Rashdan, W. and Ashour, A. F. (2026) A conceptual framework linking biophilic interior design to sustainability criteria. Building Research & Information, 54(6), pp. 775-800. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Biophilic strategies in interior environments are often advanced independently of sustainability goals, limiting integrated decision making. Although biophilic design is associated with well-being, its contribution to sustainability performance remains underdefined within interior practice. Existing frameworks tend to address biophilic and sustainability objectives in parallel rather than through an explicit integrative structure. This paper develops a framework examining how biophilic interior attributes align directly, conditionally, or minimally with defined sustainability criteria. Drawing on a synthesis of biophilic and sustainable design literature, the study constructs a matrix mapping 54 biophilic sub-attributes against 12 sustainability criteria. The resulting framework, BID-SIM, applies a normative MAX-CASE 0-3 anchor scale to express potential contribution under best practice assumptions rather than empirical outcomes. Exploratory analysis indicates strong alignment with human-centred criteria, while environmental dimensions such as biodiversity, circularity, and energy efficiency are underrepresented. These findings suggest biophilic strategies operate more robustly as social and experiential sustainability mechanisms than as environmental performance solutions, particularly when climatic and lifecycle considerations are included. The framework was reviewed through focus groups to refine terminology, structure, and scoring logic. BID-SIM is presented as a diagnostic tool to clarify alignments, reveal trade-offs, and support critical evaluation of nature-based strategies in sustainable interiors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bid-sim; biophilic design; conceptual framework; evaluation matrix; interior design; sustainability |
| Index terms: | anchor, decision-making, mapping, well-being, conceptual framework, focus group, drawing, strategy, best practice, biophilic, sustainability performance, biodiversity, energy efficiency, dimension, environmental performance, interior design, lifecycle, circularity, sustainable design |
| Subjects: | business, design incorporating nature, technical documentation, management, project delivery, mental health and wellbeing, design process, geotechnical engineering, sustainable materials, data collection methods, decision analysis, biodiversity, spatial and geospatial analysis, specialized design, theoretical framing, health monitoring assessment and metrics, sustainability assessment, sustainability and energy |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here