Biophilia, while often seen as a fashionable concept in design and architecture, goes well beyond being just a fad; rather, it is a necessity driven by deep human and ecological needs. In an era of rapid urbanization and increasing lifestyle-related health problems, as well as climate change and declining biodiversity, biophilia offers important solutions that can improve public health, sustainability and ecological resilience. Biophilic design can help with climate change mitigation by boosting CO2 absorption, controlling precipitation, and minimizing heat stress and the urban heat islands in cities. Biophilia in urban and architectural design allows for the reintegration of natural components into cities, which improves citizens’ quality of life and health. In the face of an increase in health concerns such as depression and anxiety, biophilic design can play an important role in boosting both mental and physical health. Biophilic design encourages the creation of spaces that promote social interaction and the formation of relationships, which is crucial in overcoming social isolation and the development of integrated communities. Biophilic settings can be used to educate people about the environment and encourage them to behave sustainably. These are important factors in developing future generations of ecologically concerned citizens. Although design trends are changing, the basic human need for contact with nature and the benefits it brings make biophilia an essential element in the design of residential, public and commercial spaces. Introducing elements of nature, such as vegetation, natural light and views of greenery, improves physical and mental health, increases productivity and creativity, and reduces stress. Biophilic spaces foster social interaction, create integrated communities and bring economic benefits, attracting customers and increasing employee satisfaction. All of this emphasizes that biophilia is a necessity, not just a passing fad in architecture and design.
MULTIFILE
By supporting creation of protected areas, conservation projects are known to bring economic prosperity to the local communities, but also incite criticism. A common theme in the critique of conservation organizations is the proximity to neoliberal agencies seeking to capitalize on environment, which disadvantage the local communities. Community participation has been proposed as a panacea for neoliberal conservation. However, conservation efficacy is not always contingent on the community involvement and reliance on ‘traditional’ practices in protected areas has not always benefitted biodiversity. Simultaneously, critique of conservation ignores evidence of indigenous activism as well as alternative forms of environmentalism which provide a broader ethical support base for conservation. This article highlights the challenges and contradictions, as well as offers hopeful directions in order to more effectively ground compassionate conservation. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1048765 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Biodiversity preservation is often viewed in utilitarian terms that render non-human species as ecosystem services or natural resources. The economic capture approach may be inadequate in addressing biodiversity loss because extinction of some species could conceivably come to pass without jeopardizing the survival of the humans. People might be materially sustained by a technological biora made to yield services and products required for human life. The failure to address biodiversity loss calls for an exploration of alternative paradigms. It is proposed that the failure to address biodiversity loss stems from the fact that ecocentric value holders are politically marginalized and underrepresented in the most powerful strata of society. While anthropocentric concerns with environment and private expressions of biophilia are acceptable in the wider society, the more pronounced publicly expressed deep ecology position is discouraged. “Radical environmentalists” are among the least understood of all contemporary opposition movements, not only in tactical terms, but also ethically. The article argues in favor of the inclusion of deep ecology perspective as an alternative to the current anthropocentric paradigm. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.742914 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
