that the temperature in cities is higher than their

(2008), cited by Berto et al. (2017), urban environments should provide

surrounding areas. In 2011, Susca, Ga n and Dell’Osso, compared the

opportunities for physical, cognitive and emotional restoration rather than making

temperature of four di erent areas of New York City, each area with a di erent

people needing the restoration in the rst place. Biophilic urbanism can provide

level of biophilia. They found a di erence of 2°C between the least and the most

the tools to create a healthy, sustainable and resilient city that can adapt to

vegetated area.

climate change and give the residents relieve of their stressful lives. It is a step beyond a sustainable city because it not only addresses the environmental

The temperature increase brings to massive consumption of energy in

bene ts of having nature in the city but also recognise the human need of

the e orts of cooling the city. The presence of green elements, also,

having contact with the natural world, a feature that many sustainable approaches forget to acknowledge.

increases the permeability in the city, reducing the surface water run-o , which is the reason why some areas are prone to ooding.

The integration of nature in every scale is the premise of biophilic urbanism. It recognises the economic bene ts and the inherent need of the human being of

A holistic biophilic approach takes into consideration the lifestyles and

having contact with nature. According to Harvard professor, Edward O. Wilson

behaviours, knowledge and attitude of the residents; the green conditions

in his book Biophilia (1984) explains that human has an innate connection with

and infrastructure, and the attitude of the institutions and governance.

nature that comes from the prehistoric age and is part of our evolution process. Having a constant contact nature brings physical, mental and cognitive bene ts. In an experiment conducted by Rodrigez, Khattak and Evenson (2006)

ffi

determined that people who lived in neighbourhoods with biophilic qualities

Each one of this element has a set of goals that the potential Biophilic cities should follow in order be considered as such. Currently, some methods measure the level of sustainability of cities.

I N T R O D U C T I O N | 10

They have attempted to measure the biophilia in the environment.

The main question that this investigation will try to answer is how can

However, they only take into considerations the presence of green

we measure how biophilic a city is and how can we use that knowledge

elements, and they fail into measuring the level of connection of the

to provide a biophilic design approach in a non-biophilic city.

inhabitants and the policies of the government for creating a biophilic future. So this research will try to ll this gap by providing a holistic

The division of this document is in the following format: In chapter one

approach to measure biophilia in order to guide the urban planners and

it will detail the background of the research, presenting the aims,

designer into creating a biophilic city.

objectives and the need for the study. Chapter two will consist of the literature review for the project. Using books and academic journals to

According to Reeve, Desha, Hargreaves, and Hargroves (2015) there

present the concepts and ndings and discussion of previews research.

are three di erent ways to implement biophilic elements into the design:

Chapter three is about the explanation of the measuring system and the

First, is the “Nature in Space," referring to the direct and indirect

tools used to simplify this process. In chapter four, the tool and

presence of nature, which create multi-sensory interactions. The second

methodology are implemented in a section of Portsmouth. Also, in

way, called “Nature Analogues”, refers to the use of colours, shapes,

chapter ve, the conclusions of the project will be laid.

and patterns of nature into the built environment. Lastly, “Nature of the Space”, which refers to speci c con gurations and characteristics that allow the user have sensory stimulation triggering the human fascination. The "nature of the space" can be accomplished with speci c spatial con gurations and providing the sense of safety from the environmental

conditions of the exterior.

BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

13 | B A C K G R O U N D O F T H E R E S E A R C H

1.1 | R E S E A C H QUESTIONS Main research question

How can biophilia be measured, ensuring the inclusion of all the dimensions of what constitutes a biophilic city? Sub research questions

• What elements must be considered to measure biophilia in the city? • What are the levels of the biophilic city?

• What is the level of biophilia of Portsmouth?

B A C K G R O U N D O F T H E R E S E A R C H | 14

1.2 | A I M S A N D OBJECTIVES

1.3 | N E E D F O R THE ST UDY

Aim

The need of this study resides in the lack of current methods to measure the biophilic levels in the city, that takes into

To create a method to measure the level of biophilia in a city that

consideration all the dimensions of what constitutes a biophilic

takes into consideration all the biophilic urbanism principles.

city. Biophilia in the city makes it more sustainable, resilient and help improve the health of its residents.

Objectives

• To determine which elements must be considered to measure biophilia in the city. • To create a matrix that indicates what the levels of a biophilic city are.

• To determine the level of biophilia of Portsmouth.

LITERATU REEVIEW

2.1 | I N T R O D U C T I O N Whether it is direct or indirect nature has to be a constant in the design of cities for now and the future. Biophilic urbanism tries to apply that by locating green features along the di erent scales of a city. Well-designed green features those scales— from the smallest scale, buildings, to the biggest scale, the city itself — brings countless bene ts to its residents and the environment. However, this is a delicate subject because if the location and design of the green elements are not right, it can harm the living-hood of the residents, instead of helping them. The following literature review presents the case for biophilic cities and their characteristics, its bene ts and how a wrong application of the

green features can lead to cases of environmental injustice, and how others have tried to measure biophilia in cities.

17 | L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

2.2 | B I O P H I L I C U R B A N I S M

2.3 | B E N E F I T S O F H A V I N G BIOPHILIA INTO OUR CITIES

The lead advocate of biophilic urbanism, Timothy Beatley (2009) suggest that the simplest way to de ne a biophilic city is a city that puts nature rst in its design, planning and management. It is a city that “recognises the many instrumental and economic values provided by nature and natural systems, as well as the essential need for daily contact with nature”.

cities”, consisting in the incorporation of natural design features that combines our need of being in contact with nature with the need of mitigating the e ects of climate change, the increase of population and the scarce natural resources. The author expresses that this design principles work as “conductive to life” through “the creation of urban environments”, which bring a range of bene ts that include not only the environment and the occupiers of the surrounding communities but also

believe that urban planning and design can be used as a tool to promote physical and mental well-being for the inhabitants of a city. According to

Heerwagen & Mador, (2008), cited by Berto et al. (2015) urban environments should provide opportunities for physical, cognitive and emotional restoration rather than provide stress to the residents. According to the authors, this can is achieved by the process known as “fascination”, which enhances the well-being of the population by exposing the individual to environments that require “e ortless involuntary attention and demanding little voluntary attention”, (Berto, Barbiero, Pasini and Pieter, 2015). Having the qualities and attributes of nature in an environment can produce the same feeling of fascination, a contrast to

the mental fatigue usually created by purely urban environments.

the building owners and stakeholders.

of the welfare of the people. Berto, Babiero, Pasini and Pieter, (2015),

the Attention Restoration Theory and Kellert & Wilson, (1993); Kellert,

(Reeve, 2013) De nes biophilic urbanism as a “design principle for

The urban design itself can be used as a source for the improvement

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W | 18

. However, the green element itself does not have the power to create

abundant as the main characteristic. The second neighbourhood was a

the e ect of fascination on the user. The user must already have a certain

typical suburban neighbourhood, always present in the urban sprawl. The

level of appreciation of nature to receive what it is called the "perceived

result showed that income and the type of neighbourhood did not

restorativeness of nature". Berto, Barbiero, Barbiero, and Senses (2018)

in uence whether or not the residents were or wanted to be more

studied the level of connection with nature and its restorative qualities by

physically active. However, the time spent walking a cyclin in the

interviewing 524 subjects over the age of 18 and their experience in

neighbourhoods is twice as double as the people living in the typical

three parks with di erent degree of biophilic qualities. The authors found

suburban neighbourhoods. The increase in people walking is attributed to

that the perceived restorative qualities of nature depend on the level of

utilitarian travel, rather than leisure travel. That is because the land use of

connection that the person already has with nature. The researches

the new urbanism neighbourhoods is more mixed and well integrated

classify the parks using the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a

with nature, allowing comfort and walkability, eliminating the necessity of

method that uses the physical, social and material setting as criteria to

using a car to do the daily chores and everyday tasks.

determine the diversity of recreation opportunities for a green area. The research showed that besides the level of connection a person already

Moreover, the use of a biophilic approach as the primary urban design

has, the biophilic quality on the space also plays a role in their perceived

strategy can help the cities to adapt to the tribulations of the current

restorative qualities. The users with the most substantial connection with

climate situation. Beatley and Newman, (2013), imply that biophilic cities

nature sought spaces with more prominent biophilic qualities.

are not only sustainable but also resilient, capable of adapting and learning from natural disasters. The authors believe that the more biophilic

The theory suggests that the presence of biophilic elements help

the city, the more resilient it becomes. This claim is backed up by Spirn,

improve the physical wellbeing of the users. However, a study conducted

(2014), as he explain that urbanism, where the nature is the core of the

by Rodriguez, Khattak, and Evenson (2016) challenges this idea. The

design, is essential for the future of cities, as it “provides a framework for

researchers compared the inhabitants of two di erent neighbourhoods in

addressing challenges that threaten humanity (climate change,

North Carolina; the rst one, designed according to the concept of new

environmental

urbanism, in which mixed use and the presence of biophilic elements its

19 | L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

environmental justice) while ful lling human needs for health, safety, and

authors divide the biophilic elements into four dimensions. First, the

welfare, meaning, and delight”. The use of biophilic elements can help

“Biophilic condition and Infrastructure”, regarding the physical green

reduce natural phenomenon as the Urban Heat Island E ect, the surface

elements that must be present along the city. Second, the “Biophilic

water runo , as they help increase the permeability of the areas, avoiding

Behaviors, Patterns, Practices, Lifestyles”, regarding manners, actions,

the threat of ooding. The Toronto City Hall (2006) cited by Reeve (2013)

manners, actions, and habits the inhabitants should have concerning the

includes as environmental bene ts brought by biophilic urbanism, the

connection with the green spaces. Third, the “Biophilic Attitudes and

reduction of energy use in the buildings for cooling purposes, of

Knowledge”, regarding the capacity of the people of recognising the

stormwater runo , and greenhouse gas emissions, the preservation of

biodiversity surrounding them. Lastly, “Biophilic Institutions and

urban density, the improvement of food production and air quality and, in

Governance” regarding the actions and goals set by the local

addition,

government to create a city more green and sustainable. In the following

it also can create valuable and viable spaces for building

occupants.

table, the authors provide a synthesis of the biophilic dimensions and the elements, rst obtained from Beatley (2011).

2.4 | C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F THE BIOPHILIC CITY

Regarding the physical green spaces, Wolch, Byrne and Newell

The green features that must be implemented in every scale fo the city, in order to create a biophilic urban approach, Beatley and Newman (2013) explained that they could not only be physical green features sprung along the urban fabric. E orts must be made to get the population involved and interested in their immediate environment and the biodiversity of their city, and furthermore, taking into consideration the policies and focus of the government into creating a more natural and

sustainable environment. Using the previews principles as a base, the

(2014) groups it into di erent categories. First, there is the private vs public dichotomy, de ning as public parks and reserves, sporting elds, riparian areas, community gardens, green trails, nature conservation areas, green walls and alleyways, cemeteries and boulevards; and, as private, the backyards, communal grounds of apartment buildings and corporate campuses. On the other hand, Reeve, Hargroves, Desha, Newman, and Baghdadi (2012), divided the elements across scales of application (Figure 1).

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W | 20

In this approach, the building is considered the smallest scale, and the

City Scale

green features it can contain are indoor plants, green roofs, and green walls. The next element in the street, which contains green verges and

- City parks - Linear green space - Urban agriculture - Urban waterways

green islands. Next, the city, which includes green corridors, urban farming, city parks and waterways, and water sensitive urban features.

- Pocket parks - Street-integrated vegetation

Building Scale - Green roofs - Green walls - Shade trees - Vegetation around buildings

- Many installations - Small-med in size - Retrofit possible - Public land - High technical requirements

Street Scale

- Few installations - Large in size - Retrofit difficult - Public land - Low technical requirement

They fail to take into consideration the sports- elds and some other urban

- Many installations - Small in size - Retrofit pissible - High technical requirements - Private & public property

Figure 1: Taxonomy of biophilic elements. (Source: Adapted from Reeve et al., 2012)

facilities as green elements that can be incorporated into any of the scales.

Table 1, taken from Reeve (2014), is a summary of all the elements that compose the Biophilic condition and infrastructure dimension. The bene ts, examples and consideration for use, of all the elements, are included on the table.

However,

the researcher excluded some

elements that bring equal bene ts to the cognitive, physical and mental health of the population, which will be part of this study.

21 | L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W Table 1: Summary of biophilic design elements at the building, neighbourhoods and city scale.(Source: Reeve, 2014)

Forms

Green roofs

- Upfront and on-going cost - Lack of local experience and data - Maintenance and plants survival - Water requirements - Competing roof space requirements

Green walls

- Potential sites include buildings, walls and other infrastructure, such as roadside barriers - Can include systems with substrate, or without - Directly attached to building walls, or to a parallel sca old - Many green wall technologies and techniques

- Reduce building energy demand - Increase property value

- Upfront and on-going cost - Design constraints and lack of industry capacity - Irrigation requirements - Maintenance - Risk of failure

Shade trees

- Shade trees lining buildings and infrastructure - May use deciduous or evergreen species

- Reduced building energy demand - Increase property value

- Potential to increase ozone concentrations - Fire risk - Maintenance - Water requirements

Vegetation surrounding buildings

- Vegetation on parking lots, including shade trees, shrubs & plants - Vegetated courtyards - Backyards, gardens & lawns

- Increase property value

- Net greenhouse gas emissions - Water requirements - Inclusion of trees

- Small-sized parks integrated into urban areas - Vacant blocks of land - Rain gardens, bio-swales, tree pits and grates, curb extensions, and vegetation features integrated into & directly adjacent streets

- Increase property value - Encourage physical activity - Increase social capital

- Accessibility - Maintenance

- Reduce driving streets and tra c incidences - Encourage activity transport - Extend infrastructure longevity

- Maintenance & preserving tree health - Water requirements - Public safety - Space requirements & competing demands - Risk to infrastructure - Upfront cost

- Large city parks - ‘Green wedges’ and city forest - Large nature reserves - Green rights around, and within cities

- Catalyse economic development - Encourage physical activity

- Land cost and availability - Competing park uses - Maintenance and management requirements - Water requirements - Perception of safety risks

- Greenways - Biodiversity corridors - Riparian zones along rivers and other waterways - Vegetated bu er along highways and other transport infrastructure traversing the city

- Encourage active transport & physical activity - Catalyse economic development

- Land cost availability - Competing park uses - Maintenance and management requirements - Water requirements - Perception of safety risk

City farms and urban agriculture

- Community gardens - City farms - Food producing species in all other biophilic elements

- Improve health and wellbeing - Retain nutrients & reduce waster - Increase food security - Enhance social capital

- Lack of city support - Soil contaminants - Water requirements - Urban climate conditions

Urban waterways

- Rivers, streams and creeks - Natural and constructed wetlands - Ponds and lakes - Mangroves in riparian zones

- Increase property value

- Visual amenity and waterways health - Maintenance requirements - Developer handover conditions - Competing uses

Street integrated trees and vegetation

City parks

Linear green space

ffi

City

- Rain gardens, bio-swales, tree pits and grates, curb extensions, and vegetation features integrated into directly adjacent streets - Verge strip gardens - Vegetated tra c features such as roundabouts, tra c calming extensions or center islands - Tree lined boulevards

Street

Examples of considerations for use

- Reduce Building demand - Increase property value - Increased roof longevity

Pocket parks & green space

Additional Bene ts

- May be accessible or inaccessible - Extensive’: Soil up to 200 mm with ground cover vegetation - Intensive’: Soil deeper than 200 mm and larger vegetation - Elevated landscapes 600 mm or greater substrate depth, support a wide range of vegetation, and create a new ground plane - Many green roof technologies and systems exist

Building

ffi

Common Bene ts

- Reduce UHI e ect - Mitigate climate change - Assist in water cycle management - Improve air quality - Increase biodiversity

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W | 22

2.5 | L I M I T A T I O N S F O R BIOPHILIC CITIES

The presence of green elements in speci c parts of the city can also become a problem. Wolch, Byrne, and Newell (2014) explain that the distribution of green space within cities can be considered an issue of

The implementation of a biophilic urban design approach can face several constraints that go from the willingness of the government to spend the resources into this kind of intervention, to other problems, as is the environmental justice. Beatley and Newman (2013), explain that the limitation that turning a city biophilic can come from the residents and for political and economic reasons. Experimental research conducted by Nisbet and Zelenski (2011) cited by Beatley and Newman (2013) propose that people underrate the bene ts they obtain from constant contact with nature.

environmental justice because evidence has shown that in areas where the population is predominantly white and of a higher class, green spaces are more abundant. The authors also explain that in poor and more racially diverse neighbourhoods, green spaces are scarce and poorly maintained. However, the solution to this problem can lead to an even bigger problem, for the people living there, not necessarily to the property owners. The better use of green space in poor neighbourhoods can increase the desirability of their property, forcing them to pay more rent or leave for an even worse neighbourhood. (Dale and Newman, (2009); De Sousa, Wu, and Westphal, (2009); Eckerd, (2011), Gould and Lewis, (2012), cited by

The barrier against biophilic urbanism found in a research conducted

Wolch, Byene and Newell (2014) called this paradox “green gentri cation”.

by SBEnrc, cited by Reeve et al. (2012), in Australia found that there was limited local research regarding the uses of biophilic elements, depriving the planners of creating informed design decisions. Furthermore, the existing regulation and planning excluded the implementation and construction of biophilic elements.

Also, the research showed that the

cultural disconnection of natural environments, and the ignorance of the people regarding the bene ts of nature, caused the lack of support to increase the urban nature.

The cases where the access to green spaces is better in the mixedrace neighbourhoods than white neighbourhoods, the whites usually have a better quality green space. Boone, Buckley, Gove, and Sister (2009) also found that in Baltimore, Maryland, minorities have more access to public green space within walking distance than whites but the extension and quality of the green space of the white communities are signi cantly bigger and better. Therefore, parks in predominately black communities

are more congested than those in white communities.

23 | L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

To battle green gentri cation, Wolch, Byene and Newell (2014) found that urban planners are using the strategy named “Just Green Enough”

The Biophilia City Index, created by Huang (2017), takes into consideration three elements to measure biophilia.

which consist of distributing small-scale green elements along a big area, rather than creating a signi cant intervention. This approach can be

The nature services, the ecological integrity, and the human-nature

combined with Browing, Ryan and Clancy’s (2014) division of biophilic

interaction.

It does this by giving a rating system to di erent green

elements, to create a more integrated solution to this problem.

features, the accessibility of those features and the size of the size of green patches along the city. It gives an equal punctuation scale, from one

2.6 | C A S E S T U D I E S ASSESSMENT TOOLS

to ve, to each element, being 45 the highest punctuation that can be obtained. It fails to take into consideration the political plans, and the list of the green feature measured along the city is limited.

In order to create an informed design decision and pro le a solution that incorporates every aspect of the biophilic approach, there should be a method that takes into consideration all the elements expressed above. Several attempts have been made to undergo with this task, but they fail to incorporate all four dimensions that constitute a biophilic city.

The Green City index is directed towards measuring sustainable technical details, such as the CO2 emotions, the waste and energy, transport, water and land use, air quality and environmental governance. It does not take into consideration the perception, the knowledge, and level of commitment of the user.

The Biophilic Quality Index by Berto and Barbiero (2017) allows measuring the biophilic quality of a building. It tries to serve both as a rating system and as a guide to follow for buildings looking to be biophilic. They rst set out all the characteristics and principles a biophilic building should have and then gives each and one of those characteristics a value.

Singapore’s Index on Cities’ Biodiversity, known as City Biodiversity Index, created by Chan, Elmqvist, Weener, Holman, Mader and Calcaterra (2014), is a tool used to measure the biodiversity in the cities in order to create an assessment or “monitor the progress of their biodiversity conservation e orts against their own individual baselines.” (Chan et al.,

2014).

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W | 24

The Index, is divided into two parts; rst, it creates a pro le of the city,

method that takes into consideration all the dimension of what a biophilic

highlighting elements as its location, its demographic features and

city is in order to create an informed design decision that its functional

economic parameters; and second, presents a three di erent categories

and that allows the planner to visualise what are the next steps to

of indicators, the native biodiversity in the city, the ecosystem services

become a biophilic city.

provided by biodiversity and governance and management of biodiversity, gives them an equal punctuation. The higher score achievable is 92.

2.7 | C O N C L U S I O N This literature review served as the rst step toward creating the assessment tool. The elements considered for the realisations of the measurements were subtracted from the de nitions, characterisations and bene ts of each element presented above. The case studies served to model the scoring basis of the tool and how to proceed.

The presence of nature in the city is a valuable tool to improve the quality of life of its residents and the lifecycle of the city itself, but it has to be carefully analysed because not everywhere, its presence is perceived as positive. Biophilic urbanism has the capacity of creating a systemic approach, which allows the integration of the most critical qualities cities should have in order to become a tool itself to improve its residents' life

and the environmental health. It is essential to have an assessment

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 | I N T R O D U C T I O N The review of the literature showed that the presence of

This objective is achieved by comparing the current state of

biophilia in the city has a signi cant impact on the quality of life

the city to evaluate, in this case, Portsmouth, with the cities that

of its residents. The natural elements located in all the scales of

are considered biophilic or that have biophilic initiatives

the city bring bene ts that range from the cognitive well-being to

approved by the of Biophilic Cities network and relevant

the physical well-being of the inhabitants. The World Health

literature.

Organisation named stress as the "health epidemic of the 21st century” (Soleil, 2018), so it is essential to create cities that can

The focus of the rst section of this character is to explain the

contribute to reducing the stress levels of the population. This

research approach. The second section of this character is for

research focuses on the creation of an evaluation tool that helps

the description of t the research design and methodology. The

urban planners determine the current state of the city before

third section is dedicated to the construction of the instrument

beginning design or adaptation to a biophilic approach.

for the data collection and lastly, on explaining the methods for

data analysis.

27 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

3.1 | R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H

Compilation of data on the

Comparison of the

green elements that make

analysis and compilation

up the approach of

of data in the assessed

biophilic urbanism through

city with the established

a review of the literature.

standards.

Compilation of the quantity and quality standard that cities must have in order to become biophilic through a

review of the literature.

Final evaluation and scoring.

Analysis and compilation of data of the state of the city to evaluate, in this case, Portsmouth.

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 28

3.1 | R E S E A R C H D E S I G N A N D METHODOLOGY 3.1.1 Research strategy Therefore, the approach of this study is explorative and descriptive. This research focused on the creation of a tool to measure the level

Explorative because currently, there is not a method to measure biophilia

of biophilia in a city, is qualitative since it is based on the collection of

that takes into consideration the four dimensions that compose a

derived data and observational data, obtained from the evaluation of the

biophilic city, so the tool had to be produced; and it is descriptive

elements complied in the literature review.

because the properties, characteristics and relevant features and the standard to used to compare the current state of Portsmouth, was

3.1.2 The study approach

derived from the literature review.

Hernandez, Fernández and Batista (2010) explain that there are four types of qualitative research approaches: exploratory, descriptive, correlational and explanatory. Exploratory research, used when the objective of the research is to examine a problem or research problem that have a scarce or non-existent preliminary study.

The descriptive

research tries to specify the properties, characteristics and pro les of people, groups, communities, processes, objects or any other phenomenon that can be analysed. The correlational research seeks to understand the relationship between two variables in a particular concept. Lastly, the explanatory aim is to respond to the cause of

particular events and their physical and sociological phenomenon.

The main contribution of this research is the compilation of data that will be considered as the standards that make up a biophilic city. The compilation of this information allows creating a comparison chart that is used to measure the biophilic level of the city.

The tool, designed to be applied in any city, is going to be tested in Portsmouth, a city located in the south of England.

29 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

3.1.3 Research limitations

nature of this research, the research design approach this paper will follow, is a non-experimental, because the variables, in this case, the

• Biophilia is a topic that has been around since 1984, but it recently

green elements, the knowledge and lifestyle of the people and the

made its way to be applied in architecture and urbanism; therefore the

political will, will be observed, analysed and quanti ed, and no variable

literature found on this topic speci cally is scarce.

will be manipulated.

• Because of the time constraints, the application of the tool was concentrated in a small section of the city, more speci cally, in the University of Portsmouth and its surrounding areas.

The non-experimental design can be, according to Hernandez et al. (2010) transverse or longitudinal: transverse when the variables are

• Because of the lack and precise information regarding the plans,

analysed at a speci c moment in time and, longitudinal when the

projects and regulation of the cities used for the criteria and references,

variables are analysed during a period. This research is transversal,

some individual elements were not part of the measuring tool.

because, even though these measurements can be re-done in the

• It was not possible to communicate with the City Council, so the

future, it is only focused on assessing the current state of the city.

“Biophilic institutions and governance” section was analysed entirely on 3.1.5 Selection of the sample

published reports and plans.

3.1.4 Research design

To measure the four elements of this study, each of it required a speci c selection of sample:

Hernandez, Fernández and Batista (2010) divide the research design into two categories: experimental and non-experimental. The rst takes a

• For the measurement of “Biophilic conditions and infrastructure”

variable and modi es it to verify what reaction it causes to the object of study or other to variables. The second, observe and analyse a variable,

without modifying its environment to prove the hypothesis.

Given the

- Delimitation of the area

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 30

Portsmouth is composed of 14 wards, and the University is located in the

square of the grid, SZ6499 corresponds to the Charles Dickens area.

Charles Dickens and St. Thomas wards, therefore, this is location area

According to the 2011 census, there are 55.10 people per hectare,

selected as a sample for the application of this study. Under the

meaning that in the area of the grid square, 1 km2 there is around 5,510

Ordnance Survey National Grid, grids they correspond are the SU6400

people. The second square, SU6400 corresponds to the area of St.

and SZ6499, each one equivalent to one square kilometre, which

Thomas, which has 104.30 people per hectare, meaning around 10,430

represents the 4.97% of the total city area.

people is living in that section.

• For the measurement of “Biophilic attitude and knowledge” and “Biophilic behaviours, patterns and lifestyle”

Cosham

- Population limit For this part of the study, a survey was conducted to 30 students of

Paulsgrove

Drayton and Farlington

Hilsea

the University of Portsmouth who lived in the Charles Dickens and St.

Copnor Nelson

Thomas area, bounded between the grid sections SU6400 and SZ6499 in the Ordnance Survey National Grid.

Fratton

Baffins

(SZ6499) Charles Dickens

- Selection Process

(SU6400)

St Jude

The students of the University of Portsmouth, who live in the Charles

Milton Central Southsea

St. Thomas

ter swa rane

an tney Eas

Dickens and St. Thomas area, bounded between the grid sections National Grid System

SU6400 and SZ6499 in the Ordnance Survey National Grid, are selected

as a probabilistic sample strati ed by clusters. (See gure 2) The rst

Figure 2: Wards in Portsmouth and location of the studied area. (Source: modified from UK Census Data, 2011)

2500 m

31 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

According to the 2012 UK census, there are 25,423 full-time students,

The review of the literature showed that the biophilic city is composed

ranging from 16 to 74, 8,047 of which live in the Charles Dickens and St.

of four dimensions. Each dimension was researched in depth in order to

Thomas area. The minimum sample size, which is constituted by 30

select the elements that were feasible for the measurement. The

people, was determined using a sample size calculator program.

researcher designed a survey, an interview and the analysis of maps schedule for the data collection for this study. The students answered the

- Sampling techniques

survey, it was analysed the plans, programs and reports from the City Council, and the section fo the city was analysed on a map.

A random sampling procedure used for the selection of the participants, allowed to ensure equal representation of the variables in this

• Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

study. This was achieved by going to di erent points in the area that is under analysis and asking the students to

ll out an electronic

The initial list of the physical green elements that compose the "Biophilic conditions and infrastructure" were extracted from Beatley

questionnaire.

(2011), (see table 2). The literature review showed there were some

• For the measurement of “Biophilic institutions and governance”

elements were missing from the list, so Table 3 shows an updated of the original list which not only includes the elements missing but also,

- Population limit

features and characteristics they should have in order to be biophilic.

Strategy o cials at the Portsmouth City Council, or governmental websites and published city plans.

Beatley (2011) suggest some characteristics that each scale should have, that are related to Reeve et al. (2015) on other the forms the biophilic condition can be implemented in the design, see table 4.

ffi

3.4 C O N S T R U C T I O N O F T H E INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 32 Table 2: Initial list of biophilic elements (Source: modified from Beatley, 2011 ) Biophilic Design Elements

Scale Green rooftops Sky gardens Building

Rooftop gardens Green walls Daylit interior spaces Green courtyards

Block

Clustered housing around green areas Native species yards and spaces Green streets Sidewalk gardens Urban trees

Street

Low-impact development

The next step was to establish the standards that were going to be used as points of comparison in order to determine the level of biophilia in the city. These standards, based on cities that are biophilic, are implementing biophilic programs, or cities that are focused in becoming biophilic, but also are part of the Biophilic Cities Network, an organisation that registers the cities that are taking a steps towards urban biophilia and the actions, policies and strategies they are taking in order to achieve that goal. Table 3: Complete list of Biophilic elements (Source: see legend) Scale

Element

Item

Ref

Vegetated swales and skinny streets

Pot Plants in buildings

Edible landscaping

Indoor living walls

Indoor planted vegetation

Green atria

Green couryard

“Intensive”: Soil deeper than 200mm and vegetation

“Extensive”: Soil up 200mm with gound cover vegetation

Internal and external green walls

Vegetation directly attached to infrastructure (Ivy), panel systems with substrate (pre-planted panels with soil), containers or trellis systems.

Streets trees and canopies

Share planting for buildings

Green streets and alleys that create cool previous greenways

Community forest and community orchards

Rain gardens and bio-swales integrated into stormwater management plan and consisting of previous channels

Green utility corridors

Green permeable sidewalks

High degree of permeability

Indoor Plants

Stream daylighting, stream restoration Urban forest

Building

Ecology parks Neighborhood

Green Roofs Community gardens Neighborhoods parks and pocket parks Green Walls

Greening gray elds and brown elds Urban creeks and riparian areas Urban ecological networks Green schools Community City tree canopy

River systems and oodplains Riparian systems Region Regional greenspace systems

Greening major transport corridors

Block

Green Verges

33 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

Urban equipment

order to collect and analyse what are they doing and the number of

Outdoor sports centers

Green Plazas

Playgrounds

Urban parks and garden placed close to transportation routes

Community farm close to homes

Residential backyards

Lawns and gardens

Pocket parks

Green corridors (biodiversity corridors) reaching outside the urban area

Backyard commons

Vegetated bu er zones along coastal areas

Daylit interior spaces

Green Bridges

Natural ventilation

Large scale community gardens and urban farms

Urban and peri-urban agriculture

Wetlands (Natural and constructed)

Ponds and lakes

Rivers and streams

Urban creeks and riparian areas

Vegetated swales, drainage corridors, in ltration basins, etc.

Riparian systems and oodplains

Oceans and associated coastal vegetation

Urban forest

High degree of permeability

Wildlife zones

Stream daylighting, stream restoration

Community orchards

green elements used in their city. After analysing the proportion of the elements of each biophilic city, as

Streets

Green Islands

standards were chosen the ones the most signi cant proportional percentage in the area. Table 4: Characteristics of the biophilic dimensions (Source: Beatley (2011) Scale

Green infrastructure

Building

Urban Farming

Element

Natural heating Design that represents nature Use of colors that simulate nature

City Waterways and water sensitive urban design features (Change to natural areas)

Natural areas

Legend

Clustered housing around green areas Native species yards and spaces Low-impact development Streets

Vegetated swales and skinny streets

Greening gray elds and brown elds

[+] Reeve et al (2013). cited by Reeve et al (2011) - [*] Beatley (2011) - [-] Researcher Green schools City

Appendix 1, shows a summary of the in-depth research conducted

Large city tree canopy Green utility corridors

using literary resources, o cial websites and city plans and reports, in

River systems and oodplains Region

Regional greenspace system

ffi

Greening major transport corridors

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 34

Subsequently, this is going to be used as comparison points to

• Perception and connection with nature

measure the level of biophilia in the city, see table 5. I As the review of the literature proved that the perception of the people

Table 5: Biophilic conditions and infrastructure standards. (Source: primary)

Element type

Element Building

Streets Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

City

Standard

Reference point

towards nature plays a signi cant role in the restoration and stress relief qualities of the space, it is essential this is taken into consideration as a

Green rooftop

100%

Area within walking distance

Green walls

100%

Area within walking distance

Urban equipment

100%

Area within walking distance

Parks

98.2%

Area within walking distance

Urban farm

1 UD

In walkable distance

Green corridors

15%

Area

Green infrastructure

47%

Area

Tree Canopy

44%

Area

Natural areas

33.33%

Area

variable in the tool. In order to measure the perception level on the sample, the following questions were asked:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how strong do you think your connection with nature is?

In order to measure one of the variables, which is the presence of green elements inside the building, the following questions where asked:

1. Do you have any indoor planted vegetation in your residence?

I don’t think I have a connection with

I feel extremely ___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___

nature

connected with nature

2. Do you think the presence of nature is an important source of stress relief?

Yes

No 2. Do you have any internal or external “living wall" also known as “green 3. Do you think the amount of nature in your area is enough to provide a

wall” in your residence/accommodation? Yes

distraction and stress relief when you are doing your everyday

activities outdoor? Yes

35 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

4. Do you believe there is enough green infrastructure in the area where you live?

0 to 20 minutes 40 minutes to an hour

Yes

Two hours

Three hours Four hours

5. How would you qualify, from 1 to 10, the quality of the natural

More than ve hours.

elements in your neighbourhood? 2. How often do you visit your local park? Extremely poor quality or inexistent

Excellent

___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___

Everyday Once or twice a month

• Biophilic behaviours, patterns and lifestyle

Two or three times a week Never

The rst step to create the instrument was to learn what are the characteristics of the inhabitants of a biophilic city. Having this as the

3. Do you incur in the activity of garden?

basis, a questionnaire was created, which will allow comparing what the

Yes

level of biophilia in the habitats of the city to measure is.

The variables to measure are the amount of time the residents spent outdoor, the visitation rates to city parks, the per cent of trips made by

4. What medium do you use the most as transportation for your day to day activities and responsibilities?

walking and if the own membership or participate in a local nature

Walking everywhere

organisation. For that reason, the following questions where asked:

Bicycle Public transport

1. How much time do you spend outdoors on average daily?

Private vehicle

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 36

5. Do you take part in any activity club or organisation dedicated to the

The purpose of the following set of questions is to con rm whether or not the residents could genuinely identify species in their area. The species chosen are

recognition, preservation or appreciation of nature?

common in the area studied.

Yes No

3. Can you name this tree?

• Biophilic attitude and knowledge

The rst step to create the instrument was to learn what are the characteristics of the inhabitants of a biophilic city. Having this as a basis, a questionnaire was created, which will allow comparing what the level of biophilia in the habitats of the city to measure is.

The variables to measure are the number of residents who express care and concern for nature and the per cent of residents who can identify common species of ora and fauna. For that reason, the following

Figure 3: Indian Bean (Catalpa Bignonioides), (Source: Primary)

4. Can you name this tree?

questions where asked: 1. Do you care about nature? Yes No 2. Do you think you can name most of the trees and animals in your area? Yes No

Figure 4: Weeping Beech (Fagus Sylvatica ‘Pendula’), (Source: primary)

37 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

5. Can you name this owers?

7. Can you name this bird?

Figure 7: Seagull (Laridee), (Source: primary) Figure 5: Rose (Rosa Hybrid), (Source: Primary)

6. Can you name this plant?

Figure 6: Pampa grass (Cortaderia sellona), (Source: primary)

8. Can you name this animal?

Figure 8: Guinea Pig (Cavia Porcellus), (Source: primary)

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 38

• Biophilic institutions and governance

• Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

From the literature, it was obtained what the conditions of biophilic

The condition and infrastructure are composed of all the physical

institutions and governance are. The focus of this section is to nd, by

green elements located along the city. Their categorisation depends on

questioning the government o cials or analysing the plans, projects and

their location and function. The smallest scale considered is the building,

reports published by the city council, the following items:

then the neighbourhood and then the city. Each scale has its own set of elements, used as guidance for the nal quanti cation. Their calculations

• The priority given to nature conservation by the local government (measured by the percentage of the GDP dedicated to this topic).

are done separately, and its score depends on the condition of the element and the data provided by the literature review.

• The existence of design and planning regulations that promote 1. Buildings

biophilic conditions. • The presence of institutions that promote education and awareness

A. Indoor plants

of nature. • The extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching

- How to calculate: the percentage of the population with indoor planted

about nature. • The number of nature organisations and clubs in the city.

vegetation. (Total number of people with indoor planted vegetation on their residence) ÷ (Total of number of people interviewed) * 100%

3.5 M E T H O D S O F D A T A ANALYSIS

- Where to obtain the data: a survey to sample of the population. - Scoring basis: the literature (See appendix 2) suggests that having

The procedure on how to calculate each one of the dimensions and its

indoor planted vegetation can help reduce stress by 23%, Fjeld et al.

correspondent items is the following:

(1998), therefore, it is an element that should be present in every

ffi

building, the score reference is 100%

39 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

• 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the population have indoor vegetation • 1 point: if 21% to 40% of the population have indoor vegetation

• 4 points: if 81% to 100% of the area is covered under a 400m radius of the green roofs

• 2 points: if 41% to 60% of the population have indoor vegetation • 3 points: if 61% to 80% of the population have indoor vegetation

C. Green walls

• 4 points: if 81% to 100% of the population have indoor vegetation

- How to calculate: percentage of the city covered within a 400 m radius A. Green rooftops

of the green wall. (Total area of the city covered within a 400 m radius of the green wall) ÷

- How to calculate: percentage of the city covered within a 400 m radius

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and

of the green roof. (Total area of the city covered within a 400 m radius of the green roof) ÷

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and CAD software to calculate the area.

radius of the walking distance of the elements.

radius of the green roofs

radius of the green wall • 4 points: if 81% to 100% of the area is covered under a 400

• 3 points: if 61% to 80% of the area is covered under a 400 m

radius of the green wall • 3 points: if 61% to 80% of the area is covered under a 400 m

• 2 points: if 41% to 60% of the area is covered under a 400 m

radius of the green wall • 2 points: if 41% to 60% of the area is covered under a 400 m

• 1 point: if 21% to 40% of the area is covered under a 400 m

radius of the green wall • 1 point: if 21% to 40% of the area is covered under a 400 m

• 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the area is covered under a 400 m

radius of the walking distance of the elements. • 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the area is covered under a 400 m

- Scoring basis: The reference for the score is the area covered by a

CAD software to calculate the area.

- Scoring basis: The reference for the score is the area covered by a

(Total area of the city) * 100%

radius of the green wall

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 40

2. Neighbourhoods

B. Green Island

equipment

This element is composed of two items, which are measured separately and they scores are combined to obtain the general score of

- Composition: Outdoor sports facilities and playgrounds. - How to calculate: the percentage of the city covered within 400 m radius of the urban equipment.

the element, for a total score of 8 points.

Parks

(Total area of the city covered within a 400 m radius of the urban

- How to calculate: the percentage of the city covered within 400 m

equipment) ÷ (Total area of the city) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and CAD software to calculate the area.

(Total area of the city covered within a 400 m radius of the park) ÷ (Total

- Scoring basis: The reference for the score is the area covered by a • 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the area is covered under a 400 radius • 1 point: if 21% to 40% of the area is covered under a 400 radius of the urban equipment

radius of the urban equipment

• 2 points: if 39.28% to 58.92% of the area is covered under a

400 radius of the park

radius of the urban equipment

• 1 point: if 19.65 to 39.28% of the area is covered under a 400 radius of the park

• 4 points: if 81% to 100% of the area is covered under a 400

• 0 points: if 0% to 19.64% of the area is covered under a 400 radius of the park

• 3 points: if 61% to 80% of the area is covered under a 400

appendix 2), which suggests that the 98.2% is the maximum area within walking distance (400 m) of parks achieved by a biophilic city:

• 2 points: if 41% to 60% of the area is covered under a 400

and CAD software to calculate the area.

- Scoring basis: The reference number comes from the literature (see

of the urban equipment

area of the city) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps

radius of the walking distance of the elements.

radius of the parks.

41 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

• 3 points: if 58.93% to 78.56% of the area is covered under a 400

• 4 points: if 81% to 100% of the area is covered under a 400

radius of the park

radius of the urban farm

• 4 points: if 78.56% to 98.2% of the area is covered under a 400 radius of the park

3. City

Urban farm

A. Green corridors

- How to calculate: the percentage of the city covered within 400 m radius of the urban farms and community gardens.

(total length of green corridors) ÷ (Total length of the street infrastructure) *

(Total area of the city) * 100%

100%

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and

- Where to obtain the data: satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and CAD software to calculate the area or city councils.

- Scoring basis: The reference for the score is the area covered by a radius of the walking distance of the elements.

of the urban farm

• 2 points: if 6.1% to 9% of the streets have green corridors • 3 points: if 9.1% to 12% of the streets have green corridors

• 3 points: if 61% to 80% of the area is covered under a 400 radius

• 0 points: if 0% to 3% of the streets have green corridors • 1 point: if 3.1 to 6% of the streets have green corridors

• 2 points: if 41% to 60% of the area is covered under a 400 radius

percentage of streets with permeable infrastructure achieved by a biophilic city.

• 1 point: if 21% to 40% of the area is covered under a 400 radius

- Scoring basis: The reference for the score comes from the literature (see appendix 1), which indicates that the 15% is the maximum

• 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the area is covered under a 400 radius

green infrastructure.

(Total area of the city covered within a 400 m radius of the urban farm) ÷

CAD software to calculate the area.

- How to calculate: percentage of the roads that have a permeable

• 4 points: if 12.1 to 15% of the streets have green corridors

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 42

- How to calculate: the percentage of the area occupied by tree canopy

B. Green infrastructure

(Total area of tree canopy) ÷ (Total area of the city) * 100%

- How to calculate: the percentage of the area occupied by green elements in the city.

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and CAD software to calculate the area.

(Total area of the green elements) ÷ (Total area of the city) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and CAD software to calculate the area.

- Scoring basis: The score basis used for this element comes from the literature, which suggests the maximum percentage of the area occupied by tree canopy achieved in a biophilic city is 44%.

- Scoring basis: The reference for the score for this element comes from

• 0 points: if 0% to 8.8% of the area is occupied by tree canopy

the literature, which suggests that the maximum percentage of the

• 1 point: if 8.9% to 17.6% of the area is occupied by tree canopy

area occupied by green elements achieved in a biophilic city is 47%.

• 2 points: if 17.7% to 26.4% of the area is occupied by tree

• 0 points: if 0% to 9.4% of the area is occupied by green infrastructure

canopy • 3 points: if 26.5% to 35.2% of the area is occupied by tree

• 1 point: if 9.5% to 18.8% of the area is occupied by green infrastructure

canopy • 4 points: if 35.3% to 44% of the area is occupied by tree canopy

• 2 points: if 18.9% to 28.2% of the area is occupied by green infrastructure

D. Natural areas

• 3 points: if 28.3% to 37.6% of the area is occupied by green

- How to calculate: Percentage of the city that is natural or has not been

infrastructure • 4 points: if 37.7% to 47% of the area is occupied by green infrastructure

heavily intervened. (Total area of natural zones) ÷ (Total area of the city) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: Satellite images, Digimap, Google maps and

CAD software to calculate the area.

C. Tree canopy

43 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

- Scoring basis: the literature suggests that 1/3, meaning the 33.33% of the total area of the city should be natural or with little or no intervention.

Where to obtain the data: a survey of a sample of the population.

- Scoring basis: - For the questions with a scale:

• 0 points: if 0% to 6.66% of the area is natural

If the average punctuation is: all the results are added by the score the

• 1 point: if 6.67% to 13.33% of the area is natural

sample gave. The total commutative point depends on the number of

• 2 points: if 13.34% to 19.98% of the area is natural

people surveyed, which to each, is going to be assigned 10 points as

• 3 points: if 19.99% to 26.64% of the area is natural

their maximum score.

• 4 points: if 26.65% to 33.33% of the area is natural The score will be worth

• Perception

• 0 points: if the calculation added up to 0 to 100 of cumulative points.

The perception the inhabitants have of the natural features in their neighbourhood is directly related to the capability of the element to lower or increase the bene ts they bring. So it is essential that this is taken into consideration for the integral calculation of the biophilia in the city.

• 1 point: if the calculation added up to 101 to 200 of cumulative points • 2 points: if the calculation added up to 201 to 300 of cumulative points.

Therefore, it will be incorporated as a coe cient that lower, maintain or increase the overall score of the biophilic conditions and infrastructure,

- For the yes/no questions:

which is going to depend on the level of the perception and connection

• 0 points: if 0% to 33.33% of the sample answered yes

with nature of the sample.

• 1 point: if 33.34% to 66.66% of the sample answered yes • 2 points if 66.67% to 100% of the sample answered yes

- How to calculate: each question asked in the survey will have a

ffi

scoring.

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 44

- Scoring basis: the literature suggests that the residents of biophilic

Then If the overall addition of the result of each question results from 0 points

cities should spend 20% of the day outdoors, meaning 228 minutes

to 3.33 points, then, the overall perception is considered “poor" and

in total.

the result of the Biophilic condition and infrastructure will be multiplied

• 0 points: if the average is 0 to 45.6 minutes

by 0.5. If the results go from 3.34 points to 6.66 points, then, the

• 1 point: if the average is 45.6 to 91.2 minutes

perception is considered “Neutral” and the result of the Biophilic

• 2 points: if the average is 91.3 to 136.8 minutes

condition and infrastructure will be multiplied by 1. Moreover, if the

• 3 points: if the average is 136.9 to 182.4 minutes

results go from 6.67 to 10, then, the perception is considered “Good”,

• 4 points: if the average is 182.5 to 228 minutes

and the result of the Biophilic condition and infrastructure will be multiplied by 1.5

B. Visitation rates to city parks

• Biophilic behaviours, patterns, practices and lifestyle

- How to calculate: the average amount of times people visit the local parks a month.

The score of this dimension depends on the condition of the lifestyle of

(Total of the average amount of times people visited the local park in a

the residents and the data provided by the literature review.

month) ÷ (30 days) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: a survey to a sample of the population. - Scoring basis: using the previews information regarding the time

A. Amount of time spent outdoor

people should spend outside, will be applied to the average number

- How to calculate: average time spent outdoor of the population.

of times people should visit its local park. To obtain the reference

(Total average time spent outdoors by the population in minutes) ÷

number: (30 days in a month * 20%) * (Number of people surveyed)

(1440 m) * 100%

= total of reference days.

- Where to obtain the data: a survey to sample of the population.

• 0 points: if the average score is 0 to 1/5 of the total reference

days

45 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

• 1 point: if the average score is 1.1/5 to 2/5 of the total reference

• 2 points: 40.1% to 60% of the population walks as the primary

days

source of transportation.

• 2 points: if the average score is 2.1/5 to 3/5 of the total

• 3 points: 60.1 to 80% of the population walks as the primary

reference days

source of transportation.

• 3 points: if the average score is 3.1/5 to 4/5 of the total

• 4 points: 80.1 to 100% of the population walks as the primary

reference days

source of transportation.

• 4 points: if the average score is 4.1/5 to 5/5 of the total reference days

D. Percentage of residents who actively garden

- How to calculate: Average number of residents who engage in the

C. Percentage of trips made by walking

act of gardening.

- How to calculate: the average amount of times people make trips by walking.

100%

(Number of people walking for their day to day activities) ÷ (Number of people surveyed) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: a survey to a sample of the population. - Scoring basis: as the more trips by walking people take is more

• 1 point: if 8.9% to 17.6% of the sample garden

• 2 points: if 17.7% to 26.4% of the sample garden • 3 points: if 26.5 to 35.2% of the sample garden

source of transportation.

activity.

scored on a 100% basis.

• 1 point: if 20.1 to 40% of the population walks as the primary

literature, which suggests that 44% should be engaging in this

• 0 points: if 0% to 8.8% of the sample garden

source of transportation.

- Where to obtain the data: a survey to a sample of the population. - Scoring basis: The reference number of this element comes from the

bene cial for their physical and cognitive health; the reference will be

• 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the population walks as the primary

(Number of people who garden) ÷ (Number of people surveyed) *

• 4 points: if 35.2% to 44% of the sample garden

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 46

- How to calculate: Average number of residents who express care and

E. Membership or participation of local nature organisations

concern about nature and the environment

- How to calculate: Average number of residents members of a local

(Number of residents who care) ÷ (Number of people surveyed) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: sample of the population. - Scoring basis:

nature organisation. (Number of members) ÷ (Number of people surveyed) * 100%

- Where to obtain the data: a survey to a sample of the population. - Scoring basis: The reference for the score comes from the literature,

• 0 points: if 0% to 20% of the population expressed care for

which suggests that 25% of the population should be members of

• 1 point: if 20.1 to 40% of the population expressed care for

local nature organisations.

nature

• 0 points: if 0% to 5% of the population is member of a nature organisation

• 2 points: if 40.1% to 60% of the population expressed care for nature

• 1 point: if 5.1% to 10% of the population is member of a nature organisation

• 3 points: if 60.1 to 80% of the population expressed care for nature

• 2 points: if 10.1% to 15% of the population is member of a nature organisation

• 4 points: if 80.1 to 100% of the population expressed care for nature

• 3 points:if 15.1% to 20% of the population is member of a nature organisation

B. Per cent of residents who can identify common species of ora and

• 4 points: if 20.1% to 25% of the population is member of a

fauna

nature organisation

- How to calculate: Average number of residents who were able to • Biophilic behaviours, patterns, practices and lifestyle

identify at least 80% of ora and fauna. (Number of residents who were able to identify 80% of ora and fauna) ÷

A. Number of residents who express care and concern with nature

(Number of people surveyed) * 100%

47 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

- Where to obtain the data: sample of the population. - Scoring basis: the literature suggests that at least 1/3 or 33.33%

- How to calculate:

percentage of the city’s budget dedicated to

conservation, protection of nature and sustainability.

should be able to identify the 80% of the common species of plants

(Quantity of the city’s budget dedicated to nature conservation) ÷ (Total

and animals in the area where they live.

city’s budget) * 100%

• 0 points: if 0% to 6.66% of the population identi es 80% of the species

- Where to obtain the data: city council, o cial websites and published city plans.

• 1 point: if 6.67% to 13.33% of the population identi es 80% of the species

- Scoring basis: the literature suggests that at least 5% of the city’s budget should be dedicated to this activities.

• 2 points: if 13.34% to 19.99% of the population identi es 80% of the species

• 0 points: 0% to 1% of the budget • 1 point: 1.1% to 2% of the budget

• 3 points: if 20% to 26.66% of the population identi es 80% of the species

• 2 points: 2.1% to 3% of the budget • 3 points: 3.1% to 4% of the budget

• 4 points: if 26.67% to 33.33% of the population identi es 80% of

• 4 points: 4.1 to 5% of the budget

the species A. Design and planning regulation that promote biophilic conditions Species identi cation Each species get assigned a point that is earned when 80% of the sample can identify it.

- How to calculate: the existence of design and planning regulation that promote biophilic conditions.

- Where to obtain the data: city council, o cial websites or city plans and • Biophilic institutions and governance

reports.

- Scoring basis:

ffi

A. Priority given to nature conservation by local government

• 0 points: no biodiversity action plans

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 48

• 1 point: biodiversity action plans are being considered • 2 point: biodiversity action plan in the process of being produced • 3 points: biodiversity action plan in the process of being implemented

- How to calculate: Extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching about nature

- Where to obtain the data: city council, o cial websites or city plans and reports.

• 4 points: biodiversity action plan being implemented

- Scoring basis: (extracted from the Biodiversity city index, 2014) • 0 points: Biodiversity or elements of it are not covered in the

C. Presence of institutions that promote education and awareness of

school curriculum

nature

1 point: Biodiversity or elements of it are being considered for inclusion in the school curriculum

- How to calculate:

Presence or absence of institutions of local

• 2 points: Biodiversity or elements of it are being planned for

organisations that promote education and awareness of nature

- Where to obtain the data: city council, o cial websites or city plans

inclusion in the school curriculum • 3 points: Biodiversity or elements of it are in the process of

and reports.

being implemented in the school curriculum

- Scoring basis: the literature suggests there should be at least one

• 4 points: Biodiversity or elements of it are included in the school

natural history museum and a botanical garden or urban ecology

curriculum

centres. • 0 points: no organisations

E. Number of nature organisations and clubs in the city

• 1 point: 1 organisation

- How to calculate: Number of nature organisations and clubs in the

• 2 points: 2 organisations

city D. Extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching

ffi

and reports.

about nature

- Where to obtain the data: city council, o cial websites or city plans

Table 6: Summary of the value of each item. (Source: primary)

- Scoring basis: the literature suggests that there should be at least

Element type

ve organisation of this nature in the city; therefore, this will be used

Element

Buildings

as the reference. 0 points: 0 to 1 organisation

Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

1 point: 1.1 to 2 organisations

Neighborhood

2 points: 2.1 to 3 organisations City

3 points: 3.1 to 4 organisations 4 points: 4.1 to 5 organisations

(Score achieved) * (112 points) ÷ 100% = Level of Biophilia

Biophilic behaviors, patterns, practices and lifestyle

Biophilic attitudes and knowledge

Taking into the consideration the scoring basis of each element, the

“Non-biophilic”, “With biophilic tendencies” and “Biophilic”.

Table 7

explains what the characteristics of each level and the punctuation

Biophilic institutions and governance

achieved in each element are.

Urban equipment

Green Islands

Green corridors

Green infrastructure

Tree Canopy

Natural areas

If perception is

Neutral

Then the Subtotal be multiplied by:

0.5

1.5

Amount of time spent outdoors

Visitation rates to city parks

Percent of trips made by walking

Percentage of residents who actively garden

Membership or participation of local nature organizations

4 20

Number of residents who express care and concern for nature

Percent of residents who can identify common species of ora and fauna.

Sub-total

level of biophilia in a city is going to be characterised in three levels:

Green walls

Sub-total

Table 6 is a summary of all value of all the items.

Good

the city, know what the percentage of biophilia in the city is:

Green rooftop

Once the analysis is complete and the nal score is known achieved by

Poor

Perception

Score

Indoor plants

Sub-total

Table 5 is a summary of the value of each item to be measured:

49 | R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y

14 Priority given to nature conservation by local government

Existence of design and planning regulation that promote biophilic conditions

Presence of institutions that promote education and awareness of nature.

Extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching about nature.

Number of nature organizations and clubs in the city

Sub-total

Max Total

112

Dimension

Scale

Buildings

Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

Element

81% to 100%

Little or no presence of green roofs in the buildings of the city

There is one green roof in a building in at least a 400 m radius covering 40% of the city

There is one green roof in a building in at least a 400 m radius covering 80% of the city

Green walls

Little or no presence of green walls in the city

There is one green wall in at least a 400 m radius covering 40% of the city

There is one green wall in at least a 400 m radius covering 80% of the city

Urban equipment

Little or no presence of outdoor sports facilities and playgrounds in the city.

At least half the area of the city is covered in sports facilities and playgrounds within walking distance.

There is a sport facility or playground almost everywhere in the city within walking distance.

Green Islands

Little or no presence of urban farms and parks in the city.

At least half the the area of the city is covered in parks and urban gardens within walking distance.

There is a park and urban garden almost anywhere in the city within walking distance

Green corridors

There are little or no presence of green corridors in the city.

At least 7.5% of the road infrastructure are integrated to a green corridor.

12% to 15% of the road infrastructure are integrated to a green corridor.

Green infrastructure

Little or no presence of green infrastructure in the city

At least 23% of the area of the city is covered in green infrastructure.

38% to 47% of the area of the city is covered in green infrastructure.

Tree Canopy

Little or no presence of area covered by the tree canopy.

At least 18% of the area of the city is covered by tree canopy

35% to 44% of the area of the area of the city is occupied by tree canopy.

Natural areas

Little or no presence of natural wildlife in the city

At least 13% of the are of the city is left to the natural wildlife.

27% to 33% of the area of the city is left to the natural wildlife

Residents spend little or no time of their day outdoor

Residents spend at least 8% of their day outdoor.

Residents spend from 16% to 20% or their day outdoor.

Residents almost never go to their local parks

Residents go at least 2 times a month to their local park

Residents go at least 4 times a month to their local park.

Almost all the resident have private vehicles and use them to make their every-day activities

At least 40% of the residents walk when doing their every-day activities instead of a vehicle

81% to 100% of the residents do their every-day activities walking

Less than the 18% of the residents incur in the activity of gardening

At least 18% of the residents incur in the activity of gardening

35% to 44% of the residents incur in the activity of gardening

Less than the 10% fo the residents belong to local nature organization

At least 10% of the residents belong to a local nature organization

20% to 25% of the residents belong to local nature organization

Number of residents who express care and concern for nature

Less than the 40% of the residents express care and concern about nature

At least 40% of the residents express care and concern about nature

80% to 100% of the residents express care or concern about nature

Percent of residents who can identify common species of ora and fauna.

Less than the 13% of the residents can name 80% of the local ora and fauna

At least 13% of the residents can name 80% of the local ora and fauna

26% to 33% of the residents are able to name 80% of the local ora and fauna

Priority given to nature conservation by local government

None or almost none of the city’s budget is dedicated to nature conservation, the implementation of biophilic plans and sustainable programs

At least 2% of the city’s budget is dedicated to nature conservation, the implementation of biophilic plans and sustainable programs

4% to 5% of the city’s budget is dedicated to nature conservation, the implementation of biophilic plans and sustainable programs

Existence of design and planning regulation that promote biophilic conditions

No biodiversity action plan

A biodiversity action plan is being considered or in the process of being produced

A biodiversity action plan is in the process of being implemented or fully working

No presence of urban ecology centers, botanic gardens or institutions that teach about the local natural environment.

Presence of one botanic garden, urban ecology center or institution aimed at teaching about the local natural environment.

There is at least one urban ecology centre and one botanic garden or other institutions that help teach about the local natural environment.

Biodiversity elements are not covered in the school curriculum

Biodiversity elements are being considered or planned to be included in the school curriculum

Biodiversity elements are in the process of being implemented of are fully implemented in the school curriculum.

None or only on nature organization in the city

Presence of at least 2 nature organizations in the city

Presence of 4 to 5 nature organizations and clubs in the city

Neighborhood

Percent of trips made by walking

Presence of institutions that promote education and awareness of nature. Extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching about nature. Number of nature organizations and clubs in the city

41% to 80%

Green rooftop

Membership or participation of local nature organizations

0% to 40%

At least 80% of the residents have indoor planted vegetation inside their residence

Percentage of residents who actively garden

Biophilic institutions and governance

Biophilic

At least half of 40% of the residents have indoor planted vegetation inside their residence

Visitation rates to city parks

Biophilic attitudes and knowledge

With biophilic tendencies

Little or no presence of plants inside the residences

Amount of time spent outdoors

Biophilic behaviors, patterns, practices and lifestyle

No biophilic

Indoor plants

City

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y | 50

Table 7: Summary of the characteristics of the levels of the biophilic city (Source: primary)

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FINDINGS

4.1 | I N T R O D U C T I O N As the previews chapter focused on the description of the methodology and the instruction to apply the instrument, the basis of this chapter will be on implementing the methodology, explaining and discussing the ndings.

The rst section of this chapter will focus on creating a context of the city to be analysed, Portsmouth. The second section will present the analysis process and the application of the instrument. The last section will focus on presenting and further discussing the ndings.

Summary of the characteristics of the levels of the biophilic city

53 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

4.2 | C O N T E X T O F PORTSMOUTH Cosham

Drayton and Farlington

The selected city is Portsmouth, a city located in the Hampshire County, in Paulsgrove

the south of England (Figure 9) It is one

Hilsea

Copnor

of the more dense cities in the UK, with

Nelson

238,137 people living in an area of

Baffins

Fratton

40.21 km².

Charles Dickens

Milton St. Thomas

It is a residential city, divided into 14 wards or zones, each one with a small

St Jude

commercial and institutional centre. The

Central Southsea

ter swa rane

nd C

ya stne

2500 m

most active centre is in the Charles Figure 10: Portsmouth’s wards. (UK Census Data, 2011)

Dickens area, where the majority of the university buildings are located. According

urban

characterisation study made by the City Council in 2011, almost 20% of the city

Figure 9: Location of the city (Source: modified from Conceptdraw, 2018)

is designated as protected open space, but the uneven distribution of the natural

Figure 11: Charles Dickens bird view. (Source: Google Maps, 2018)

areas “leaves parts of the city poorly supplied”. Evidence of this claim ca bee seen in gures 11, 12 and 13.

Figure 13: Milton bird view (Source: Google Maps, 2018)

Figure 12: Baffins bird view. (Source: Google Maps, 2018)

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 54

4.3 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T 1.

A. Green rooftops

Analysis and calculations

• Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

(716,069.7 m2

area of the in uence radius of the green rooftop) ÷

(2,000,000 m2) * 100% = 35.80%

1. Buildings

A. Indoor plants

(7 people with indoor planted vegetation on its residence) ÷ (30 interviewed) * 100% = 23.33%

Do you have any indoor planted vegetation inside your residence?

23.33% of the population have indoor planted vegetation inside their

23.30%

residence. According to the scoring basis set up in the methodology, it means that 76.70%

Yes

this item is worth 1 point.

Figure 14: Indoor planted vegetation answers (Source: Primary)

Figure 15: Data collection process - Green Roofs (Source: Primary)

35.80% of the area is covered within a 400 m radius of a green roof. This item is worth 1 point.

55 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

2. Neighbourhood A. Green walls A. Urban equipment (1,459,750.46 m2 of area of the in uence radius of the green wall) ÷ (2,000,000 m2) * 100% = 72.98%

(1,838,526.81 m2 of area of the in uence radius of the urban equipment) ÷ (2,000,000 m2) * 100% = 91.92%

Figure 16: Data collection process - Green wall (Source: Primary)

Figure 17: Data collection process - Urban equipment (Source: Primary)

equipment . This item is worth 3 points.

walls. This item is worth 3 points.

91.92% of the area is covered within a 400 m radius of an urban

72.98% of the area is covered within a 400 m radius of a green

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 56

A. Green Island

Parks

Urban farm

(1,777,099.83 m2 in uence radius of the park) ÷ (2,0000,000 m2) *

(552,328.85 m2 in uence radius of the urban farm) ÷ (2,000,000 m2) *

100% = 88.95%

100% = 27.61%

Figure 18: Data collection process - Parks and picket parks (Source: Primary)

farm lot. This item is worth 1 point.

pocket park. This item is worth 4 points.

27.61% of the area is covered within a 400 m radius of a park or urban

88.95% of the area is covered within a 400 m radius of a park or

Figure 19: Data collection process - Urban farms (Source: Primary)

57 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

3. City

A. Green corridors

B. Green infrastructure

(1,961.04 m of green corridors) ÷ (43,839.59 m of street infrastructure) *

(208,937.16 m2) ÷ (2,000,000 m2) * 100% = 10.44%

100% = 4.47%

Figure 21: Data collection process - Green infrastructure (Source: Primary)

point.

worth 1 point.

The green infrastructure occupies 10.44% the city. This item is worth 1

4.47% of the of the street infrastructure have green corridors. This item is

Figure 20: Data collection process - Green corridors (Source: Primary)

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 58

C. Tree canopy

D. Natural areas

(224,211.81 m2) ÷ (2,000,000 m2) * 100% = 11.21%

(5,773,788.45 m2 of natural zones) ÷ (40,896,918.42 m2 ) * 100% = 14.12%

Figure 23: Environment roam (Source: Digimap)

Figure 24: Data collection process - Natural areas (Source: modified from Digimap)

Figure 22: Data collection process - Tree Canopy (Source: Primary)

The tree canopy coverage is 11.21%. This item is worth 1 point.

The wildlife occupancy of the city is 14.12%. This item is worth 2 points.

59 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

• Perception and connection with nature

Do you think the presence of nature is an important source of stress relieve?

10%

Do you think the amount of nature in your area is enough to provide a distraction and stress relief when you are doing your everyday activities outdoor?

16.70%

83.30%

90%

Figure 25: Perception answers summary - Q1 (Source: Primary)

Figure 27: Perception answers summary - Q3 (Source: Primary) Yes

This item is worth 2 points.

Figure 28: Perception answers summary - Q4 (Source: Primary) Yes

This item is worth 3 points.

Do you believe there is enough nature un the area where you live?

40% 60%

This item is worth 2 points. Figure 26: Perception answers summary - Q2 (Source: Primary)

Yes

This item is worth 1 point. Perception overall: 9/10

Figure 29: Perception answers summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 60

• Biophilic behaviours, patterns, practices and lifestyle (BBPPL)

C. Percentage of trips made by walking

A. Amount of time spent outdoor

What medium of transportation do you use the most for your day to day activities and responsibilities?

How much time do you spend outdoors on average, daily?

organisations Do you take part in any activity club or organization dedicated to the recognition, preservation or appreciation of nature?

13.3%

3.3%

E. Membership or participation of local nature

30%

3.3%

10%

6.7%

10%

20%

76.7%

20%

This item is worth 2 points.

This item is worth 3 points.

Figure 30: BBPPL answer summary - Q1 (Source: Primary) 0 to 20 minutes Two hours More than ve hours

20 to 40 minutes Three hours

93.3%

Figure 32: BPPL answer summary - Q3 (Source: Primary)

40 minutes to an hour Four hours

Walking

Bycile

Public transport

Private vehicle

Figure 34: Biophilic BPPL answer summary - Q5 (Source: Primary) Yes

B. Visitation rates to city parks

D. Percentage of residents who actively garden Do you incur in the activity of gardening?

How often do you visit your local park?

23.3%

3.3% 16.7%

56.7%

16.7%

This item is worth 3 points.

Figure 31: BBPPL answer summary - Q2 (Source: Primary)

Everyday Once or twice a moth

Two or three times a week Never

This item is worth 0 points.

83.3%

This item is worth 1 point.

Figure 33: BBPPL answer summary - Q4 (Source: Primary) Yes

61 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

• Biophilic attitude and knowledge (BAK) A. Number of residents who express care and concern with nature Do you care about nature?

6.7%

This item is worth 4 points.

93.3%

Figure 35: BAK answer summary - Q1 (Source: Primary)

Yes

Figure 37: BAK answer summary - Q3 (Source: Primary)

B. Percent of residents who can identify common species of ora and fauna Do you think you can name most of the trees and animals in your area?

3.3%

This item is worth 1 point.

96.7%

Figure 36: BAK answer summary - Q2 (Source: Primary)

Yes

Figure 38: BAK answer summary - Q4 (Source: Primary)

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 62

Figure 39: BAK answer summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

Figure 40: BAK answer summary - Q6 (Source: Primary)

Figure 41: BAK answer summary - Q5 (Source: Primary)

Figure 42: BAK answer summary - Q6 (Source: Primary)

63 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

• Biophilic institutions and governance

Portsmouth does not have a botanic garden, a natural history museum. The region has a sustainability centre but is located 16.8 miles

A. Priority given to nature conservation by local government

away from the studied area, and taking into consideration that the literature suggests that there should be at least one centre per half a

According to the 2017/2018’s Portsmouth draft statement of

million people and in Hampshire, there are over 1,300,000 million

accounts, 13.72% of the city’s budget is located in “Environment and

inhabitants, this centre is not going to be considered for this

community safety”. As it is unknown what percentage of that is dedicated

measurement. Therefore, this item is worth 0 points.

to the natural environment, the complete punctuation of this section is going to be given; therefore, this item is worth 4 points.

D. Extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching about nature

B. Design and planning regulation that promote biophilic conditions According to the Hampshire biodiversity action plan (Hampshire The Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership in 2012 published the

biodiversity partnership, 2002) “Portsmouth City Council park rangers

Biodiversity action plan for Hampshire, a series of codes and plans

have an environmental education remit with schools”. The City council

directed towards the protection and promotion of the biodiversity and the

also has partnered up with BTCV to bring volunteers to schools that help

natural environment. This action plan includes a description taken by

create healthier and happier communities for all, through environmental

Hampshire’s towns and cities, including Portsmouth, of their strategies

conservation. Therefore, this item is worth 4 points.

and planning, management, research and monitoring, awareness and involvement of the biodiversity and the local environment. Therefore, this

E. Number of nature organisations and clubs in the city

item is worth 4 points. After an extensive search, no information about nature clubs where found in the city, therefore, this item is worth 0 points. C. Presence of institutions that promote education and awareness of

nature

4.4 | F I N D I N G S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 64

Results summary Table 8: Summary of the results (Source: primary) Element type

Element

Buildings

Score

Indoor plants

Green rooftop

Green walls

Urban equipment

Green Islands

Green corridors

Green infrastructure

Tree Canopy

Natural areas

Neighborhood Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

City

Sub-total

Perception

If perception is

Biophilic behaviors, patterns, practices and lifestyle

Good (9/10)

Then the Subtotal be multiplied by:

1.5

Amount of time spent outdoors

Visitation rates to city parks

Percent of trips made by walking

Percentage of residents who actively garden

Membership or participation of local nature organizations

Sub-total

9 Number of residents who express care and concern for nature

Percent of residents who can identify common species of ora and fauna.

Biophilic attitudes and knowledge

Sub-total

Biophilic institutions and governance

Priority given to nature conservation by local government

Existence of design and planning regulation that promote biophilic conditions

Presence of institutions that promote education and awareness of nature.

Extent of education programs in local schools aimed at teaching about nature.

Number of nature organizations and clubs in the city

Sub-total

Total

(53 accumulated points) ÷ (112 points) * 100% = 47% Biophilic

65 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S Table 9: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic conditions and infrastructure (Source: primary)

Dimension

Scale

Buildings

Biophilic conditions and infrastructure

Element

Non biophilic

With biophilic tendencies

Biophilic

0% to 40%

41% to 80%

81% to 100%

Indoor plants

Little or no presence of plants inside the residences

At least half of 40% of the residents have indoor planted vegetation inside their residence

At least 80% of the residents have indoor planted vegetation inside their residence

Green rooftop

Little or no presence of green roofs in the buildings of the city

There is one green roof in a building in at least a 400 m radius covering 40% of the city

There is one green roof in a building in at least a 400 m radius covering 80% of the city

Green walls

Little or no presence of green walls in the city

There is one green wall in at least a 400 m radius covering 40% of the city

There is one green wall in at least a 400 m radius covering 80% of the city

Urban equipment

Little or no presence of outdoor sports facilities and playgrounds in the city.

At least half the area of the city is covered in sports facilities and playgrounds within walking distance.

There is a sport facility or playground almost everywhere in the city within walking distance.

Green Islands

Little or no presence of urban farms and parks in the city.

At least half the the area of the city is covered in parks and urban gardens within walking distance.

There is a park and urban garden almost anywhere in the city within walking distance

Green corridors

There are little or no presence of green corridors in the city.

At least 7.5% of the road infrastructure are integrated to a green corridor.

12% to 15% of the road infrastructure are integrated to a green corridor.

Green infrastructure

Little or no presence of green infrastructure in the city

At least 23% of the area of the city is covered in green infrastructure.

38% to 47% of the area of the city is covered in green infrastructure.

Tree Canopy

Little or no presence of area covered by the tree canopy.

At least 18% of the area of the city is covered by tree canopy

35% to 44% of the area of the area of the city is occupied by tree canopy.

Natural areas

Little or no presence of natural wildlife in the city

At least 13% of the are of the city is left to the natural wildlife.

27% to 33% of the area of the city is left to the natural wildlife

Neighborhood

City

The study reveals that when it comes to the Biophilic conditions and infrastructure, Portsmouth can be considered non-biophilic.

typical activity of people in their university years do. The green roofs

In the building category, the results might have been in uenced by the condition and characteristics of the sample of the population, students from the University of Portsmouth. The usual living condition for this sample, renting a furnished temporary residence, in periods of one or two years, could a ect the results of the indoor planted vegetation section. If this study were to be applied to locals and a more diverse sample and

with di erent living conditions, the number could be higher. Furthermore,

age is another variable that could in uence the results, gardening is not a

founded in the area of the study, located in new residential or institutional building, are not accessible to the user of the building; Their purposes are more functional. The green walls found are not green façades, ivy that grew in metal frame or a concrete wall in outdoor spaces and sidewalks.

In the neighbourhood scale, most of the residents have access to a playground or an outdoor sports facility within a 5-minute walk; however,

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 66

a large number of this facilities are located in a school playground. In

In the city scale, the green corridors are located in the streets with

the green island section, most of the residents have access to a city

higher hierarchy. The greenery in the residential areas consists of

park or pocket park within a 5-minute walk; however, the urban farm is

ground-covers with limited shaded trees, located in the backyard of the

very limited, only three small gardens were found and all of them

houses. The green infrastructure is more prominent in the SZ6499 area

located inside a 400 m radius.

because of the land use in that area, that is more mixed. The tree canopy is spread evenly in the area studied, yet is scarce, and, the natural areas, are located along the edges of the city.

Table 10: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic behaviours, patterns, practices and lifestyle (Source: primary) No biophilic

With biophilic tendencies

Biophilic

0% to 40%

41% to 80%

81% to 100%

Amount of time spent outdoors

Residents spend little or no time of their day outdoor

Residents spend at least 8% of their day outdoor.

Residents spend from 16% to 20% or their day outdoor.

Visitation rates to city parks

Residents almost never go to their local parks

Residents go at least 2 times a month to their local park

Residents go at least 4 times a month to their local park.

Percent of trips made by walking

Almost all the resident have private vehicles and use them to make their every-day activities

At least 40% of the residents walk when doing their every-day activities instead of a vehicle

81% to 100% of the residents do their every-day activities walking

Percentage of residents who actively garden

Less than the 18% of the residents incur in the activity of gardening

At least 18% of the residents incur in the activity of gardening

35% to 44% of the residents incur in the activity of gardening

Membership or participation of local nature organizations

Less than the 10% fo the residents belong to local nature organization

At least 10% of the residents belong to a local nature organization

20% to 25% of the residents belong to local nature organization

Biophilic behaviours, patterns, practices and lifestyle

Element

Dimension

As the results of this dimension are con ned to the sample, they would have varied if the tool would have been applied to a broader and

that are not as mixed, and with a more diverse and mature sample, this number might decrease signi cantly.

more diverse sample. The study showed that most of the residents spend less than the 6% of their day on the outdoor, far from what the

The number of residents who garden is also con ned by the type of

residents of biophilic cities are spending. On average, they visit their local

sample selected for this study. As explained earlier the temporary

parks at least two times a month, which is low, if it is taken into

residence, plays a signi cant role in explaining the reasons why they are

consideration the fact that in 88.95% of the area, a park can be

not participating in this practice. Moreover, the low number of urban

accessed in less than a ve-minute walk.

farms accessible to the population of the area, and the lack of promotion to this exercise also explain why this is not a more popular activity among

The number of residents who walk to do they everyday activities is

the sample.

relatively high, 76.7%, but this result is conditioned by the main occupation of the sample, and the location where this study was

The number of residents who are part of a nature club or organisation

conducted. The land use of the studied area, is the most mixed in the

is conditioned by the fact that no organisation or club was found doing

city, making it less necessary the use of vehicles. If this test would have

this research.

been conducted in the entire city, taking into considerations all the areas Table 11: Summary of the results and characteristics of the biophilic attitudes and knowledge. (Source: primary)

Dimension

Scale

Element

Number of residents who express care and concern for nature

Percent of residents who can identify common species of ora and fauna.

Biophilic attitudes and knowledge

67 | P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S

No biophilic

With biophilic tendencies

Biophilic

0% to 40%

41% to 80%

81% to 100%

Less than the 40% of the residents express care and concern about nature

At least 40% of the residents express care and concern about nature

80% to 100% of the residents express care or concern about nature

Less than the 13% of the residents can name 80% of the local ora and fauna

At least 13% of the residents can name 80% of the local ora and fauna

26% to 33% of the residents are able to name 80% of the local ora and fauna

P R O J E C T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D F I N D I N G S | 68

In this dimension, almost all the residents said that they cared about

identi ed by 80% of the times, by the sample. This can be correlated

nature. The contrast here is remarkable because even though they

with the lack of organisations in charge of spreading knowledge about

said they cared about nature, none of the species presented was

the local biodiversity.