Improving Mental Health in Prisons Through Biophilic Design

Abstract

Increasing nature and natural elements within a prison offers the potential to destress residents, improve mental health, cognitive functioning and learning; reduce recidivism and increase receptivity for behavioral change and restorative justice opportunities. Biophilic design is outlined as a set of principles, attributes and practices for cities to bring nature into urbanites’ daily life. The role of nature in restorative initiatives is traced back to the early work of innovative psychoanalyst, Eric Fromm, illustrating how his framework of human psychological pathways overlaps with biophilic design principles. Together, these approaches should provide new ways to improve the prison experience.

Keywords

biophilia prison design biophilic design biophilic architecture stress reduction mental health pyschological restoration greening prisons Fromm

Introduction

Global studies of prisoner health suggest that they experience high levels of mental illness (Fazel & Bailargeon, 2011; Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Fraser, Gatherer & Hayton, 2009; Gunn, Maden & Swinton, 1991; Wright, Jordan & Kane, 2014). Mental illness is well recognized as an increasing problem within the prison system, with some research suggesting that 89% of prisoners have depressive symptoms and 74% have stress-related symptoms, many of which are not diagnosed until incarceration (Fraser et al., 2009; Nurse, Woodcock & Ormsby, 2003; Ogloff, 2002). A study undertaken in five Australian prisons in 2004 revealed that nearly 50% of prisoners had a mental disorder, with post traumatic stress disorder the most common (Butler, Allnutt, Cain, Owens & Muller, 2005).

In a 2001 study of 23,000 prisoners in 12 countries, prisoners were found to have a two to four times higher rate of major depression and psychotic illnesses and a 10 times higher rate of antisocial personality disorder than the general populace (Fazel & Danesh, 2002). Suicide rates in prisons are significant, often the most common cause of death (Fazel & Bailargeon, 2011; World Health Organization & International Association for Suicide Prevention, 2007). The decrease of general societal mental health services is considered to play a large part in this phenomenon (Birmingham, 1999; Butler et al., 2005; Fazel & Bailargeon, 2011; Jordan, 2011; Ogloff, 2002).

Prisons tend to develop, or exacerbate, mental health problems in their residents, and many reoffend on their release, to once again reenter the prison system (Birmingham, 1999; Butler et al., 2005; Fazel & Bailargeon, 2011; Ogloff, 2002). The psychological impact of institutionalization, especially on admission, is under acknowledged, with little done to address the effects or potential long-term damage, for inmates or their families (Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Haney, 2003).

Although mental health in prisons is still considered an under recognized issue, there are increasing attempts to address this spiraling problem. The primary suggestions within the literature focus on staffing and policy changes, level of assessment, placement and care changes, and facility and activity changes (Fraser et al., 2009; Jordan, 2011; Picken, 2012; World Health Organization & International Association for Suicide Prevention, 2007; Wright et al., 2014). There are isolated reports of prisons that have introduced gardening, animal husbandry and community-based programs that have been successful in aiding the less severe forms of mental illness, but there is little in the research literature on the physical form of prisons themselves. Yet, there is little doubt a prisoner’s physical environment plays a highly influential role on the prisoner’s health and well-being and, thus, the ability to “rehabilitate” toward progressive life choices. The potential to utilize this physical design influence to address mental health problems such as stress and depression has not received much recognition and is the focus of this article. The question we address is the following:

Research Question 1: Can Eric Fromm’s perspective on biophilia be applied to the design of prisons and assist in improving mental health of the incarcerated?

Biophilic design and biophilic urbanism have moved from academic and professional literature to the status of a new social movement in the design professions. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential of biophilic design to reduce stress and improve mental health in prisons. It is pertinent to delve into the origins of the term biophilia to begin the journey of understanding the potential of this approach, as it was on this journey that the authors discovered the pioneering work of Eric Fromm, a giant in the human psychology arena (see Fromm, 1964; The Art of Loving, 1961; To Have or to Be? 1976; Escape From Freedom, 1941), but whose work is little known by those in biophilic design.

The Theory of Biophilia: Fromm and Beyond

Biophilia is often seen as being a term invented by Nobel Prize–winning biologist E. O. Wilson (Wilson, 1984) and others since (e.g., Kellert & Heerwagen, 2008). This group developed the concept of humans having an innate need for nature from their evolutionary biology perspective, thus creating the concept that nature needs to be built into everyday life in our cities. However biophilia, meaning love of life, was a term first brought to life by the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm in his exploration of the “essence of man,” that which defines us (Fromm, 1964). He saw that awareness of our “beingness,” our mortality, separates us from nature, instilling a deep anxiety and conflict. This is a contradiction inherent in human existence, the belonging to two conflicting worlds:

Man is confronted with the frightening conflict of being a prisoner of nature, yet being free in his thoughts; being part of nature, and yet to be as it were a freak of nature; being neither here nor there. Human self-awareness has made man a stranger in the world, separate, lonely, and frightened. (Fromm, 1964, p. 113)

Fromm suggests it is this frightening contradiction and the quest to seek a solution that defines humankind. This search reveals choices, which are reflected in humans’ inherent ability for good or evil.

Early human societal existence tended to regress back to our unevolved roots—to our animalistic beginnings of nature and violence, our archaic selves, where the fear of the anxiety of separation can disappear. This regressive path is not just found in primitive religions but also found in pathological behavior involving necrophilia and narcissism. These are tendencies that may be repressed in a collective culture by laws and religions, but interestingly, if the tendencies are supported and shared by many, then consensus gives them credence, reason, and reality. This pathway of regression Fromm calls “the syndrome of decay” (Fromm, 1964, p. 114).

The opposite direction, following the “syndrome of growth,” is where the anxiety of separation is faced and transcended, and replaced by our love of life, where there is a “full development of human forces” (p. 114). This is the progressive path of life. Fromm suggests that in the majority of people, there is mostly a blend of the two orientations.

Fromm saw our cities as becoming more mechanistic, industrialized and commoditized, separating us further from nature and increasing our anxiety and even hate for life. In his 1964 book, he was expressing concern that, even when there are known extreme consequences, such as in war, there is a stronger societal drive to go to war than to oppose it, which represents the regressive path being the stronger force.

The potential for a triggered eruption of mass violence will always be present as long as there is any part of our archaic, regressive impulses within. Not until it is fully replaced by our love of life will this potential for regressive behavior go. At the same time, it is possible for our love of life to be fully replaced by the traits of regression. In either situation, the choice of which path to go down will be lost. It is of high importance, therefore, to retain the choice for prison inmates of which path to take, and it is highly preferable to not foster regressive tendencies.

Fromm considers there are three orientations along the progressive path—freedom and independence, love for neighbor and love of life or biophilia. Within the biophilic realm is the inherent motivation to live and survive that, as suggested by Fromm and other biologists and philosophers such as Spinoza (Fromm, 1964), all living substance possesses. Other biophilic qualities include the tendency to integrate and unite, to construct rather than just retain, to adventure to the new than stay with the certainty of the past, to use love and reason rather than force and control. “The biophilous conscience is motivated by its attraction to life and joy; the moral effort consists in strengthening the life-loving side in oneself” (Fromm, 1964, p. 43).

Fromm outlines the personal conditions he considers necessary for the development of biophilia, which include the following:

warm, affectionate contact with others during infancy,

freedom and the absence of threats,

teaching by example (not preaching) the principles of inner harmony and strength,

guidance in the “art of living,”

stimulating influence of and response to others and

a way of life that is generally interesting.

He concludes with the summation that being around people who have a love of life will foster a love of life in a child. Fromm considers the needed societal conditions as security, freedom, and justice (Fromm, 1964).

Fromm is not alone in his recognition of the relationship between environmental conditions and human psychology but he was certainly a pioneer in its modern conception. However, the more recent conceptualizing of the biophilic human being came in 1984 from sociobiologist Edward Wilson in his book Biophilia (Wilson, 1984). Wilson utilized the term biophilia to describe his deep feelings of connection to nature during a period of exploration and immersion in the natural world. Wilson was able to provide an evolutionary biologist’s view of the biophilic connection to nature as something that humans have evolved to need. Wilson, with fellow biologist Kellert, hypothesized that our connection with nature is innate and that we are genetically programmed to respond to nature physiologically as well as psychologically (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Our potential to have a love of life, to follow the progressive pathway, as outlined by Fromm, appears to also offer the potential to nurture health and well-being, and all this requires exposure and connection to the natural world in some form.

As Kellert suggests, the inherent need to affiliate with nature fulfills aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and spiritual cravings (Kellert, 1993). By positing that it was genetically innate, Wilson and Kellert took the term biophilia from Fromm’s inner psychological journey to a term extending into the contemporary biological. The two approaches of humanistic psychology and evolutionary biology have, therefore, overlapped and have reached the same conclusions. This blending of psychology and biology was greatly significant, as by introducing questioning about biological (physiological) responses to nature, a base for scientific testing of the biophilia hypothesis was established.

Testing the Theory: Physiological and Psychological Responses

Research on psychological responses to nature is increasing, with supporting physiological evidence through more sophisticated investigative technology also mounting. Positive responses are evident not only with direct exposure to nature but also where the patterns of nature, such as fractal patterns, and the spaces of nature, such as refuge and prospect, are found (Appleton, 1975; Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Heerwagen & Gregory, 2008;Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008; Ryan, Browning, Clancy, Andrews & Kallianpurkar, 2014; Salingaros & Masden, 2008; Taylor, 2006). Physiological and psychological studies support both Kaplan’s (1995) attention restoration theory and Ulrich’s stress recovery theory (Ulrich et al., 1991). The former theory proposes that prolonged directed attention and fatigue results in aggressive and irritable behavior and that exposure to nature assists recovery from this (Kaplan, 1995). In Ulrich’s studies, he found both physiological testing and verbal survey results indicated that recovery from stress was faster in a natural setting than an urban one. The physiological results also suggested an involvement of the parasympathetic nervous system in this recovery (Ulrich et al., 1991).

Studies since have shown that exposure to nature reduces heart rate variability and pulse rates, decreases blood pressure, lowers cortisol and increases parasympathetic nervous system activity, while decreasing sympathetic nervous system activity (Li et al., 2011; Matsunaga, Park, Kobayashi & Miyazaki, 2011; B. J. Park, Tsunetsugu, Kasetani, Kagawa & Miyazaki, 2010; Tyrväinen et al., 2014). These responses contribute to improved cognitive functioning, working memory and learning rates, and can also be triggered by indoor pot plants or even viewing pictures of nature (Berman, Jonides & Kaplan, 2008; Berto, 2005; Raanaas, Evensen, Rich, Sjøstrøm & Patil, 2011). In 2014, research by Ikei, Komatsu, Song, Himoro and Miyazaki demonstrated the use of both physiological and psychological markers. The study revealed that by simply viewing roses, parasympathetic nervous system activity increases, indicating lower stress and a greater sense of well-being (Ikei et al., 2014). Exposure to nature could be a valid supplement to treating depression and other disorders, with improvements to mood and memory span (Berman et al., 2012; Tyrväinen et al., 2014).

Reductions in pain and anxiety coupled with greater positive feelings have been exhibited in hospital patients with views of nature or potted plants in their rooms (Park, S.H. & Mattson, 2008; Ulrich, 1984). A study in Michigan revealed a 24% less frequency of health care visits for prison residents with views of nature (Moore, 1981). Increasing greenery in housing estates resulted in less violence and aggression, less crime, and better interpersonal relationships (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Studies by Guéguen and Stefan observed that short immersions in nature elicited a more positive mood and a greater desire to help others (Guéguen & Stefan, 2014).

It is not just direct exposure to the greenery of nature that has positive human responses. Researchers are discovering that there are different human responses to different natural forms and patterns. Prime among these are fractal patterns, which studies reveal relax and destress people (Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Ode, Hagerhall & Sang, 2010; Taylor, 2006; Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008).

From the research already reviewed, a list of sociopsychological benefits of exposure to nature and the patterns of nature can be compiled:

improved mental health (Berman et al., 2012; Tyrväinen et al., 2014; Ulrich, 1979; Ulrich et al., 1991),

reduced stress (Berman et al., 2008; Berman et al., 2012; Hagerhall et al., 2012; Ikei et al., 2014; Li et al., 2011; Matsunaga et al., 2011; B. J. Park et al., 2010; Taylor, 2006; Tyrväinen et al., 2014),

attention restoration (Berto, 2005; Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008; Kaplan, 1995; Raanaas et al. 2011),

increased well-being (Berman et al., 2008; Berman et al., 2012; Hagerhall et al., 2012; Ikei et al., 2014; Li et al., 2011; Tyrväinen et al., 2014),

decreased violence and crime (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001),

faster healing rates in hospitals (Moore, 1981; Park, S.H. & Mattson, 2008; Ulrich, 1984) and

greater altruistic behavior (Guéguen & Stefan, 2014).

The ability of architectural design to influence individuals’ physiological and psychological states is an extension of the biophilic connection to nature and the manifestation of Fromm’s theory of biophilia. Salingaros and Masden suggest that “environments devoid of neurologically nourishing information mimic signs of human pathology. Drab minimalist surfaces reproduce symptoms of strokes and macular degeneration, for example” (Salingaros & Masden, 2008, p. 69). Environments that are devoid of any representation of nature can not only make us psychologically unwell and regressive in our behavior but also make us display physical symptoms and responses. A recent study, which examined human responses to design stimuli, concluded that the primal flight or fight response is increased when individuals are exposed to hard-edged architecture rather than curving contours (Nanda, Pati, Ghamari & Bajema, 2013). They also suggested that this response is heightened when a person is already in a stressful environment such as a hospital (Nanda et al., 2013). This would also include the prison environment. Reductions in depression, stress and aggression, coupled with increased sociability, empathy and connection to living things, are characteristics and outcomes that prison administrators value and that aid reductions in recidivism (Nadkarni & Pacholke, 2013). They are qualities that reflect a shift from regressive tendencies to a progressive pathway.

The reason it is important to now take the biophilic design approach into prisons is that the new professional approaches to biophilia are going beyond the individual psychological insights about prisoners and their plight, taking us into how the overall design and management of every aspect of prison life can be reviewed from the perspective of whether an innate connection to nature is being fostered or denied.

Principles of Biophilic Design

Expression of biophilia through biophilic design in architecture has occurred throughout history, not always consciously, or even acknowledged, conveying a subjectiveness, which testifies to its inherent quality in humans. Nature can be mimicked by using the patterning, forms, materials, symbols and spaces, which represent nature and evoke similar responses. Christopher Alexander recognized this in his seminal book Pattern Language, though not using the term biophilia, he expressed similar insights:

Many of the patterns here are archetypal—so deep, so deeply rooted in the nature of things, that it seems likely that they will be a part of human nature, and human action, as much in 500 years as they are today. (Alexander, 1977, p. xvii)

As with biophilic design theory, Alexander believed that the pattern language of the nature of things in the environment “can make people feel alive and human” (Alexander, 1977). When we cannot surround ourselves with nature, architecture and landscapes that contain some archetypal natural elements have found expression in our urban design.

Emerging in the literature on biophilic design is a growing list of these patterns and spaces considered to stimulate our innate biological responses. Although most designers are unaware of their linkage to Fromm’s theories, the general acceptance of a psychological link to nature has its origins in Fromm’s work. Thus, they are design practitioners who build detailed principles of what Fromm was attempting to explain in theory. Heerwagen and Gregory (2008) outline seven attributes, whereas Kellert (2008) suggests there are six elements and 70 design attributes to biophilia. Ryan et al. (2014) outline 14 patterns of biophilia. In Table 1, the key design elements of biophilic architecture are summarized.

Table 1.

Patterns of Biophilic Design.


Nature in the spaceIncorporation of plants, water, and animals into the built environment, especially with movement.	Natural analoguesOne degree of separation away from true nature; patterns and materials that evoke nature.	Nature of the spaceThe way humans respond psychologically and physiologically to different spatial configurations.
1. Visual connection with nature—plants inside and out, green roofs and living walls, water, nature artwork	8. Biomorphic forms and patterns—organic building forms, structural systems (savannah effect)	11. Prospect—views, balconies, 6 m and above focal lengths, open floor plans
2. Nonvisual connection with nature—sun patches, textured materials, bird sounds, weather, nature scents	9. Material connection with nature—wood, earth and stone construction, natural colors	12. Refuge—protected spaces, overhead canopies or lowered ceilings, places providing concealment
3. Nonrhythmic sensory stimuli—clouds, shadows, nature sounds, water reflections	10. Complexity and order—fractal patterns, sky lines, plant selection and variety, material textures, and colors	13. Mystery—winding paths, obscured features, flowing forms
4. Access to thermal and airflow variability—shade, radiant heat, seasonal vegetation		14. Risk/peril—floor to ceiling windows, water walks, high walk ways
5. Presence of water—rivers, fountains, water walls, ponds, daylighted streams
6. Dynamic and diffuse light—light from different angles, ambient diffuse lighting, circadian lighting
7. Connection with natural systems—seasonal patterning, wildlife habitats, diurnal patterns

Source. Adapted from Ryan, Browning, Clancy, Andrews and Kallianpurkar (2014).

Not all these are possible or practical to be implemented within economic, safety and security constraints of prison design, but there is scope to incorporate biophilic design features to improve prisoners’ sense of well-being, mental health and behavior. Utilizing biophilic design to trigger biophilic responses gives support to the possibility of strengthening the innate qualities of individuals that can aid the progressive journey of life as outlined by Fromm.

The opportunity, therefore, exists to change the environment to nurture not the negative, but the positive responses, to enhance the physiological as well as the psychological. As much as the environment can cause negative reactions, environments can also enhance mental health and well-being, decreasing anxiety and stress. In the right environment, our innate love of life and connectedness can be nourished and sustained. We can journey on the progressive path of biophilia. Biophilic design focuses on strengthening the progressive pathway through provision of a greater exposure to nature and natural spaces and patterns, thus encouraging connection to, and love of, life and life processes.

Forward thinkers are now beginning to examine prevailing prison design, which reflects punishment by incarceration, and to recognize the potential to change and work toward rehabilitation of prisoners through biophilic design.

Biophilic Design in Prisons

Many of the conditions Fromm suggested for nourishment of biophilic tendencies are absent in our prisons and indeed would not be appropriate. It is probable that prison residents did not experience biophilic, or progressive, circumstances prior to incarceration. It is highly likely that environments that foster the necrophilic traits were the stronger influence. These could be childhood experiences and parental attitudes or general societal conditions. Fromm discusses the evolution of our industrialized, mechanically focused societies and the psychological impact: “. . . intellectualisation, quantification, abstractification, bureaucratisation and reification . . . are not the principles of life but those of mechanics. People living in such a system become indifferent to life and even attracted to death” (Fromm, 1964, p. 54). This mechanistic disconnect from nature has been portrayed in the design of our cities, architected by desire to overcome and separate from nature. The sterile blankness perpetuates a further disconnect, with abstract urban planning forgetting the intuitive more humanistic designs of our history. Our cities have become places where people are encouraged to consume and to commoditize, and where many of our urban spaces are constructed with design by modernist fashions and economics rather than design by health, well-being and a love of life. When the abstract, regressive human is nourished, anxiety and stress can be nurtured.

Our urban prison designs are an extension of this kind of urban design with the potential to reinforce narcissistic, mechanistic and necrophilic tendencies that may already have been established within the prison residents’ psyche. Fromm suggests that prolonged imprisonment may break a person’s psychic system, allowing the archaic tendencies to surge up (Fromm, 1964). Salingaros and Masden (2008) propose that “we will instinctively react in a negative manner to a built environment that is neurologically non-nourishing or actually causes physical anxiety and distress” (p. 68). An individual’s surroundings are highly influential on his or her psychological and physiological being with the potential to reinforce either the progressive or regressive pathway (Burns, 2005; Nanda et al., 2013; Nesse & Williams, 1995).

The prison cellblock and associated buildings are built with security and function as the criteria, creating an environment that forces the disconnect from life processes and reinforces the regressive pathway of isolation and narcissism. Historically, our prisons are designed to be effective in holding prisoners captive in a punishing manner, depriving them of comforts and reinforcing the fact that they have committed an offence. Prison designs tend to be bleak, sterile and barren, with incarceration within such a setting seen as the punishment (Lopez, 2014). Deprivation of freedom is extended by deprivation of sensory stimulus and connection to place. There is little opportunity to take Fromm’s progressive path, to nurture love, including the biophilic love of life. Ironically, with the majority of offenders likely to have stronger regressive tendencies, they are more in need of opportunity to foster qualities from the progressive path of life, rather than strengthening of the regressive path.

The application to prison design of biophilic principles is not yet a strong literature. Former penologist and criminologist, Lopez I Ferrer, who is now a senior corrections analyst and planner with a U.S. firm, expressed her views in a popular online blog regarding prison design. She provided a list of design inclusions that would align with concepts of rehabilitation, reintegration and “reduce stress, fear and trauma; spaces that stimulate motivation for participation in positive activities that reduce idleness and negative behaviour.” Included among these were biophilic attributes of nature, light, fresh air and a variety of spaces and views. Lopez also suggests that a more “normal” aesthetic design could help make “good neighbours” among the prisoners (Lopez, 2014).

As previously outlined, there is a large list of biophilic design elements, many of which could be adapted for the prison environment. Security and safety for both staff and prisoners would need to be a prime consideration with any application. Green walls that can be climbed, for example, should not be built near perimeter walls and smaller pot plants could be potential weapons. However, forms and spaces simulating the natural environment can be created and natural materials used. Soothing sounds of nature and variance in light, colors, nature scents and airflow aid the biophilic experience. Also, particularly applicable to the prison institution, are the elements of prospect and refuge, fractal patterning (complexity and order) and direct exposure to nature that are elaborated below. With all elements, though, aesthetics is a vital consideration. Although perceptions of aesthetics and beauty may be considered more subjective, there are commonalities that evoke innate responses (Guéguen & Stefan, 2014; Kellert, 2008; Kupfer, 2003; Tan & Chiang, 2009; White & Gatersleben, 2011; Wilson, 2008).

The design principles of fractal patterning, prospect, refuge and direct greenery have not only been historically utilized but are also adopted by many contemporary designers. Human responses to these design elements have attracted the attention of researchers. They are consistent with the psychological principles espoused by Fromm that are needed to enable progressive, life-giving outcomes. These are examined to generate some guidelines for how prisons could be modified for this purpose.

Prospect and Refuge

Appleton considered that our aesthetic reactions to landscape and architecture “are in part inborn” and, therefore, we cannot stray too far from the natural patterning before destroying our “aesthetic experience” (Appleton, 1975, p. viii). He posited that humans must seek to recreate something of the “primitive connection” with nature to maintain an experience of well-being. The prospect-refuge theory, then, conceived by Appleton suggests that individuals feel good when safe in a place of refuge, a feeling enhanced when they have a window overlooking life and the happenings around them. This reflects the innate protective need to survey for hazards from a place of safety (Appleton, 1975). Biophilic designers have elaborated on the concept, finding validity through experience, intuitive knowing and historical examples (Heerwagen & Gregory, 2008; Ryan et al., 2014; Wilson, 2008). Either refuge or prospect on its own can still contribute to a sense of well-being, but Appleton suggests the two together are the most appealing. Appleton also argues that for prospect and refuge to be most meaningful and evocative, a hazard needs to be present (Appleton, 1975). A prisoner’s cell, therefore, needs to feel safe and preferably have a view to evoke a sense of well-being. Spaces of sanctuary and refuge can also be created within the prison confines for prisoners to retreat to (or which can be also utilized for meetings with families and victims of crime). A sense of safety and well-being would assist the potential for successful outcomes from these meetings.

A popular and acclaimed small park in downtown New York City demonstrates these biophilic design principles of prospect and refuge. Proportionally, it provides a sense of refuge, while allowing a view of the street. Overhead is a canopy of trees, aiding the sense of safety while green surrounding walls and a waterfall complete the immersive and destressing biophilic experience. Similar spaces could be created in prisons (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Paley Park, New York City.

Fractal Patterning

Self-replicating patterns that occur at increasingly smaller magnification are found throughout nature and are known as fractal patterns. Research suggests that these patterns relax and destress people (Hagerhall et al., 2012). Viewing nature, especially the richer patterns, is literally pleasurable due to the stimulation of the mu-opiod receptors in the human brain and greater endomorphin release (Biederman & Vessel, 2006). Although seen throughout architecture and art and intuitively appreciated, it is only recently that measurement of the psychological and physiological responses to fractal patterns has occurred (Ode et al., 2010; Stamps, 2002; Taylor, 2006). It was found that certain fractal dimensions trigger more intense physiological responses, with many of these responses indicative of stress reduction (Taylor, 2006). Taylor (2006) suggests how incorporating a rich variety of fractal patterns into buildings can be useful in situations where “people are deprived of nature’s fractals.” Patterning can be included in the building fabric as well as with strategically placed artwork and offers great potential for stress reduction in a prison environment. Fences and shade awnings could easily incorporate patterning that simulates the dappling of light provided by trees, as in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

A wall designed for a women’s prison combining aesthetics with fractal patterns while being representative to the women of their “twisting and turning” journeys through life.

Direct Nature

The advancing technology of green roofs and green walls, coupled with creative designers, is providing innovative techniques of incorporating greater greenery and nature into our building fabric (Newman, 2014; Newman, Beatley & Blagg, 2013; Söderlund & Newman, 2015). While prison gardening programs are proving successful in prisoner rehabilitation (Chettle, 2014; Washington State Department of Corrections & The Evergreen State College, 2014), these techniques are providing further options for incorporation of greenery into prison design. Vertical living walls can not only provide aesthetic greenery but also provide the possibility for food growing and building projects for the prison residents. Although pot plants have been shown to increase productivity and health benefits indoors (Nieuwenhuis, Knight, Postmes & Haslam, 2014), careful incorporation of either these or green walls would be needed so as to not provide a security risk. Pot plants and green walls within staff and visitor areas could be a viable option to aid stress reduction for both staff and visitors. Green courtyards, which may include other biophilic features, could offer an immersive experience for staff, residents and visitors.

Biophilic Design for Sustainability

Utilization of biophilic principles in architecture and urban design offers more than the social benefits mentioned. Significant global research is revealing the multiple environmental benefits that this design approach offers. Economic benefits result from both social and environmental outcomes. These are briefly listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Environmental and Economic Benefits.

Environmental benefits	Economic benefits
Water management: including reduction in water pollutionAir pollution: plus carbon reduction and phytoremediationBiodiversity: both ecosystem services and species retention and regenerationEnergy: reduction of urban heat island effect and reduction of energy consumption	Increased worker productivityHealth and healing benefitsIncreased retail potentialDecreased violence and crimeIncreased property value and employee attractionIncreased livability enabling higher density and reduced footprint

Source. Söderlund and Newman (2015).

Reduction of energy consumption through green roofs and walls, improved air quality, increased food grown on site, prolonging of building life, cooling of the prison environment, water management plus the health and healing benefits would make economic sense in reducing prison operating costs and even enable greater autonomy in delivering ecosystem services.

Aiding the economic viability of biophilic design in prisons is the ability to utilize biophilic projects to upskill prisoners. Many prisons currently offer opportunities to learn new skills in workshops. Building of green walls, green roofs, growing food or design and construction of biophilic spaces by the prisoners greatly reduces not only installation costs but also ongoing maintenance costs as these skills can be taught and then provided by prisoners. Construction of a green wall by inmates has successfully occurred in a medium security prison in Western Australia and is still thriving. Apart from improving the mental health of prisoners, the additional benefit is that upon release, inmates have a skill, which greatly increases employment opportunities.

The prison environment also offers a unique opportunity for further research on biophilic design and the human responses, particularly the mental health. It is a closed, controlled and self-contained “precinct,” which is ideal for research. Limitations would be potential intrusions on prisoners’ rights and privacy, which would need to be carefully addressed. Prisoner physiological and psychological responses to variations in cells (e.g., bare, with pictures of nature, with plants) could easily be measured through questionnaires and monitoring skin conductance, heart rates and electroencephalograms (EEGs), for example.

Nature in Prisons: Biophilic Beginnings

Although not focused on the deeper perspective of Fromm’s biophilia, there are a few prisons globally that provide opportunities for residents to connect with animals, nature and the rhythms of nature. India’s Tihar prison is an example where this does happen, with residents immersed in gardens and food production.

Recognition of the potential benefits of approaches such as Tihar may be an increasing response to contemporary prison problems. Studies in other institutions such as hospitals and schools (Haluza, Schönbauer & Cervinka, 2014; Kimmelman, 2014; Matsunaga et al., 2011; Park, S.H. & Mattson, 2008; Ulrich, 2002) have documented the positive impact of exposure to nature for individuals situated in these places. These research results can be applied to prisons and extended through corroborative studies, such as Nadkarni and Pacholke (2013). Some strategic initiatives toward rehabilitation, better mental health and increased well-being are being implemented in prisons where policy and personnel are conducive. Many of these involve nature-based activities and observation and anecdotal evidence by prison staff confirm the benefits, as illustrated in the examples below.

Biophilia in the U.S. Prison System

The Sustainability in Prisons Project has been operating in the United States for the last 10 years as a partnership founded by the Washington State Department of Corrections and The Evergreen State College. The project’s mission is to bring science and nature into prisons. Through collaborative and educational projects, the Sustainable Prisons Project’s mission includes helping to reduce “the environmental, economic and human costs of prisons by inspiring and informing sustainable practices” (Washington State Department of Corrections & The Evergreen State College, 2014). There are now programs in 12 correctional centers in Washington State in the United States, all achieving positive results with their inmates. Their website contains inspiring stories from inmates who have learned skills, which have led to a sense of achievement and provided a path to follow upon their release. One story is of an inmate who coauthored a peer-reviewed paper, presented at a conference and has since gone to graduate school in molecular biology (Ulrich, C. & Nadkarni, 2009).

A current project at the Snake River corrections facility in Oregon is experiencing the deeper outcomes of behavioral change in line with Fromm’s biophilic theory. The media interest and reports reflect a significant story. Nalini Nadkarni was a professor at the Evergreen State College who was involved in the Sustainability in Prisons Project. At this time, she worked with segregated inmates in “supermax facilities” showing them various nature photos to research which photos residents found calming. Her idea was then to put nature imagery on the walls of solitary cells. Although the administrators agreed to trial the idea, the security guards were against it, feeling the initiative was “coddling the men” (Denson, 2014; Libby, 2014). A few years later, after viewing a Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) talk on her idea (Nadkarni, 2010), a Snake River corrections officer was intrigued enough to contact Nadkarni and, with the prison authorities’ approvals, a “Blue Room” was set up for the use of the prisoners who are in bleak, barren cells. Typically, after sometime in these barren cells, their behavior deteriorates, with increased mental health issues, suicides and increased violence. The Blue Room screens nature movies and prisoners are given opportunities to spend time sitting in the room. So far, disciplinary records and prisoner compliance are revealing positive results, enough to warrant rigorous research which Nadkarni and her team began in October, 2014.

Biophilia in the Australian Prison System

A news story on the ABC website (Chettle, 2014) outlines a project occurring in a New South Wales (NSW) prison on the east coast of Australia. The St. Heliers Correctional Centre at Muswellbrook in the NSW Hunter Valley is currently producing about 70% of its food, with similar programs operating in other NSW correctional facilities set to expand. Besides reducing the food bill for these institutions, there are positive benefits from training and upskilling inmates. NSW Attorney General and Justice Minister Brad Hazzard hopes that the rate of recidivism through the program will decline, a comment agreed with by inmates who have been involved (Chettle, 2014).

A similar program has been established in a Western Australian prison near Perth, a prison that is keen to trial biophilic design initiatives to reduce stress, reduce recidivism and increase the success of restorative justice programs. The prison has employed residents to build a small green wall near the facility manager’s office, with plans to trial bigger ones in suitable locations. They have also built green houses to grow commercial lettuces with great success, both with the produce and with the residents involved in the project.

Conclusion

From researching the current literature, it appears that, although a small number of prison farms and gardening programs have been successfully implemented globally, the incorporation of biophilic initiatives within prison design is a new and emerging field with few researched trials on the benefits of applying biophilic principles. Biophilic design has grown from a general need to link people in cities with nature in their everyday life. This approach that has been derived from evolutionary biology overlaps precisely with the insights of Erich Fromm in humanistic psychology. Fromm’s theories of the regressive and progressive pathways of life and the influences that support either pathway suggest the importance of connecting individuals with biophilia through biophilic design. Fostering a biophilic love of life is an essential component of steering prison inmates from further regression into a “life of decay” to a life where altruism and a sense of belonging are the greater forces. There is opportunity and potential to improve mental health and well-being for prison residents, which can lead to a reduction in recidivism. Assisting prisoner rehabilitation and providing an opportunity to retain or increase their level of humanity would ultimately benefit all society.

The ability of nature and the architectural patterns of nature to trigger positive psychological and physiological forces are a valid and valuable tool. Research has provided the generic evidence and technology has provided the ability, to not only implement biophilic initiatives, but to also monitor outcomes. It is time to now show it in prisons. Detailed demonstration projects are needed that can establish biophilic designs in prisons and collect data on the physiological and psychological outcomes of people in highly stressed environments.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jana Söderlund, PhD, recently completed a PhD, which framed biophilic design as an emergent social movement, based on 3 months global research. She is currently director of Green Roofs Australia, director of Design by Nature, and an adjunct research fellow at Curtain University Perth, Western Australia.

Peter Newman, PhD, is professor of sustainability at the Curtain University Sustainability Policy Institute, Perth, Western Australia. The author of 17 books and 287 refereed publications on many aspects of sustainable cities, including biophilic urbanism, he was awarded a 2014 Order of Australia for his work on urban design and sustainable transport.

References

Alexander

(1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Appleton

(1975). The experience of landscape. London, England: John Wiley.

Berman

M. G.

Jonides

Kaplan

(2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212.

Berman

M. G.

Kross

Krpan

K. M.

Askren

M. K.

Burson

Deldin

P. J.

Jonides

(2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300-305.

Berto

(2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.

Biederman

Vessel

E. A.

(2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain: A novel theory explains why the brain craves information and seeks it through the senses. American Scientist, 94, 247-253.

Birmingham

(1999). Between prison and the community, the “revolving door psychiatric patrient” of the nineties: Editorial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 378-379.

Burns

(2005). Naturally happy, naturally healthy: The role of the environment in well-being. In Huppert

F. A.

Baylis

Keverne

(Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 405-434). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Butler

Allnutt

Cain

Owens

Muller

(2005). Mental disorder in the New South Wales prisoner population. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 407-413.

10.

Chettle

(2014, June 30). Self sufficient prisons: NSW inmates grow their own food, saving Corrective Services $4 million a year. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-30/nsw-prisoners-grow-their-own-food-save-taxpayers-money/5555708

11.

Denson

(2014, August 21). Oregon prison tackles solitary confinement with Blue Room experiment. The Oregonian. Retrieved from http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/oregon_prison_tackles_solitary.html

12.

Fazel

Bailargeon

(2011). The health of prisoners. The Lancet, 377, 956-965.

13.

Fazel

Danesh

(2002). Serious mental disorder in 23 000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62 surveys. The Lancet, 359, 545-550.

14.

Fraser

Gatherer

Hayton

(2009). Mental health in prisons: Great difficulties but are there opportunities? Public Health, 123, 410-414.

15.

Fromm

(1941). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

16.

Fromm

(1961). The art of loving. London: Allen & Unwin.

17.

Fromm

(1964). The heart of man. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

18.

Fromm

(1976). To have or to be? New York; London, England: Harper & Row, Jonathan Cape.

19.

Guéguen

Stefan

(2014). “Green altruism”: Short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 48(2), 324-342. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514536576

20.

Gunn

Maden

Swinton

(1991). Treatment needs of prisoners with psychiatric disorders. British Medical Journal, 303, 338-341.

21.

Hagerhall

C. M.

Laike

Taylor

Küller

Marcheschi

Boydston

Thwaites

(2012, June 24-29). Human EEG responses to exact and statistical fractal patterns. Paper presented at the, 22nd International Association of People-Environment Studies IAPS, Glasgow, Scotland.

22.

Haluza

Schönbauer

Cervinka

(2014). Green perspectives for public health: A narrative review on the physiological effects of experiencing outdoor nature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 5445-5461.

23.

Haney

(2003). The psychological impact of incarceration, implications for postprison adjustment. In Travis

Waul

(Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families and communities (pp. 33-66). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

24.

Heerwagen

Gregory

(2008). Biophilia and sensory aesthetics. In Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

Mador

M. L.

(Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 227-241). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

25.

Ikei

Komatsu

Song

C. R.

Himoro

Miyazaki

(2014). The physiological and psychological relaxing effects of viewing rose flowers in office workers. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 33(6), 1-5. doi:10.1186/1880-6805-33-6

26.

Jordan

(2011). The prison setting as a place of enforced residence, its mental health effects and the mental healthcare implications. Health and Place, 17, 1061-1066.

27.

Kaplan

(1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.

28.

Kellert

S. R.

(1993). Introduction. In Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

29.

Kellert

S. R.

(2008). Dimensions, elements and attributes of biophilic design. In Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

Mador

M. L.

(Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 3-19). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

30.

Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

(2008). Preface. In Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

Mador

M. L.

(Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. vii-ix). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

31.

Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(1993). The Biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

32.

Kimmelman

(2014, August 21). In redesigned room, hospital patients may feel better already. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/arts/design/in-redesigned-room-hospital-patients-may-feel-better-already.html?_r=0

33.

Kuo

F. E.

Sullivan

W. C.

(2001). Environment and crime in the inner city—Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behaviour, 33, 343-367.

34.

Kupfer

J. H.

(2003). Engaging nature aesthetically. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37, 77-89.

35.

Otsuka

Kobayashi

Wakayama

Inagaki

Katsumata

Kagawa

(2011). Acute effects of walking in forest environments on cardiovascular and metabolic parameters. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111, 2845-2853.

36.

Libby

(2014). The Blue Room, biophilia and retrofitting Oregon’s prisons. Retrieved from http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2014/08/the-blue-room-and-biophilia.html

37.

Lopez

(2014). How to build for success: Prison design and infrastructure as a tool for rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.penalreform.org/blog/build-success-prison-design-infrastructure-tool-rehabilitation/

38.

Matsunaga

Park

B. J.

Kobayashi

Miyazaki

(2011). Physiologically relaxing effect of a hospital rooftop forest on older women requiring care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 59, 2162-2163.

39.

Moore

E. O.

(1981). A prison environment’s effect on health care service demands. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11(1), 17-34.

40.

Nadkarni

N. M.

(2010). Life science in prison. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/nalini_nadkarni_life_science_in_prison/transcript?language=en

41.

Nadkarni

N. M.

Pacholke

D. J.

(2013). Bringing sustainability and science to the incarcerated. In Appleton

(Ed.), Values in sustainable development (pp. 235-243). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

42.

Nanda

Pati

Ghamari

Bajema

(2013). Lessons from neuroscience: Form follows function, emotions follow form. Intelligent Buildings International, 5, 61-78.

43.

Nesse

R. M.

Williams

G. C.

(1995). Evolution and healing: The new science of Darwinian medicine. London, England: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

44.

Newman

(2014). Biophilic urbanism: A case study on Singapore. Australian Planner, 51(1), 47-65.

45.

Newman

Beatley

Blagg

(2013). Singapore Biophilic City. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMWOu9xIM_k

46.

Nieuwenhuis

Knight

Postmes

Haslam

S. A.

(2014). The relative benefits of green versus lean office space: Three field experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 199-214.

47.

Nurse

Woodcock

Ormsby

(2003). Influence of environmental factors on mental health within prisons: Focus Group Study. British Medical Journal, 327, 480-483.

48.

Ode

Å.

Hagerhall

C. M.

Sang

. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35, 111-131.

49.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

(2002). Identifying and accommodating the needs of mentally ill people in gaols and prisons. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 1-33.

50.

Park

B. J.

Tsunetsugu

Kasetani

Kagawa

Miyazaki

(2010). The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15(1), 18-26.

51.

Park

S. H.

Mattson

R. H.

(2008). Effects of flowering and foliage plants in hospital rooms on patients recovering from abdominal surgery. Horttechnology, 18, 563-568.

52.

Picken

(2012). The coping strategies, adjustment and well being of male inmates in the prison environment. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-29. Retrieved from http://studylib.net/doc/8657392/the-coping-strategies–adjustment-and-well-being-of-male-

53.

Raanaas

R. K.

Evensen

K. H.

Rich

Sjøstrøm

Patil

(2011). Benefits of indoor plants on attention capacity in an office setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 99-105.

54.

Ryan

C. O.

Browning

W. O.

Clancy

J. O.

Andrews

S. L.

Kallianpurkar

N. B.

(2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. Archnet International Journal of Architectural Research, 8(2), 62-76.

55.

Salingaros

N. A.

Masden

K. G.

(2008). Neuroscience, the natural environment, and building design. In Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

J. H.

Mador

M. L.

(Eds.), Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 59-83). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

56.

Soderlund

Newman

(2015). Biophilic architecture: A review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2, 950-969. doi:10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950

57.

Stamps

A. E.

(2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 163-184.

58.

Tan

Chiang

(2009). Vertical greenery for the tropics. Singapore: Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology.

59.

Taylor

R. P.

(2006). Reduction of physiological stress using fractal art and architecture. Leonardo, 39, 245-251.

60.

Tenngart Ivarsson

Hagerhall

C. M

. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of gardens—Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 7, 107-118. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.01.001

61.

Tyrväinen

Ojala

Korpela

Lanki

Tsunetsugu

Kagawa

(2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 1-9.

62.

Ulrich

Nadkarni

N. M.

(2009). Sustainability research and practices in enforced residential institutions: Collaborations of ecologists and prisoners. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11, 815-832.

63.

Ulrich

R. S.

(1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being (National Parks). Landscape Research, 4, 17-23.

64.

Ulrich

R. S.

(1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421.

65.

Ulrich

R. S.

(2002, April 6-October 20). Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. Paper presented at the Plants for People: International Exhibition Floriade, Haarlemmerme, The Netherlands.

66.

Ulrich

R. S.

Simons

R. F.

Losito

B. D.

Fiorito

Miles

M. A.

Zelson

(1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.

67.

Washington State Department of Corrections, & The Evergreen State College. (2014). Sustainability in prisons project (SPP). Available from http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/

68.

White

E. V.

Gatersleben

(2011). Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 89-98.

69.

Wilson

E. O.

(1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

70.

Wilson

E. O.

(2008). The nature of human nature. In Kellert

S. R.

Heerwagen

Mador

M. L.

(Eds.), Biophilic design : The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 21-25). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

71.

World Health Organization & International Association for Suicide Prevention. (2007). Preventing suicide in jails and prisons. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/resource_jails_prisons.pdf

72.

Wright

Jordan

Kane

(2014). Mental health/illness and prisons as place: Frontline clinicians’ perspectives of mental health work in a penal setting. Health and Place, 29, 179-185.