buildings

Article
Online Public Feedback on Mid- to High-Rise Biophilic Buildings:
A Study of the Asia–Pacific Region over the Past Decade
Yue Liu 1 and Xiangmin Guo 2, *

1 School of Architecture and Built Environment, North Terrace Campus, University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; [email protected]
2 School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-136-3257-2636

Abstract: Over the past decade, biophilic architecture has been widely developed across the Asia–
Pacific region. However, there is a notable lack of research based on online public reviews focusing on
mid- to high-rise biophilic buildings, especially quantitative studies combining traditional architec-
tural design features. This study aims to fill this gap by analyzing the typical floor plans and online
public reviews of nine renowned biophilic buildings in the Asia–Pacific region. Using space syntax
and natural language processing tools, the design features of typical floor plans and public feedback
will be analyzed separately, and their correlation will be evaluated. Additionally, the content of
negative and low-score reviews will be categorized to identify issues in current biophilic building
designs. The findings suggest that biophilic design can stimulate widespread public discussion, with
large direct blue–green elements receiving overwhelming attention. However, biophilic elements
can also lead to negative sentiments due to factors like humidity, high temperatures, mold, and
insects. This study provides insights and design recommendations for future biophilic buildings,
demonstrating the value of biophilic design in public reviews and emphasizing the need to balance
these factors to enhance public satisfaction and acceptance.

Keywords: biophilic architecture; biophilic design; natural language processing; space syntax; typical
floor plan
Citation: Liu, Y.; Guo, X. Online
Public Feedback on Mid- to High-Rise
Biophilic Buildings: A Study of the
Asia–Pacific Region over the Past 1. Introduction
Decade. Buildings 2024, 14, 2394.
Humans have a deep-rooted desire to live in harmony with nature, often referred to
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings14082394
as “Poetically Man Dwells” [1]. This understanding is the foundation of “biophilic archi-
tecture” [2]. In recent years, advancements in technology and craftsmanship have led to
Academic Editor: Pierfrancesco a surge in biophilic buildings worldwide, aiming to address environmental challenges [3],
De Paola achieve sustainability goals [4,5], and bridge the gap between urban culture and nature [6]. In
Received: 17 July 2024 urban environments, nature not only alleviates pollution and urban heat island effects but
Revised: 31 July 2024 also addresses social issues such as mental health and crime [7–9]. Existing studies indicate
Accepted: 1 August 2024 that direct exposure to natural elements significantly benefits human attention restoration,
Published: 2 August 2024 emotional stress improvement, and cognitive function [10–12]. Moreover, these biophilic
buildings often attract widespread attention from public media due to their striking visual
designs and receive positive feedback regarding commercial space experiences [3,13,14].
Previous research on biophilic architecture largely consists of case studies [15–19].
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Watchman et al. [15] evaluated biophilic characteristics in school buildings using architec-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. tural parameters in three elementary schools in Canada. Yaseen and Mustafa [16] explored
This article is an open access article
quantitative assessment methods for biophilic design in nine school buildings using spatial
distributed under the terms and
syntax, validated by surveys of local teachers and students. Watchman et al. [17] studied
conditions of the Creative Commons
design vocabulary and development patterns of biophilic school buildings in cold, humid
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
regions based on six cases. Zhong et al. [18] analyzed “natural” design in three-dimensional
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
green spaces using a biophilic design framework based on semi-structured interviews,
4.0/).

Buildings 2024, 14, 2394. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082394 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 2 of 17

design document analysis, and field observations in two building practices. DeLauer
et al. [19] investigated the impact of natural environments and biophilic design on resi-
dential undergraduates through surveys at a rural campus in the USA. Nanu et al. [13]
used semantic analysis of customer reviews to study the impact of biophilic design in hotel
lobbies on customer choices.
However, most of previous studies’ case selections are not focused on typical bio-
philic architectures or buildings using “biophilia” as a selling point [15–19]. Moreover,
spatial experience perception relies on spatial psychological processes [20,21], influenced
by both the readability of the objective spatial environment and individual subjective
differences [22]. Spatial readability is primarily affected by two-dimensional layout char-
acteristics and three-dimensional visual markers [21]. Current research lacks exploration
of the relationship between classic architectural concepts such as spatial depth and broad
public (general user) evaluations. Additionally, there is a notable lack of studies on typical
floors in mid-high-rise and high-rise buildings. Lower-height buildings or the ground floor
of high-rise buildings can integrate with the site through landscape design, achieving a
high biophilic level and potentially becoming part of the natural landscape. In contrast,
biophilic experiences in mid-high-rise and high-rise buildings are mainly provided by the
building’s internal spaces, less influenced by surrounding environments, making it easier
to clarify the impact of biophilic architectural design on spatial experiences.
Therefore, this study aims to fill the current research gap in biophilic architecture by
examining subjective user evaluations and objective spatial design characteristics. Based
on Google Maps reviews of nine representative high-level biophilic projects in the Asia–
Pacific region over the past decade, this study explores the relationship between the design
characteristics of typical floors and public online reviews. The findings reveal that all
buildings received highly positive reviews related to architectural and spatial environments,
with a high proportion of mentions of “biophilic” experience. Quantitative analysis of these
reviews and spatial design characteristics showed that a larger amount of natural elements
led to higher mention frequencies of “biophilic”; negative sentiment levels were correlated
with visual integration and the visual clustering coefficient. However, no significant
correlations were found between other design features such as the biophilic element ratio,
spatial connectivity, and the accessibility of biophilic elements and reviews. Additionally,
it was found that comments mentioning biophilic elements generally had slightly lower
positive sentiment, slightly higher negative sentiment, and a higher proportion of neutral
sentiment compared to overall space design evaluations. Nonetheless, the overall sentiment
score for comments mentioning biophilic elements was more positive. This indicates
that the public may have higher expectations for biophilic elements, leading to more
dissatisfaction and criticism of specific details, but overall, they still recognize the positive
impact of this design concept. Negative comments mainly focused on hygiene issues caused
by moisture, insects, dead branches, noise problems, and unmet expectations for close
contact with biophilic elements. Some also believe artificial nature is “absurd”, preferring
the external view over living inside.
It should be noted that this study analyzed only nine cases (biophilic design concepts in
mid- to high-rise buildings are costly, thus limiting the sample size), which may significantly
limit the findings and conclusions. However, these results can still provide valuable
references for designing more effective and comfortable biophilic buildings in the future.
Architects, urban planners, developers, policymakers, and environmental psychologists
can leverage the insights from this study to advocate for and implement biophilic principles
in architectural development projects. By using better biophilic design, they can create
environments that enhance human well-being and satisfaction, ultimately contributing to
more sustainable and enjoyable building spaces.
The subsequent sections of this paper present the methodology and materials, results,
discussion, conclusions, and reflections of the study, providing a detailed examination of
the methods used, the findings obtained, and their implications for the field of biophilic
design, along with ideas for future research.
 The subsequent sections of this paper present the methodology and materials, re-
sults, discussion, conclusions, and reflections of the study, providing a detailed examina-
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 tion of the methods used, the findings obtained, and their implications for the field 3ofof 17
biophilic design, along with ideas for future research.

2.2.Materials
Materialsand
and Methods
Methods
2.1.
2.1.Research
ResearchProcess
Process
Figure11presents
Figure presents the
the flow of research
researchprocess.
process.

Figure1.1.Flow
Figure Flowchart
chart of
of research
research process.
process.

Given the
Given the complexity
complexity and
and integrative
integrativenature
natureofofmodern
modernbiophilic
biophilic architecture,
architecture, thethe
definitionand
definition and classification
classification of
of biophilic
biophilicbuildings
buildingsremain
remain ambiguous
ambiguous or or
contentious
contentious [3]. [3].
Manystudies
Many studiesareare dedicated
dedicated toto the
theanalysis
analysisofofconcepts
concepts and
andtheoretical
theoreticalframeworks
frameworks [23,24].
[23,24].
Stephenand
Stephen andCalabrese
Calabrese [25] proposed
proposedaathree-category
three-categoryoverview
overview ofof
biophilic
biophilicarchitectural
architectural
designfrom
design froman anexperiential
experiential perspective:
perspective:directdirectexposure
exposure ofofnatural
naturalelements
elements in the space,
in the space,
such as light, water, and plants; indirect contact through the symbolization
such as light, water, and plants; indirect contact through the symbolization or material- or materiali-
zation of
ization of natural
naturalelements,
elements,suchsuch asaswood
wood andandnature-themed
nature-themed artworks; and simulation
artworks; of
and simulation
local culture and sense of place. However, the third category has a strong
of local culture and sense of place. However, the third category has a strong relationship relationship
withindividual
with individual experiences
experiences and
and isishard
hardtotoquantify.
quantify.Therefore,
Therefore, this study
this studyfocuses
focuseson on
thethe
quantifiable analysis and discussion of the first two categories of biophilic
quantifiable analysis and discussion of the first two categories of biophilic design. design.
ToToquantitatively
quantitatively assess
assess the
the biophilic
biophilicdesign
designofofbuilding
buildingspaces
spaces using
usinga consistent
a consistent
standard, this study focuses on the easily quantifiable, directly exposed natural elements
standard, this study focuses on the easily quantifiable, directly exposed natural elements in
in the objective spatial analysis phase. A traditional architectural and spatial analysis tool,
the objective spatial analysis phase. A traditional architectural and spatial analysis tool,
Depthmap+ Beta 1.0 [26], was used to analyze the design characteristics of typical floors.
Depthmap+ Beta 1.0 [26], was used to analyze the design characteristics of typical floors.
Using the NLTK corpus [27], researchers then conducted natural language processing on
Using the NLTK corpus [27], researchers then conducted natural language processing
public comments from Google Maps. Sentences related to building evaluation and spatial
on public comments from Google Maps. Sentences related to building evaluation and
design were filtered, and comments mentioning direct and indirect natural elements were
spatial design were filtered, and comments mentioning direct and indirect natural elements
classified. These text groups underwent sentiment analysis, text clustering, word fre-
were classified. These text groups underwent sentiment analysis, text clustering, word
quency analysis, and negative content semantic analysis. Finally, the correlation between
frequency analysis, and negative content semantic analysis. Finally, the correlation between
the analyzed results of public reviews and the objective design characteristics of typical
the analyzed
floors results ofdiscussing
was examined, public reviews and theand
the strengths objective design
weaknesses of characteristics of typical
biophilic architectural
floors was examined, discussing the strengths and
design. Detailed technical methods can be found in Section 2.3. weaknesses of biophilic architectural
design. Detailed technical methods can be found in Section 2.3.
2.2. Case Selection
2.2. Case Selection
Given the study s objective to analyze public reviews of biophilic architecture and fill
the Given
currentthe study’sgap
research objective to analyze
in quantitative public based
analysis reviewsonoftypical
biophilic architecture
floor plans, whileand fill the
mini-
current
mizingresearch gap inofquantitative
the influence surroundinganalysis basedit on
landscapes, wastypical floor
essential to plans,
definewhile minimizing
the criteria for
the influence of surrounding landscapes, it was essential to define the criteria for selecting
representative cases. In this study, “representative” was determined by “famous”, “mid-
high-rise or high-rise”, and “notable buildings designed with biophilic concepts”. “Famous”
denotes designs by globally renowned firms and those awarded international accolades (see
specifics in Table 1). “Mid-high-rise or high-rise” buildings are defined as exceeding 5 floors
and having typical plans higher than surrounding trees. “Notable buildings designed with
biophilic concepts” refers to projects explicitly identified in official statements or recognized
by architectural publications as biophilic (see details in Table 1).
 national
national accoladesdenotes
cepts”. “Famous”
accolades (see specifics
(see specifics in Table
designs
in Table 1). “Mid-high-rise
by globally
1). “Mid-high-rise or high-rise”
renowned firms
or high-rise”
and thosebuildings
awardedare
buildings are de-
inter-
de-
cepts”.
national“Famous”
accoladesdenotes
(see designs
specifics in by globally
Table 1). renowned firms
“Mid-high-rise or and those
high-rise” awardedare
buildings inter-
de-
fined as
national
fined exceeding 5
accolades (see
as exceeding
exceeding floors and
specifics having typical
in Tabletypical plans higher
1). “Mid-high-rise than
or surrounding
high-rise” buildingstrees.
are “No-
de-
national
fined
table
fined as
buildings
as 555 floors
accolades (seefloors
designed
exceeding
and having
specifics
and
with
floors and
having
in Tabletypical
biophilic
having
plans higher
concepts”
typical
higheror
1). “Mid-high-rise
plans
refers
plans to
higher
than surrounding
high-rise”
than
projects
than
buildings
surrounding
explicitly
surrounding
trees.
are
trees.
identified
trees.
“No-
de-
“No-
in
“No-
table buildings
fined
table buildings designed
as exceeding 5 floors
designed with biophilic
andbiophilic
with concepts”
having typical refers
plans
concepts” to projects
higher
refers to projects explicitly identified
than surrounding
explicitly identified
trees. “No- in
in
official
table
official statements
buildings
statements or
designedrecognized
with
or recognized
recognized by architectural
biophilic concepts”
by architectural
architectural publications
refers to as biophilic
projects
publications explicitly
as biophilic
biophilic (see details
identified
(see in
details in
table
officialbuildings designed
statements or with biophilic
by concepts” publications
refers to projects
as explicitly(see
identified
details in
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 Table
official 1).
Table 1).statements or recognized by architectural publications as biophilic (see
1).statements or recognized by architectural publications as biophilic (see 4details details in
official
Table of 17 in
Table 1).
Table 1).
Table 1.
Table 1. Case
Case study
study selection
selection of
of biophilic
biophilic buildings.
buildings.
Table
Table 1.
1. Case
Case study
study selection
selection of
of biophilic
biophilic buildings.
buildings.
NO
NO
Name
Name TableTable
Designer
Designer Case
1.Time
Time 1. Location
Case study
study
Location selection
selection
Function
Function of biophilic
of biophilic
Density
Density buildings.
buildings.
Awards
Awards
Appearance Photo
Appearance Photo
Design Concept
Design Concept
NO Name Designer Time Location Function Density Awards Appearance Photo Design Concept
NO Name Designer Time Location Function Density Best TallAwards Building Appearance Photo Design Concept
NO NO NameName Designer
Designer Time Location
Time Location Function
Function Density Best
Density Awards
Tall
Awards Building Appearance Photo
Appearance Photo Design Concept
Design Concept
Best
In TheTall Building
World Vertical landscapes cover-
Best
In The Tall Building
World Vertical landscapes cover-
Ateliers Jean Best
In The
(2014); Tall Building
World
Best Tall Vertical
ing 50% landscapes
of the façades, cover-
Ateliers Jean Apart- In The World
(2014); Best Tall Vertical
ing 50% landscapes
of the façades, cover-
One Cen- Ateliers
Nouvel Jean
Ateliers and
Jean Sydney, Apart-
Apart- Super In The World
(2014);
Building
(2014);
Best
In Tall
Best Asia
Tall
Vertical
ing 50% landscapes
combining
ing 50%
of the
of green
the
façades,
walls
façades,
cover-
1 OneOne Cen- OCP Ateliers
Nouvel Jean and 2014 Sydney, ments/Ho-
Apart- Super (2014);
Building In Tall
Best Asia combining
ing 50% green
of the walls
façades,
1 Cen- OCP Nouvel
tral Park PTW and 2014 Australia
Archi- Sydney, ments/Ho- Super Building
High Best
and Aus-
Tall BuildingIn Asia
In The combining
and Vertical green
landscapes
sustainable walls
strategies
1 One Cen- OCP PTW
tral Park Nouvel and 2014 Australia
Archi- Apart-
Sydney, ments/Ho-
tel Super
High Building
and Aus- In Asia combining
and 50%green
sustainable
covering walls
of the strategies
One One
1 Central Cen- OCP Ateliers
tral Park Nouvel
PTW Jean and 2014 Sydney,
Archi-
tects Sydney, Apartments/
Australia ments/Ho-
tel Super
Super Building
High World
and Aus-
tralia/CTBUH, InTallAsia
(2014); Best combining
and
to sustainable
create
façades, a greengreen
green
combining wallsin
strategies
icon
1 1 Parktral Park OCP PTW
OCP Nouvel Archi- 2014 Australia
and
tects 2014 Australia ments/Ho-
tel High Building
and Aus-In Asia and
tralia/CTBUH, and
to sustainable
create andasustainable
green strategies
icon in
tral Park PTW
PTW Archi-
tects
Architects Australia Hoteltel High
High Australia/CTBUH,
and Aus- USA
tralia/CTBUH,
Chicago, and
to
walls
sustainable
thecreate
skyline
strategiesatogreen
[28,29].
create
strategies
icon in
a green
tects tel tralia/CTBUH,
Chicago,
Chicago, USA
USA (2014) [28] to
thecreate
skyline askyline
green
[28,29]. icon in
tects tralia/CTBUH,
Chicago,
(2014) [28]USA to icon
thecreatein
skylinethe
a green [28,29].
[28,29]. icon in
Chicago,
(2014) [28] USA the skyline [28,29].
Chicago,
(2014) [28]USA the skyline [28,29].
(2014) [28]
(2014) [28]
Combines innovative land
Combines innovative land
President s De- Combines
use with a innovative
tropical ap-land
President s De- Combines
use innovative
with a innovative
tropical ap-land land
Oasia President
sign Award s De-
Sin- Combines
use withfeaturing
proach, a tropicalaap- ver-
Oasia President
sign Award s De-
Sin- use with
proach, a tropical
featuring ap-
a ver-
Oasia
Hotel Super President
sign
gapore Award s De-
(2018); Sin- use with
proach,
Combines
dant, ainnovative
tropical
featuring
permeable a ap-
landver-
tower
2 Oasia
Hotel OHD WOHA 2016 Singapore Hotel Super sign Award
gapore (2018); Sin- proach,
dant, withfeaturing
use permeable
a tropical towera ver-
2 Oasia
Hotel OHD
Down- WOHA 2016 Singapore Hotel Super
High sign
Best Award
gapore Tall
President’s (2018); Sin-
Building
Design Award proach,
dant,
with featuring
permeable
distinct
approach, strata
featuring a a ver-
tower
and
2 Hotel
Oasia Hotel OHD
Down- WOHA 2016 Singapore Hotel Super
High
Super gapore
Best
Singapore Tall (2018);
Building
(2018); Best Tall dant,
with permeable
distinct
verdant, strata
permeable tower
towerand
2 2 Hotel
town OHD
Down- OHD WOHA
WOHA 20162016 Singapore
Singapore Hotel
Hotel Super
High gapore
Best Tall(2018);
Worldwide Building
(2018) dant,
with
sky permeable
distinct
gardens strata
that tower
and
create
2Downtown
town OHD
Down- WOHA 2016 Singapore Hotel High
High Building
Best
(2018)
Worldwide
Tall Building
Worldwide
[30] (2018) with
sky
with distinct strata
distinct
gardens
sky gardens that
and
strata
that and
createcreate
Down-
town High Best
[30] Tall Building
Worldwide (2018) with
sky distinct
gardens
public spaces strata
that
for and
create
recrea-
town Worldwide (2018)
[30] skyrecreation
gardens
public
public
spaces
spaces that
for
for create
recrea-
town Worldwide
[30] (2018) sky
tiongardens
public spaces
[30].
[30].that
for create
recrea-
[30] public
tion spaces for recrea-
[30].
[30] public spaces for recrea-
tion [30].
tion [30].
tion [30].

World Architec-
World Architec-
World
ture Architec-
Community Integrate vertical facades
Chicland VTN Archi- Da Nang, World
ture Architec-
Community Integrate vertical facades
Chicland CH
3 Chicland VTN Archi- 2019 Da Nang, Hotel High World
ture
Awards
World Architec-
Community
36th Ar-
Architecture Integrate
covered vertical
Integratewith
verticalan facades
alternat-
facades
3 Hotel CH VTNtects
Archi- 2019 Da Nang,
Vietnam
Da Nang, Hotel High ture
Awards
Community Community
36th36th
Awards Ar- Integrate
covered vertical
covered with
with facades
an an alternat-
3 3
ChiclandChicland
Hotel CH CH
Hotel VTN
VTN Archi- 20192019
tects
Architects Da Nang,
Vietnam
Vietnam Hotel
Hotel High
High ture
Awards Community
chitecture
Architecture 36th
Master Ar-
Master
prize
Integrate
covered
ing tree vertical
with
pot
alternating system
tree pot
facades
an alternat-
[32].
3 Chicland
Hotel CH VTN Archi- 2019
tects Da Nang,
Vietnam Hotel High Awards
chitecture 36th Ar-
Master covered with
ing tree [32].
pot an
system alternat-
[32].
3 Hotel CH tects 2019 Vietnam Hotel High Awards
2020 [31]
chitecture
prize 36th
2020 Master
[31]Ar- covered
ing system
tree potwithsystem
an alternat-
[32].
Hotel tects Vietnam chitecture
prize 2020 Master
[31] ing tree pot system [32].
chitecture
prize 2020 Master[31] ing tree pot system [32].
prize 2020 [31]
prize 2020 [31]

Winner in Archi-
Winner in Archi- Centers on “handicraft”
Winner
tecture, in Archi-
Building Centers on “handicraft”
Hamacho UDS and the Tokyo, Ja- Winner Building
tecture, in Archi-
Winner in Architecture, Centers
and on
“greenery,”
Centers “handicraft”
aiming to
on “handicraft”
4 Hamacho HH UDS andand
the the Tokyo, Ja-
2019 Tokyo, Hotel High Winner
tecture,
and in
StructureArchi-
Building De- Centers
and on
“greenery,” “handicraft”
aiming to
4 Hamacho HH
Hotel HHHH
UDS
UDS
Range and the20192019
Design Tokyo,pan Ja- Hotel High tecture,
Building
and
and Building
Structure
Structure De- Centers
andand on
“greenery,”
create a “handicraft”
“greenery”, aiming to
aiming to
a cultural and and
cultural com-
4 Hamacho Hotel Japan Hotel High
4 Hamacho
Hotel UDSDesign
Range
Range and the 2019 Tokyo,
Design pan Ja- Hotel High tecture,
Design
and
signStructureBuilding
Category,
Category, De- andcreate
“greenery,”
create a cultural aiming
and to
com-
4 Hamacho
Hotel HH UDS and
Range the 2019 Tokyo,
Design pan Ja- Hotel High and
2019–2020Structure
[33]
sign Structure
Category,De- De- and “greenery,”
create ahub
communal
munal cultural
[34]. and
hub [34]. aiming to
com-
4 Hotel HH Range Design 2019 pan Hotel High and
sign Category,
2019–2020 [33] create ahub
munal cultural
[34]. and com-
Hotel Range Design pan sign Category,
2019–2020 [33] create
munalahub cultural
[34]. and com-
sign Category,
2019–2020 [33] munal hub [34].
2019–2020 [33] munal hub [34].
2019–2020 [33]

MIPIM Asia A “hotel-as-garden,” inte-

MIPIM Asia A “hotel-as-garden,” inte-
PARK- MIPIM
Awards Asia
Gold A “hotel-as-garden,”
grating extensive skyinte-
A “hotel-as-garden”, gar-
PARK- MIPIM
Awards Asia
Gold A “hotel-as-garden,”
grating extensive sky inte-
gar-
PARK-
ROYAL MIPIM
MIPIM
Awards
Winner Asia
Asia Awards
GoldGold
(2015); A “hotel-as-garden,”
integrating
grating
dens and extensive
green sky inte-
extensive sky
spaces gar-
to
5
PARKROYAL
5 PARK- PP PP
ROYAL WOHA 20132013
WOHA Singapore
Singapore Hotel
Hotel High
High Awards(2015);
Winner
Winner (2015); Goldfor
Design grating
gardens
dens and extensive
and green
green sky gar-
spaces
spaces to
on
BuildingsonPARK-
ROYAL
5 Pickering
2024, 14, xPPFOR PEER
Picker- WOHAREVIEW
2013 Singapore Hotel High Awards
Winner
Asia Awards—Grand
Design Gold
(2015);
for Asia grating
dens
create and extensive
to create
an green
an urban spaces
urban sky
5 of
landmark gar-
to19
Buildings
5 on ROYAL
2024, 14, PP
Picker- x FOR PEER
WOHAREVIEW
2013 Singapore Hotel High Winner
Design
Award (2015);
for
(2014) [35] Asia dens and
createand green
an urban
landmark that spaces 5
landmark
doubles the ofto19
5 on ROYAL
Picker-
ing PP WOHA 2013 Singapore Hotel High Winner
Design
Awards—Grand (2015);
for Asia dens
create
that an
doubles
site’s green
urban
green thespaces
site s to
landmark
potential [36].
5 on Picker-
ing PP WOHA 2013 Singapore Hotel High Design for Asia
Awards—Grand create
that an urban
doubles the landmark
site s
on Picker-
ing Design
Awards—Grand
Award for Asia
(2014) [35] create
that
green an urban
doubles
potential landmark
the[36].
site s
ing Awards—Grand
Award (2014) [35] that doubles
green potential the[36].
site s
ing Awards—Grand
Award (2014) [35] that
greendoubles
potential the[36].
site s
Award (2014) [35] green potential [36].
Award (2014) [35] green potential [36].

Creates a passive, sustain-

Creates a passive, sustain-
The Hive BCA Green Mark able, connected,
Creates a passive, and inter-
The Hive BCA Green Mark able, connected, and inter-
sustainable, connected,
(NTU Heatherwick Platinum Award active educational envi-
6Learning(NTU TH TH Heatherwick
The Hive (NTU Heatherwick 2015 Singapore Education Platinum
BCA Green Mark Award
High Platinum active educational envi-
and interactive
6 6 Learning TH Studio 20152015 Singapore
Studio Singapore Education
Education High for sustainability
High Award for ronment with
educational rough
environment
Learning
Center) Studio for sustainability
sustainability (2013) [37] ronment
with roughwith
curvedrough
Center) (2013) [37] curved concrete
concrete structures
structures and
Center) (2013) [37] curved concrete
materials [38]. structures
and materials [38].
and materials [38].

Blends nature with mar-

President s De- Blends nature with mar-
President s De- ketplace, transforming the
sign Award Sin- ketplace, transforming
Blends nature with the
sign Award Sin- airport into a lively urban
marketplace,
Jewel gaporeDesign
President’s (2020)
Award[39]; airport into the
transforming a lively
airport urban
Jewel Safdie
Safdie Archi-
gapore
Singapore (2020)
(2020) [39]; [39]; hubinto
that captivates
a lively urban hub travel-
7
Jewel Changi
7 AirportChangi JCAJCA Safdie Archi-20192019 Singapore
Singapore Retail
Retail High Building
High Building of the
of the year hubthatthat captivates
captivates travelers, travel-
7 Changi JCA Architects
tects 2019 Singapore Retail High 2020—Public
Building of the
Architecture ers,visitors,
visitors, and residents,
and residents,
Airport tects year
(2020) [40]2020—Public ers,reflecting
visitors, and residents,
Singapore’s
Airport year 2020—Public reflecting
identity as Singapore
‘The City in the s
Architecture reflecting Singapore s
Architecture Garden’ [41].
identity as The City in the
(2020) [40] identity as The City in the
(2020) [40] Garden [41].
Garden [41].

A seamless blend of
A seamless blend of
streets, buildings, and nat-
streets, buildings, and nat-
SHI- ural elements with a large
SHI- Sou Fujimoto Maebashi, AD s 2021 Hotel ural elements with a large
8 ROIYA SH Sou Fujimoto 2020 Maebashi, Hotel Mid-High AD s 2021 Hotel atrium and a grass hill,
8 ROIYA SH Architects 2020 Japan Hotel Mid-HighAwards [42] atrium and a grass hill,
Hotel Architects Japan Awards [42] fostering community and
Hotel fostering community and
 and materials [38].

Blends nature
Blends nature with
with mar-
mar-
President ss De-
President De-
ketplace, transforming
ketplace, transforming the the
sign Award Sin-
sign Award Sin- airport into
airport into aa lively
lively urban
urban
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394
Jewel
Jewel gapore (2020) [39];
gapore (2020) [39]; 5 of 17
Safdie Archi- hub that
that captivates
captivates travel-
77 Changi JCA
Changi JCA Safdie Archi- 2019
2019 Singapore
Singapore Retail
Retail High
High Building of
Building of the
the hub travel-
tects
tects ers, visitors, and residents,
ers, visitors, and residents,
Airport
Airport year 2020—Public
year 2020—Public
reflecting Singapore
reflecting Singapore ss
Architecture
Architecture
Table 1. Cont. identity as The City
identity as The City in
in the
the
(2020) [40]
(2020) [40]
Garden [41].
Garden [41].
NO Name Designer Time Location Function Density Awards Appearance Photo Design Concept

A seamless
A seamless blend blend of of
streets, buildings,
streets, buildings, and and nat-
nat-
A seamless blend of
SHI-
SHI- ural elements
uralnatural
elements
streets, buildings, with a
with a large
and large
Sou Fujimoto
Sou Fujimoto Maebashi,
Maebashi, AD ss 2021
AD 2021 Hotel
2021 Hotel Hotel
elements with a
8
8 ROIYA
SHIROIYA SH Sou
8 HotelROIYA SH SH Fujimoto 2020 Maebashi,
20202020
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Mid-High
Mid- AD’s
Mid-High atrium
atrium and
and
large atrium aa grass
and
grass hill,
a grass hill,
Architects
Architects
Architects Japan
Japan
Japan High Awards
Awards [42]
Awards [42] [42]
Hotel
Hotel fostering
fostering
and diverse
community
hill, fostering community
community
activities in
and
and
diverse
Maebashi activities
[43].
diverse activities in Mae- in Mae-
bashi [43].
bashi [43].

Green Good
Green Good De- De- Blends greenery
Blends greenery and and natu-
natu-
Blends greenery and
sign
sign
Green
Awards
Awards
Good Design
ral ventilation
ral ventilation to
natural ventilationto
create
to create an
an
Atlas
Atlas Atlas
Hoi Hoi
Hoi VTN Archi-
VTN Archi- 20172017 Hoi
Hoi
Hoi An,
An, An, Mid- (2017);
Awards
(2017); FuturArc
(2017); FuturArc
FuturArc open,
create
open, eco-friendly
an open,
eco-friendly urban
urban
99An Hotel
9 AH AH VTN Architects Hotel
Hotel Mid-High
Green Leadership eco-friendly urban retreat
An Hotel AH
An Hotel tects
tects
2017 Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Hotel Mid-High
High
Green
Green Leadership
Award/Commercial retreat that reconnects
that reconnectsreconnects
guests
(2018) [44,45]Leadership retreat that
with nature in a heritage
Award/Commer-
Award/Commer- guests with nature
site [45].
guests with nature in in aa
cial (2018)
cial (2018) [44,45]
[44,45] heritage site
heritage site [45]. [45].

This study
This study
This study finally
finally selected
selected
finally 99 high-rise
9 high-rise
selected high-rise buildings
buildings from
fromfrom
buildings the Asia–Pacific
Asia–Pacific
the Asia–Pacific
the regionregion over
overover
region the
the the
past
past decade decade
past decade as
as cases cases
(Table
as cases (Table 1).
1). Careful
(Table Careful consideration
consideration
1). Careful balanced
balanced
consideration project
project
balanced locations
locations
project and
and and
locations designdesign
design
teams
teamsteams
to avoidto avoid
to avoid
overlyoverly similar
similar
overly projects,
projects,
similar while
whilewhile
projects, ensuring
ensuring aa sufficient
sufficient
a sufficient
ensuring number
number of Google
of Google
number of Google
Maps Maps
Maps
reviews
reviews
reviews (at least
(at least
(at least 50 useful
50 useful
50 useful reviews).
reviews).
reviews). These
TheseThese 99 buildings,
buildings,
9 buildings, showcasing
showcasing diverse
diverse
showcasing architectural
architectural
diverse architectural
styles,
styles, originate
originate from from Australia,
Australia, Singapore,
Singapore, Vietnam,
Vietnam, and and Japan—representing
Japan—representing
styles, originate from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan—representing key key key
coun-coun-
coun-
tries
tries tries
in inAsia–Pacific
thein the Asia–Pacific
region.region.
It is It is noteworthy
noteworthy that that Singapore
Singapore contributes
contributes
the Asia–Pacific region. It is noteworthy that Singapore contributes a significant a a significant
significant
proportion
proportion (3/12)
(3/12)(3/12)
proportion due todue to its
its to
due its proactive
proactive
proactive efforts
effortsefforts in biophilic
biophilic
in biophilic
in architecture
architecture understrategies
under urban
architecture under urban strate-
urban strate-
gies
like “Gardenslike “Gardens in
in the City”
gies like “Gardens the
in the City”
[46] [46]
and[46]
City” and “Biophilic
“Biophilic Urbanism”
and “Biophilic Urbanism” [47].
[47]. The
Urbanism” The absence
[47].absence of
of Chinese
The absence Chinese
of Chinese
projects
projects is dueis
projects isto
due to restrictions
restrictions
restrictions
due to on accessing
on accessing
on accessing homogeneous
homogeneous
homogeneous publicpublic review
review
public data
datadata
review from
fromfrom
GoogleGoogle
Google
Maps
MapsMaps
within within mainland
mainland
within China
mainland China [48].
[48]. [48].
China

2.3. Technical
2.3. Evaluative
2.3. Technical
Technical Methods
Evaluative
Evaluative Methods
Methods
2.3.1.2.3.1.
Methods of Quantitative
Methods of Analysis
of Quantitative
Quantitative of Objective
Analysis Biophilic
of Objective
Objective Spatial
Biophilic Spatial Design
Design
Design2.3.1. Methods
Characteristics Analysis of Biophilic Spatial
Characteristics
Characteristics
The most notable feature of biophilic architecture is the incorporation of natural
The most
most notable
notable feature
feature ofof biophilic
biophilic architecture
architecture is is the
the incorporation
incorporation of of natural
natural ele-
ele-
elements, Theyet there are currently few tools available to analyze and quantify their spatial
ments, yet there
ments, yet Spatial are
there are currently
currently few tools available to analyze and quantify their spatial
characteristics. syntax tools,few
oftentools
used available
in studiesto of
analyze
PublicandUrbanquantify
Greentheir spatial
Spaces
characteristics. Spatial
characteristics. Spatial syntax
syntax tools,
tools, often
often used
used inin studies
studies of of Public
Public Urban
Urban Green
Green Spaces
Spaces
(PUGSs), are employed to quantify and evaluate spatial accessibility [49,50]. Buildings with
(PUGSs), are
(PUGSs), are employed
employed to to quantify
quantify and
and evaluate
evaluate spatial
spatial accessibility
accessibility [49,50].
[49,50]. Buildings
Buildings
medium- or high-intensity development are comparable to small city blocks, and indoor
with medium-
with medium- or high-intensity
or high-intensity development
development are comparable
are comparable to small
to studies city
small city blocks, and
walkability indices are frequently used in BIM-supported circulation [51].blocks,
Some and
indoor walkability
walkability indices
indices are
are frequently used
used in BIM-supported
BIM-supported circulation
circulation studies
studies [51].
have indoor
already applied spatial syntax frequently
tools to evaluatein the natural characteristics of biophilic[51].
Some
Some have already
have already applied
applied spatial syntax
spatialTherefore, tools
syntax tools to evaluate the natural characteristics of
design in education buildings [16,52]. thistostudy
evaluatewillthe
usenatural
spatial characteristics
syntax tools of
biophilic
biophilic design in
design in and education
education buildings [16,52]. Therefore, this study will use spatial
to evaluate connectivity spatialbuildings
depth and[16,52]. Therefore,
to calculate this study
the average will useand
accessibility spatial
visibility of biophilic elements.
Using information from open sources such as the official websites of design firms
and architectural magazines, simplified and redrawn typical floor plans and models for
each building were created. The projected area of biophilic elements and the typical floor
occupancy were calculated based on the floor plans by rhino 7.0. After that, the Depthmap+
Beta 1.0 tool [26] was used to conduct spatial syntax analysis [53]. The units, meanings,
and calculation methods of design parameters and the space syntax index are detailed
in Table 2.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 6 of 17

Table 2. Design parameters and index.

Design Parameter Units Meanings Calculation Formula

2 Projected area of direct biophilic elements

Direct BE Projected Area/Level m /level = Projected Area o f Direct Biophilic Elements
per level
Ratio of projected area of direct built Projected Area o f Direct Biophilic Elements
Direct BE Projected Ratio ---- =
environment to floor area Floor Area o f Typical Floor Plan

Maximum user number that can Daily People Number o f Flow Average visit time
Saturated User Number/Level persons = ×
comfortably occupy the space Building Levels 24 hours

Projected Area o f Direct Biophilic Elements

Min. Biophilic Space/User m2 /user Minimum biophilic space allocated per user = Saturated user number each level

SpaceSyntax Index Units Meanings [53]

Average Connectivity ---- Measures the average number of immediate connections from each space.
Visual Clustering Coefficient ---- Indicates the degree to which spaces are interconnected in a visual network.
Visual Mean Depth ---- Represents the average number of steps required to reach all other spaces.
Visual Integration ---- Reflects how visually integrated a space is within the whole system.
Average Metric Step Shortest Path
m The average length of the shortest paths between each point to direct biophilic elements.
Length (Direct BE)
Average Metric Step Shortest Path
m/m2 The average metric step shortest path length to direct biophilic elements normalized by the floor area.
Length (Direct BE)/Floor Area
Average Metric Step Shortest Path
rad The average angular change along the shortest paths between each point to direct biophilic elements.
Angle (Direct BE)
Average Metric Step Shortest Path
rad/m2 The average metric step shortest path angle to direct biophilic elements normalized by the floor area.
Angle (Direct BE)/Floor Area
Total Visual Step Depth (Direct BE) steps The total number of visual steps required to direct biophilic elements.
Total Visual Step Depth (Direct 2
steps/m The total visual step depth to direct biophilic elements normalized by the floor area.
BE)/Floor Area

2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis Method of Subjective Public Comments on Biophilic

Architecture and Design
Spatial experience is a complex and subjective perception process [20], heavily influ-
enced by individual perspectives. Interpretations by architects and the viewpoints of the
general public are equally valuable. Therefore, this study focuses on analyzing descriptions
of architectural and spatial design shared by ordinary users during their visit experiences
on Google Maps.
As of 28 December 2023, a total of 62,549 comments were collected from Google Maps
for these nine case studies. It is noteworthy that Jewel Changi Airport garnered 53,694 re-
views, significantly more than the other buildings, due to its function as a transportation
hub. To balance data sources, only the most relevant 4000 comments of Jewel Changi
Airport were extracted. All comments for the remaining eight buildings were included in
the statistics, resulting in a total of 12,855 Google Maps reviews as the foundational textual
data for public evaluation analysis. Additionally, visitor comments on Google Maps were
primarily in English but also included Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Italian, French, and other
languages. For consistency in subsequent text analysis, these comments were translated
into English during extraction using the Google Chrome browser page translation feature.
To preprocess the text and extract statements related to architecture and spatial design,
the authors initially manually reviewed 2500 comments. It was observed that many
comments discussed staff behavior, food taste, and other irrelevant topics. Additionally,
short sentences expressing only emotions such as “Great!” also needed to be excluded due
to ambiguity regarding what was being praised. Based on this manual review, the authors
curated a corpus of statements related to architecture and biophilic design, incorporating
specific keywords (Table 3). Using Python scripts developed from this corpus, architecture-
and design-related statements were filtered and extracted. After this initial filtering, the
texts underwent a second round of manual screening to remove content solely related to
room service, such as the quality of shampoo provided in rooms. Ultimately, 7949 texts
were confirmed to be related to architecture and design, forming the foundational textual
database for subsequent research.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 7 of 17

Table 3. Keywords for architecture- and design-related text selection.

Architecture- and Design-Related Keywords

Specific name of building, function of building
architecture, building, construction, space, room, interior, area, gate, lobby, entrance, lift, stair, balcony,
Architecture elements
floor, structure, layout, plan, way, walk, toilet, corridor, door, window, pool, lights, lighting, ventilation
architect, designer, design, lighting, view, scenery, place, park, atmosphere, wood, stone, concrete, glass,
Design
color, furniture, environment, environmental
nature, water, organic, green, blue, garden, biophilic, botanical, lighting, canopy, plant, rain, pool, pools,
vortex, waterfall, sun, wind, air, animals, insects, birds, branches, sunlight, gardens, park, greenery,
Landscape
greening, tree, grass, flowers, leaves, colorful, color, wood, stone, evoke, imagery, biomimicry, geometry,
form, shape, texture, imitation, mimic, attraction, forest

Subsequently, the public comment sentences related to architecture and design were
subjected to a series of natural language processing (NLP) procedures using Python. (1) Us-
ing the NLTK library (Natural Language Toolkit) [27], each text was analyzed for “negative”,
“neutral”, “positive”, and “compound” sentiment tendencies [54,55]. (2) After excluding
the NLTK’s English stopword list [56] and an additional domain-specific stopword list
provided by the authors [57,58], word frequency analysis was performed. (3) K-means
clustering was applied using the elbow method to group the summarized sentences [59–61],
and TF-IDF was used to extract themes [62].
Using the same method, sentences related to biophilic experience were further ex-
tracted from these texts and classified into direct nature-related elements and indirect
nature-related groups (Table 4). The sentiment and semantic analysis methods mentioned
above were then applied to these sentences groups.

Table 4. Keywords for biophilic experience related text selection.

Biophilic-Experience-Related Keywords
sun, lighting, rain, wind, air, plants, animals, insects, birds, branches, sunlight, eco, nature, natural, organic,
Direct garden, gardens, botanical, canopy, forest, plant, plants, water, pool, pools, vortex, waterfall, park, greenery,
greening, tree, grass, grassy, flowers, leaves
wood, color, colorful, green, blue, evoke, natural imagery, biomimicry, geometry, form, shape, texture, imitation,
Indirect mimic, attraction, biophilic, biophilia, terrain, mesa, valley, symmetry, mirror, rough, decoration, geometric,
pattern, artwork, granite, marble, complexity, order, rustic, local

Additionally, the mention rate of biophilic experiences in the architecture- and design-
related texts for different cases was calculated, as well as the proportionate relationship of
the two types of biophilic experience mentioned in each case. Furthermore, all texts related
to biophilic experience that exhibited “negative” sentiment were extracted and manually
categorized based on their semantics.

2.3.3. Method of Correlation Analysis between Subjective Evaluations and Objective

Design Parameters
First, a Pearson correlation matrix analysis [63,64] was conducted for all parameters to
measure the linear relationships between them. A value close to 1 or −1 indicates a strong
positive or negative linear correlation, respectively [65]. Generally, an absolute correlation
coefficient greater than 0.7 is considered indicative of a strong correlation [66].

3. Results
3.1. Results of the Quantitative Analysis of Objective Design Parameters in Biophilic Architecture
Table 5 shows the biophilic design parameter quantification results of the 9 cases.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 8 of 17

Table 5. Biophilic design parameter quantification results.

Design Parameter OCP OHD CH HH PP TH JCA SH AH

Direct BE Projected
345.00 200.00 27.23 6.73 890.00 70.00 19,626.00 60.00 90.00
Area/Level
Direct BE
10.71% 12.35% 5.82% 1.67% 30.27% 3.53% 9.48% 12.63% 8.82%
Projected Ratio
Saturated User
98 36 16 28 68 378 2750 18 24
Number/Level
Min Biophilic
3.520 5.556 1.702 0.241 13.088 0.185 7.137 3.333 3.750
Space/User
Average Connectivity 333.18 273.68 197.51 110.25 512.72 2571.47 1042.10 337.45 202.87
Visual Clustering
0.867 0.850 0.756 0.821 0.762 0.724 0.701 0.816 0.822
Coefficient
Visual Mean Depth 3.814 3.305 2.973 3.255 3.700 3.066 3.154 3.309 3.835
Visual Integration 3.887 4.405 4.617 3.889 4.498 5.484 5.529 3.607 3.584
Average Metric Step
Shortest Path Length 6.3130 6.4634 5.3748 7.2140 6.3539 10.9735 25.6652 3.4686 2.9996
(Direct BE)
Average Metric Step
Shortest Path Length 0.0020 0.0040 0.0115 0.0179 0.0022 0.0055 0.0012 0.0073 0.0029
(Direct BE)/Floor Area
Average Metric Step
Shortest Path Angle 0.2275 0.2332 0.5289 0.7142 0.3038 1.0099 0.5401 0.4355 0.3103
(Direct BE)
Average Metric Step
Shortest Path Angle 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.0018 0.0001 0.0005 0.0000 0.0009 0.0003
(Direct BE)/Floor Area
Total Visual Step Depth
1.1486 1.2388 1.3062 1.8363 1.2373 1.6597 1.4824 1.3269 1.1498
(Direct BE)
Total Visual Step Depth
0.0004 0.0008 0.0028 0.0045 0.0004 0.0008 0.0001 0.0028 0.0011
(Direct BE)/Floor Area

3.2. Results of Subjective Analysis of Google Maps Review Texts

3.2.1. Text Extraction and Proportion
First, a Python program was employed to filter out sentences related to “Architecture
& Design”. From this subset, sentences specifically pertaining to “Biophilic Elements”
were further extracted, and the nature experience mention rate was calculated. These
sentences were then categorized into two groups based on their content: “Direct Nature
Experience” and “Indirect Nature Experience”. The specific counts for each category are
detailed in Table 6.

Table 6. Number of related sentences for sentiment analysis.

No. of Architecture No. of Biophilic Direct Nature Indirect Nature

Project BE Mention Rate
and Design Experience Experience Experience
OCP 43 21 48.84% 17 5
OHD 907 246 27.12% 222 33
CH 910 331 36.37% 249 104
HH 1046 214 20.46% 190 49
PP 1664 611 36.72% 527 192
TH 216 33 15.28% 25 9
JCA 2850 1768 62.04% 1732 191
SH 247 63 25.51% 56 14
AH 66 8 12.12% 8 0
All Projects 7949 3295 41.45% 3026 597

Figure 2 illustrates the composition of comments related to biophilic experiences.

Sentences related to direct nature experiences account for more than 65% in all cases,
representing an overwhelming majority.
 SH 247 63 25.51% 56 14
AH 66 8 12.12% 8 0
All Projects 7949 3295 41.45% 3026 597

Figure 2 illustrates the composition of comments related to biophilic experiences.

Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 9 of 17
Sentences related to direct nature experiences account for more than 65% in all cases, rep-
resenting an overwhelming majority.

Figure
Figure 2. Number
2. Number of of relatedsentences
related sentences for
forsentiment
sentimentanalysis.
analysis.

3.2.2.3.2.2. Sentiment
Sentiment AnalysisResults
Analysis Results
Figure
Figure 3 present
3 present thethe resultsof
results ofsentiment
sentiment analysis,
analysis,including negative,
including neutral,
negative, posi- positive,
neutral,
tive, and overall scores. In the legends, “-A” and “-B” represent “Architecture & Design
Buildings 2024, 14, xand overall
FOR PEER scores. In the legends, “-A” and “-B” represent “Architecture & Design related
REVIEW
related sentences” and “Biophilic Experiences related sentences” for the same project,10re-of 19
sentences” and “Biophilic Experiences related sentences” for the same project, respectively.
spectively.

Figure 3. analysis
Figure 3. Sentiment Sentiment results.
analysis results.

Overall sentiment analysis indicates that neutral sentiments are predominant, nega-
Overall sentiment analysis indicates that neutral sentiments are predominant, negative
tive sentiments are relatively infrequent, and the overall scores are high, suggesting a very
sentiments positive
are relatively infrequent,
attitude towards and theCompared
these buildings. overall scores are high,
to all comments suggesting
on architecture anda very
positive attitude
design,towards
sentencesthese buildings.
mentioning Compared
biophilic experiences to all comments
exhibit on of
a higher degree architecture
emotional and
expression
design, sentences and a more concentrated
mentioning range of emotions.
biophilic experiences On average,
exhibit thesedegree
a higher commentsof show
emotional
slightly lower positive sentiments, slightly higher negative sentiments, and a higher pro-
portion of neutral sentiments. Despite this, the overall sentiment score for comments men-
tioning biophilic elements is higher, indicating a more positive overall sentiment.
Further content analysis was conducted on 1044 negative sentiment texts related to
architecture and design. From these, 520 statements were manually extracted, revealing
clear complaints related to architectural space and biophilic design factors. Due to the
small sample size and complex content, the reasons were manually classified into 15 main
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 10 of 17

expression and a more concentrated range of emotions. On average, these comments

show slightly lower positive sentiments, slightly higher negative sentiments, and a higher
proportion of neutral sentiments. Despite this, the overall sentiment score for comments
mentioning biophilic elements is higher, indicating a more positive overall sentiment.
Further content analysis was conducted on 1044 negative sentiment texts related to
architecture and design. From these, 520 statements were manually extracted, revealing
clear complaints related to architectural space and biophilic design factors. Due to the
small sample size and complex content, the reasons were manually classified into 15 main
categories (Table 7).

Table 7. Reasons of positive reviews.

Reasons Rate
Facility and additional payment 18.09%
Architectural design and wayfinding 10.82%
Furniture and interior design 9.69%
Cleaning and maintenance issues 8.89%
Insects, fallen leaves, moldy, dust, damp, cold/hot, unpleasant smell, no sunshine 8.56%
Poor experience/space quality/atmosphere 7.75%
Not as good as imagined/nothing special 6.79%
Poor view 5.98%
Narrow space 5.98%
Noise problem 4.52%
Too many people 3.07%
Lighting/ventilation issues 2.91%
Strange design/outside better than inside 2.58%
Privacy problem 2.26%
Inability to truly/sufficiently interact with nature/not truly natural/waste 2.10%

3.2.3. Results of Word Frequency and Text Clustering Analysis

Table 8 presents the results of the grouped word frequency analysis, offering insights
into the core themes discussed in these reviews. Stop words have been filtered out, and
words with the same root have been consolidated.

Table 8. Word frequency analysis result of each text group.

Word Frequency List (Tot 50)

room (1458), place (867), clean (480), view (430), stay (389), design (381), waterfall (331), time (312), best (300), service (236),
water (235), pool (234), building (234), staff (229), green (219), area (212), visit (209), floor (190), club (186), food (181),
Architecture and experience (178), architecture (178), friendly (172), comfortable (170), space (164), see (164), love (152), walk (149), world
Design (143), indoor (138), unique (137), garden (135), modern (121), city (120), interior (119), inside (115), feel (114), day (114),
atmosphere (114), spend (110), places (108), bathroom (103), spacious (102), park (102), window (101), people (99), enjoy (98),
new (97), environment (95), excellent (93)
room (463), waterfall (368), water (235), pool (234), green (219), place (208), best (208), view (187), garden (186), time (147),
indoor (131), world (128), visit (112), see (110), attractions (104), building (103), park (102), clean (92), area (92), floor (92),
Biophilic
greenery (91), design (90), recommend (89), window (88), canopy (85), inside (78), plants (77), food (76), love (75), staff (74),
Experience
nature (74), experience (72), service (72), friendly (71), city (70), unique (68), swimming (67), club (67), walk (66), stay (64),
feel (63), architecture (62), rain (61), enjoy (57), space (56), natural (54), big (53), trees (51), day (50), outside (50)
room (398), waterfall (368), water (235), pool (234), best (202), garden (186), view (181), place (173), time (137), indoor (131),
world (126), see (109), park (102), visit (100), greenery (91), recommend (89), floor (89), green (88), area (86), canopy (85),
Direct Nature clean (82), lighting (81), attraction (80), window (80), plants (77), building (75), inside (74), nature (74), love (69), experience
(67), swimming (67), design (66), food (65), friendly (62), club (62), rain (61), staff (60), walk (59), city (57), service (55), feel
(55), natural (54), enjoy (53), architecture (52), unique (52), trees (51), big (50), stay (50), restaurants (49), forest (47)
green (233), greenery (104), room (102), attraction (99), design (57),building (54), place (52), waterfall (51), space (41), feel
(39),wood (35), architecture (35), canopy (31), water (30), surrounded (30), lush (29), decoration (28), service (28), walk
Indirect Nature (28),view (27), city (27), indoor (27), park (27), friendly (26), time (26), visit (25), maze, (25), best (25), unique (25), stay (23),
trees (22), interior (22), staff (22), area (21), pool (21), plants (21), modern (20), garden (20), love (18), mirror (18), rain (18),
forest (17), clean (17), food (17), dining (16), inside (16), experience (15), eco (15), outside (15), people (14), see (14), floor (14)
 (52), waterfall (51), space (41), feel (39),wood (35), architecture (35), canopy (31), water
(30), surrounded (30), lush (29), decoration (28), service (28), walk (28),view (27), city
(27), indoor (27), park (27), friendly (26), time (26), visit (25), maze, (25), best (25),
Indirect Nature
unique (25), stay (23), trees (22), interior (22), staff (22), area (21), pool (21), plants (21),
modern (20), garden (20), love (18), mirror (18), rain (18), forest (17), clean (17), food
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 11 of 17
(17), dining (16), inside (16), experience (15), eco (15), outside (15), people (14), see (14),
floor (14)

Figure 4 presents
Figure 4 presentsthetheclustering analysisresults
clustering analysis results of architecture-
of architecture- and design-related
and design-related
texts from
texts from all cases,
all cases, including
including scatterplot
scatter plotmapping,
mapping, thethenumber
numberofof texts in each
texts cluster,
in each cluster, and
and content
content summaries. summaries.

FigureFigure 4. Clustering
4. Clustering analysisresults
analysis results of
of architecture-
architecture- and design-related
and texts. texts.
design-related

3.3. Correlation Analysis

3.3. Correlation Results
Analysis Resultsof
of Subjective Design
Subjective Design Parameters
Parameters and Objective
and Objective Evaluations
Evaluations
FigureFigure 5 presents
5 presents thethePearson
Pearson correlation
correlationcoefficients for the
coefficients for20
the parameters in a matrix
20 parameters in a matrix
format. Parameters I to XI represent objective design parameters, while XII to XX represent
format. Parameters I to XI represent objective design parameters, while XII to XX represent
subjective evaluation parameters. Cells with a correlation coefficient higher than 0.7 are
subjective evaluation parameters. Cells with a correlation coefficient higher than 0.7 are
highlighted in green. The analysis reveals that the greater the total green and blue pro-
highlighted in green.
jected area (I), the The
higheranalysis revealsofthat
the frequency the greater
biophilic thementions
experience total green and blue projected
in architectural
area (I), the evaluations
design higher the(XVI),frequency
with a of biophilic
strong experience
correlation coefficientmentions
as high as in0.80.
architectural
Although design
evaluations (XVI),coefficient
the correlation with a strong correlation
between III and XVIcoefficient
also reachedas high
0.71, it isas 0.80. Although
difficult to determinethe corre-
lationa coefficient
strong relationship
between between
III andIIIXVI
and also
XVI due to the0.71,
reached highitcorrelation
is difficultcoefficient of 0.96 a strong
to determine
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW between between
relationship I and III. III and XVI due to the high correlation coefficient of 0.96 13 ofbetween
19

I and III.

Figure 5. Pearson correlation matrix.

Figure 5. Pearson correlation matrix.
Additionally, a negative correlation (−0.72) was found between the negative score of
Arch and Design Sentences (XII) and Visual Integration (VIII), and a strong positive cor-
relation (0.73) was found between Arch and Design Sentences (XII) and the Visual Clus-
tering Coefficient (IX). The negative score of Biophilic Experience Sentences (XVII) also
showed a strong positive correlation with Visual Mean Depth (XI). Other parameters, such
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 12 of 17

Additionally, a negative correlation (−0.72) was found between the negative score
of Arch and Design Sentences (XII) and Visual Integration (VIII), and a strong positive
correlation (0.73) was found between Arch and Design Sentences (XII) and the Visual
Clustering Coefficient (IX). The negative score of Biophilic Experience Sentences (XVII) also
showed a strong positive correlation with Visual Mean Depth (XI). Other parameters, such
as the Green and Blue Ratio, per capita area of standard floors, and the accessibility and
visibility of biophilic elements, did not show significant correlations with public subjective
evaluation scores.

3.4. Results of Manual Analysis of Low-Scoring Reviews on Google Map

Content containing biophilic design element keywords in low-rated (1–3 stars) Google
Maps reviews was extracted to identify areas of public dissatisfaction. Due to the small
dataset and the lack of concentration of semantically complex words, these 1749 statements
could only be classified manually. Among the low-scoring review sentences, 89.42% ex-
pressed disappointment with typical public building space design aspects such as wayfind-
ing, insufficient seating, and room size, without mentioning natural elements. Of the
remaining comments, 23.08% noted that the landscaping and green plants did not meet
expectations or that certain attractions were out of service; 13.74% mentioned that access
to blue and green elements required additional payment or higher expenses. Addition-
ally, 28.57% reported issues with poorly ventilated indoor spaces, describing them as
humid, hot, dimly lit, and plagued by mold or bugs; 3.30% complained that fallen leaves
affected their experience; and 6.59% felt that the water was unclean, uncomfortable, or
noisy. Furthermore, 12.64% criticized artificial nature (landscaping) as being fake and not
truly environmentally friendly, with some even using fake green plants; 15.38% felt that the
buildings were just ordinary structures with added blue and green elements; and 9.34%
believed that the buildings were more impressive from the outside than the inside.

4. Discussion
Table 6 shows that the mention rate of nature experience in architecture- and spatial-
design-related comments ranges from a minimum of 12.12% to a maximum of 62.04%. This
generally high mention rate indicates that the public unconsciously tends to care about
biophilic elements and describe personal natural experiences in architectural and spatial
design comments. As seen in Figure 2, descriptions related to direct nature experiences
occupy an absolute majority among biophilic-related descriptions. This suggests that
directly exposed natural elements indeed attract significant attention.
The sentiment analysis results (Figure 2) reveal that, overall, public evaluations of
biophilic buildings are very positive. However, somewhat unexpectedly, comments men-
tioning biophilic experiences, while generally scoring higher overall, exhibit slightly lower
positive sentiment and slightly higher negative sentiment compared to all comments related
to architecture and design. This counterintuitive result suggests that people’s attitudes
towards natural elements may not be as favorable as expected.
The results of the word frequency analysis and text clustering analysis indicate that
discussions related to architecture and design are still focused on spatial locations, facilities
and services, views, and blue–green infrastructure. Additionally, large blue–green features
such as waterfalls, pools, and gardens are mentioned more frequently compared to specific
terms like “tree” and “plants” or abstract terms like “nature” and “environment”.
The correlation analysis between objective design features and subjective evaluations
reveals a significant positive correlation between the frequency of mentions of biophilic
experiences in architectural design assessments and the total projected area of direct natural
elements. Yaseen and Mustafa [16] also found that the visual analysis results of building
space syntax were correlated with biophilic design. This finding further supports the
conclusion that large blue–green features indeed attract more attention. Additionally, a
potential negative correlation was observed between negative sentiment in architectural
and design comments and spatial visual integration, and a strong positive correlation was
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 13 of 17

observed between the visual clustering coefficient and visual mean depth. However, these
results are based on only nine buildings, and the small sample size necessitates further
research to confirm these findings.
While no significant correlations were found with other parameters, it is important
to note that people’s perceptions of spatial design involve complex and chaotic processes.
Previous studies on architectural design often do not find significant correlations in Pearson
correlation matrices [67,68]. Nonetheless, this does not imply that there is no correlation
between these design parameters and the results of subjective text analysis. Further research
is required to explore these potential relationships in greater detail.
The analysis of all negative sentiment comments related to architectural design
(Table 7) reveals that the primary complaints focus on facility and additional payments
(18.9%), indicating that convenience issues are a major source of negative feedback. Follow-
ing this are complaints about architectural design and wayfinding, furniture and interior
design, and cleaning and maintenance. Further down the list are issues related to biophilic
elements, such as insects, fallen leaves, mold, dust, dampness, temperature extremes, un-
pleasant smells, and a lack of sunshine. Furthermore, the analysis of all low-rated Google
Maps reviews shows that, despite human intervention through equipment and facilities,
environmental factors such as humidity and wind speed in biophilic buildings cannot be
fully controlled. The presence of extensive vegetation in biophilic buildings can reduce
indoor lighting, restrict ventilation, raise humidity levels, and frequently lead to mold
problems. Biophilic elements encompass not just esthetically pleasing flowers and trees
but also mosquitoes and other insects that some individuals find objectionable. Previous
studies have found that biophilic design improves spatial experiences by creating environ-
ments that evoke safe and pleasant memories for users [69], so it is important to control
environmental temperature (warm but not exceeding 24 ◦ C) [69] and maintain thermal
comfort [70]. While these issues may be tolerated or even viewed as distinctive experiences
in public spaces, they are less acceptable in residential or hotel settings.
Despite lingering perceptions of biophilic buildings as mere decorations, they excel
in visual communication by natural elements [71,72]. Previous research has found that
greenery in residential buildings influences public esthetic evaluations [73]. This study
confirms this by showing a correlation between the area of blue–green infrastructure and
the positive sentiment in semantic analysis of reviews. Passersby are often drawn to look
more closely [72], and mainstream media outside professional circles occasionally report
on them [74]. The prominent advertising effect of biophilic buildings also encourages many
developers specializing in retail real estate to construct bio-friendly urban micro-travel
destinations [75–77]. Commercial success is expected to drive further development of
biophilic architecture in the future.
As for the drawbacks of biophilic buildings, they are equally apparent. Firstly, the
operational and maintenance demands of vertical greenery are very high. Even if vertical
green walls require maintenance only three times a year [29,30], this is still a considerable
effort. Negligence can lead to yellowing and leaf drop, as seen in some reviews. Addition-
ally, the pruning process creates noise and affects the privacy of indoor users. Although
biophilic buildings appear to add vitality to cities and may save building energy [78,79],
their construction, operation, and the continuous pruning of plants theoretically may di-
minish their potential environmental benefits [80]. Secondly, while biophilic buildings
appear natural, they are actually artificial environments. Only the favorable aspects are
curated, with minimal consideration for insects, fish, and birds. This artificial nature is
fragile and prone to system imperfections. If ventilation is blocked or damp conditions and
mosquitoes are inadvertently introduced, the public immediately realizes this is not the
natural secret environment they envisioned. Moreover, maintaining consistent temperature
and humidity levels with abundant natural elements poses significant challenges [70].
Thirdly, the current popular biophilic building style has climatic requirements and is not
universally applicable. Most projects are located in tropical and subtropical regions like
Singapore and Sydney, which are conducive to plant growth. Although some scholars
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 14 of 17

have researched biophilic building design and retrofitting in cold climates [17,81], our
study found a lack of representative large-scale, high-level commercial design projects in
high-latitude regions, underscoring this limitation.

5. Conclusions
Firstly, biophilic buildings are generally successful, as the public is enthusiastic about
mentioning biophilic elements in their reviews. Overall, when discussing these buildings,
the public’s comments related to architecture and design are predominantly positive, with
negative attitudes and semantics being a small minority.
Secondly, this study clearly found that larger and more numerous blue–green features
attract more public attention. This can encourage commercial building developers to
incorporate more biophilic elements in future projects to draw more public interest.
Lastly, regarding the negative evaluations of biophilic building design, the primary
issues stem from direct exposure to plants and water, leading to dampness, mold, darkness,
insects, and noise, which can cause dissatisfaction. Ultimately, people appreciate the feeling
of nature rather than actual, uncontrolled natural conditions; otherwise, humans would
still live in natural rainforests instead of cities. Therefore, it is essential to consider a
balanced approach to biophilic design, taking into account the overall impressions and
potential drawbacks.

6. Reflection and Further Thinking

The primary limitation of this study is its review of only nine cases in the Asia–Pacific
region. Although these cases are representative, the sample size remains small, necessitating
the analysis of more cases to derive more precise conclusions regarding biophilic design
in the future. Additionally, the spatial experiences and attitudes reflected in the selected
reviews related to architecture and design may still be influenced by incidental factors
unrelated to spatial elements. Therefore, future research should utilize larger data samples
to mitigate these incidental effects and further validate the study’s conclusions.
Furthermore, this analysis was confined to public feedback from Google Maps reviews.
Subsequent studies would benefit from a comprehensive examination of user experiences
shared on hotel and restaurant booking apps, as well as social media platforms. Including
a longitudinal approach in future research would also allow for observing changes in
the public perceptions of these buildings over time, providing more comprehensive and
accurate insights into public perceptions and experiences related to biophilic architecture
and design.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.L. and X.G.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.L.; data
curation, Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.L. and X.G.;
visualization, Y.L.; supervision, X.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of
China (No. 19FXWB026), the Key Laboratory of Cognitive and Personality, Ministry of Education,
Chongqing (No. 400715), Shenzhen Education Science “14th Five-Year Plan” 2022 Project (No.
cgpy22018), and Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) School level Teaching Quality Engineering
Project (No. HITSZERP004).
Data Availability Statement: Due to privacy or ethical considerations, the research data are not
publicly available. Interested researchers with reasonable requests can contact the corresponding
author to obtain the data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 15 of 17

References
1. Heidegger, M. Building Dwelling Thinking. In Poetry, Language, Thought; Harper Colophon Books: New York, NY, USA,
1971; Available online: https://www.contentarchive.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/pe/katoikein/Filosofia_Building%20Dwelling%20
Thinking.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2024).
2. Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
3. Nanu, L.; Rahman, I.; Ali, F.; Martin, D.S. Enhancing the hospitality experience: A systematic review of 22 years of physical
environment research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2024, 119, 103692. [CrossRef]
4. Kabinesh, V.; Vennila, S.; Baranidharan, K.; Ravi, R.; Krishnamoorthi, S.; Thirunavukkarasu, M. Sustainable Spaces—The
Evolution of Biophilic Design in Modern Architecture: A Review. Asian J. Environ. Ecol. 2024, 23, 64–77. [CrossRef]
5. Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, I.; Daugelaite, A.; Viliunas, G. Classification of Biophilic Buildings as Sustainable Environments.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1542. [CrossRef]
6. Xia, Y.; Shao, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Yan, X.; Lyu, H. Bridging Nature and Urbanization: A Comprehensive Study of Biophilic Design in the
Knowledge Economy Era. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024. [CrossRef]
7. Berto, R.; Barbiero, G. The Biophilic Quality Index. A Tool to Improve a Building from “Green” to Restorative. Vis. Sustain. 2017.
[CrossRef]
8. Soderlund, J.; Newman, P. Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Bentley, Australia Biophilic architecture: A review of
the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2015, 2, 950–969. [CrossRef]
9. Spano, G.; Ricciardi, E.; Theodorou, A.; Giannico, V.; Caffò, A.O.; Bosco, A.; Sanesi, G.; Panno, A. Objective greenness,
connectedness to nature and sunlight levels towards perceived restorativeness in urban nature. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 18192.
[CrossRef]
10. Kühn, S.; Gallinat, J. Environmental neuroscience unravels the pathway from the physical environment to mental health. Nat.
Ment. Health 2023, 2, 263–269. [CrossRef]
11. Mostajeran, F.; Steinicke, F.; Reinhart, S.; Stuerzlinger, W.; Riecke, B.E.; Kühn, S. Adding virtual plants leads to higher cognitive
performance and psychological well-being in virtual reality. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 8053. [CrossRef]
12. Mostajeran, F.; Fischer, M.; Steinicke, F.; Kühn, S. Effects of exposure to immersive computer-generated virtual nature and control
environments on affect and cognition. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 220. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Nanu, L.; Ali, F.; Berezina, K.; Cobanoglu, C. The effect of hotel lobby design on booking intentions: An intergenerational
examination. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89, 102530. [CrossRef]
14. Sohaib, M.; Wang, Y.; Iqbal, K.; Han, H. Nature-based solutions, mental health, well-being, price fairness, attitude, loyalty, and
evangelism for green brands in the hotel context. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 101, 103126. [CrossRef]
15. Watchman, M.; Demers, C.M.H.; Potvin, A. Biophilia in school buildings: Towards a simplified assessment method based on
spatial geometry. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2022, 18, 434–452. [CrossRef]
16. Yaseen, F.R.; Mustafa, F.A. Visibility of nature-connectedness in school buildings: An analytical study using biophilic parameters,
space syntax, and space/nature syntax. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023, 14, 101973. [CrossRef]
17. Watchman, M.; DeKay, M.; Demers, C.M.H.; Potvin, A. Design vocabulary and schemas for biophilic experiences in cold climate
schools. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2022, 65, 101–119. [CrossRef]
18. Zhong, W.; Schroeder, T.; Bekkering, J. Designing with nature: Advancing three-dimensional green spaces in architecture through
frameworks for biophilic design and sustainability. Front. Archit. Res. 2023, 12, 732–753. [CrossRef]
19. DeLauer, V.; McGill-O’Rourke, A.; Hayes, T.; Haluch, A.; Gordon, C.; Crane, J.; Kossakowski, D.; Dillon, C.; Thibeault, N.;
Schofield, D. The impact of natural environments and biophilic design as supportive and nurturing spaces on a residential college
campus. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2022, 8, 2000570. [CrossRef]
20. Haun, A.; Tononi, G. Why Does Space Feel the Way it Does? Towards a Principled Account of Spatial Experience. Entropy 2019,
21, 1160. [CrossRef]
21. Koseoglu, E.; Onder, D.E. Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 30, 1191–1195.
[CrossRef]
22. Salas, E.; Dietz, A.S. (Eds.) Situational Awareness; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016.
23. Zhong, W.; Schröder, T.; Bekkering, J. Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability:
A critical review. Front. Archit. Res. 2022, 11, 114–141. [CrossRef]
24. Heerwagen, J.; Kellert, S.R.; Mador, M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; Wiley: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2013.
25. Stephen, K.; Calabres, E. The Practice of Biophilic Design; Terrapin Bright LLC: London, UK, 2015.
26. The Space Syntax Laboratory, Bartlett, University College London UCL. Space Syntax. Available online: https://www.
spacesyntax.org/ (accessed on 25 June 2023).
27. Bird, S.; Klein, E.; Loper, E. Natural Language Processing with Python. Nat. Lang. Eng. 2011, 17, 419–424. [CrossRef]
28. Ateliers Jean Nouvel. One Central Park. Available online: http://www.jeannouvel.com/en/projects/one-central-park/ (accessed
on 28 December 2023).
29. ArchDaily. One Central Park/Ateliers Jean Nouvel. ArchDaily, 25 September 2014.
30. WOHA. Oasia Hotel Downtown—Singapore. Available online: https://woha.net/zh/project/oasia-hotel-downtown/ (accessed
on 28 December 2023).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 16 of 17

31. VTN Architects. VTN Architects Received the LIV Hospitality Design Awards 2020 for Chicland Hotel in “Architecture—
Living Space” in the “Hotel—Midscale & Lifestyle” Category. 3 July 2021. Available online: https://vtnarchitects.net/vtn-
architects-received-the-liv-hospitality-design-awards-2020-for-chicland-hotel-in-architecture%E2%80%93-living-space-in-
the-hotel-%E2%80%93-midscale-amp;-lifestyle-category-ne86.html#:~:text=Chicland%20Hotel%20-%20Da%20Nang%20was%
20designed%20by,in%20the%20%E2%80%9CHotel%20%E2%80%93%20Midscale%20&%20Lifestyle%E2%80%9D%20category
(accessed on 12 June 2024).
32. ArchDaily. Chicland Hotel/VTN Architects. ArchDaily, 9 December 2019. Available online: https://www.archdaily.com/929783
/chicland-hotel-vtn-architects (accessed on 24 June 2024).
33. A’Design Award and Competition. Hamacho Hotel by Uds Ltd. and The Range Design Inc. 29 February 2020. Available online:
https://competition.adesignaward.com/design.php?ID=102839 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
34. Hamacho Hotel & Apartments. Hamacho Hotel & Apartments Will Open on February 15th 2019. 24 October 2018. Available
online: https://hamachohotel.jp/zh/2018/?post_type=information (accessed on 24 June 2024).
35. WOHA. PARKROYAL COLLECTION Pickering. Available online: https://woha.net/zh/project/parkroyal-on-pickering/#
(accessed on 25 May 2024).
36. ArchDaily. PARKROYAL on Pickering/WOHA. ArchDaily, 23 April 2013. Available online: https://www.archdaily.com/363164
/parkroyal-on-pickering-woha-2 (accessed on 4 June 2024).
37. Andrews, K.; Learning Hub at Nanyang Technology University by Thomas Heatherwick. Dezzen, 19 July 2013. Available online:
https://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/19/heatherwick-learning-hub-nanyang-university/ (accessed on 12 June 2024).
38. ArchDaily. Learning Hub/Heatherwick Studio. ArchDaily, 10 March 2015. Available online: https://www.archdaily.com/607594
/learning-hub-heatherwick-studio (accessed on 25 June 2024).
39. Safdie Architects. Award|Jewel Changi Airport Wins President*s Design Award Singapore 2020. 30 June 2021. Available
online: https://www.safdiearchitects.com/media/award-jewel-changi-airport-wins-presidents-design-award-singapore-2020
(accessed on 12 June 2024).
40. Christele Harrouk. Winners of the ArchDaily Building of the Year 2020 Awards. ArchDaily, 17 February 2020. Available
online: https://www.archdaily.com/933896/winners-of-the-archdaily-building-of-the-year-2020-awards?ad_source=search&
ad_medium=projects_tab&ad_source=search&ad_medium=search_result_all (accessed on 12 June 2024).
41. Safdie Architects. Jewel Changi Airport. 2023. Available online: https://www.safdiearchitects.com/projects/jewel-changi-
airport (accessed on 24 June 2024).
42. Cochran, S.; AD’s 2021 Hotel Awards. Architecture+Design. Available online: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/
ads-2021-hotel-awards (accessed on 12 June 2024).
43. Choreo. Sou Fujimoto: Special Interview Part II. Available online: https://www.shiroiya.com/en/stories/interview_fujimoto_02
(accessed on 12 June 2024).
44. FuturArc Green Leadership Award 2018. Available online: https://www.futurarc.com/happening/futurarc-green-leadership-
award-2018/ (accessed on 25 June 2024).
45. VTN Architects. Atlas Hotel. Available online: https://vtnarchitects.net/atlas-hotel-pe234.html (accessed on 25 June 2024).
46. Wang, J.; Liu, H. From “Garden city” to “A city in a garden”: The ideals and practices of Singapore’s environmental greenery
policy and its implications for the Chinese government. Urban. Insight 2015, 5–16.
47. McNeill, D. BOTANIC URBANISM: The Technopolitics of Controlled Environments in Singapore’s Gardens by the Bay. Int. J.
Urban. Reg. Res. 2022, 46, 220–234. [CrossRef]
48. RegistrationChina. China Map App: The Ultimate Guide for Helping Foreign Visitors in 2024. Available online: https://www.
registrationchina.com/articles/china-map/ (accessed on 30 July 2024).
49. Garau, C.; Annunziata, A. A method for assessing the vitality potential of urban areas. The case study of the Metropolitan City of
Cagliari, Italy. City Territ. Arch. 2022, 9, 7. [CrossRef]
50. Munro, K.; Grierson, D. Nature, People and Place: Informing the Design of Urban Environments in Harmony with Nature Through
the Space/Nature Syntax. In Lifelong Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities; Azeiteiro, U.M., Akerman, M.,
Leal Filho, W., Setti, A.F.F., Brandli, L.L., Eds.; World Sustainability Series; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland,
2018; pp. 105–125. [CrossRef]
51. Shin, J.; Lee, J.-K. Indoor Walkability Index: BIM-enabled approach to Quantifying building circulation. Autom. Constr. 2019,
106, 102845. [CrossRef]
52. Fidan, D.; Hamidi, S.B.; Hasirci, D. The Effects of Biophilic Design on Wayfinding in Elementary Schools. In Proceedings of the
13th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Online, 5–6 July 2021; pp. 74–82. [CrossRef]
53. Mu, Y. Space Syntax: A Very Short Introduction; Shenzhen University Institute of Architecture: Shenzhen, China, 31 August 2012.
54. Yao, J. Automated Sentiment Analysis of Text Data with NLTK. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1187, 052020. [CrossRef]
55. Challa, N.P.; Madhavi, K.R.; Naseeba, B.; Bhanu, B.B.; Naresh, C. Sentiment Analysis from TWITTER Using NLTK. In Hybrid
Intelligent Systems; Abraham, A., Hong, T.-P., Kotecha, K., Ma, K., Manghirmalani Mishra, P., Gandhi, N., Eds.; Lecture Notes in
Networks and Systems; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 647, pp. 852–861. [CrossRef]
56. Bleier, S. NLTK’s List of English Stopwords. Available online: https://gist.github.com/sebleier/554280 (accessed on
28 June 2024).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2394 17 of 17

57. Alshanik, F.; Apon, A.; Herzog, A.; Safro, I.; Sybrandt, J. Accelerating Text Mining Using Domain-Specific Stop Word Lists.
In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–13 December 2020;
pp. 2639–2648. [CrossRef]
58. Sarica, S.; Luo, J. Stopwords in technical language processing. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254937. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Marutho, D.; Hendra Handaka, S.; Wijaya, E. The Determination of Cluster Number at k-Mean Using Elbow Method and Purity
Evaluation on Headline News. In Proceedings of the 2018 Inter national Seminar on Application for Technology of Information
and Communication, Semarang, Indonesia, 21–22 September 2018; pp. 533–538. [CrossRef]
60. Kuraria, A.; Jharbade, N.; Soni, M. Centroid Selection Process Using WCSS and Elbow Method for K-Mean Clustering Algorithm
in Data Mining. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2018, 4, 190–195. [CrossRef]
61. Gratsos, K.; Ougiaroglou, S.; Margaris, D. A Web Tool for K-means Clustering. In Novel & Intelligent Digital Systems: Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference (NiDS 2023); Kabassi, K., Mylonas, P., Caro, J., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems;
Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 783, pp. 91–101. [CrossRef]
62. Khan, R.; Qian, Y.; Naeem, S. Extractive based Text Summarization Using KMeans and TF-IDF. Int. J. Inf. Eng. Electron. Business
2019, 11, 33–44. [CrossRef]
63. Pearson, K., VII. Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1895, 58, 240–242. [CrossRef]
64. Pearson, K.X. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables
is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1900, 50,
157–175. [CrossRef]
65. Gravier, J.; Vignal, V.; Bissey-Breton, S.; Farre, J. The use of linear regression methods and Pearson’s correlation matrix to identify
mechanical–physical–chemical parameters controlling the micro-electrochemical behaviour of machined copper. Corros. Sci. 2008,
50, 2885–2894. [CrossRef]
66. Shafavi, N.S.; Tahsildoost, M.; Zomorodian, Z.S. Investigation of illuminance-based metrics in predicting occupants’ visual
comfort (case study: Architecture design studios). Sol. Energy 2020, 197, 111–125. [CrossRef]
67. Hong, Y.; Ezeh, C.I.; Deng, W.; Hong, S.-H.; Peng, Z.; Tang, Y. Correlation between building characteristics and associated energy
consumption: Prototyping low-rise office buildings in Shanghai. Energy Build. 2020, 217, 109959. [CrossRef]
68. Alghamdi, S.; Tang, W.; Kanjanabootra, S.; Alterman, D. Effect of Architectural Building Design Parameters on Thermal Comfort
and Energy Consumption in Higher Education Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 329. [CrossRef]
69. Tekin, B.H.; Corcoran, R.; Gutiérrez, R.U. The impact of biophilic design in Maggie’s Centres: A meta-synthesis analysis. Front.
Archit. Res. 2023, 12, 188–207. [CrossRef]
70. Yang, X.; Ozaki, A.; Takatsuji, R.; Nagase, O.; Arima, Y.; Choi, Y. Effects of biophilic design on hygrothermal environment and
human sensation in a large artificial garden of a public building. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 396, 01085. [CrossRef]
71. Fadda, R.; Congiu, S.; Roeyers, H.; Skoler, T. Elements of Biophilic Design Increase Visual Attention in Preschoolers. Buildings
2023, 13, 1160. [CrossRef]
72. Chen, B.; Gong, C.; Li, S. Looking at buildings or trees? Association of human nature relatedness with eye movements in outdoor
space. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 80, 101756. [CrossRef]
73. White, E.V.; Gatersleben, B. Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? J. Environ.
Psychol. 2011, 31, 89–98. [CrossRef]
74. Chang, C.; Cheng, G.J.Y.; Nghiem, T.P.L.; Song, X.P.; Oh, R.R.Y.; Richards, D.R.; Carrasco, L.R. Social media, nature, and life
satisfaction: Global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4125. [CrossRef]
75. Xue, F.; Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.-Y.; Lau, S.-K.; Chung, K.-H.; Zhang, J. From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’
perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1444–1452. [CrossRef]
76. Lee, S.H. Effects of biophilic design on consumer responses in the lodging industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 141–150.
[CrossRef]
77. Alvina, F.R.; Sembiring, S.G. Study on the Application of Biophilic Architecture in the Design of Creative Industry Center
Buildings. Int. J. Archit. Urban. 2022, 6, 43–56. [CrossRef]
78. Wong, I.; Baldwin, A.N. Investigating the potential of applying vertical green walls to high-rise residential buildings for
energy-saving in sub-tropical region. Build. Environ. 2016, 97, 34–39. [CrossRef]
79. Charoenkit, S.; Yiemwattana, S. Living walls and their contribution to improved thermal comfort and carbon emission reduction:
A review. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 82–94. [CrossRef]
80. Vogt, J.; Hauer, R.; Fischer, B. The Costs of Maintaining and Not Maintaining the Urban Forest: A Review of the Urban Forestry
and Arboriculture Literature. Arboric. Urban For. 2015, 41, 293–323. [CrossRef]
81. Watchman, M.; Demers, C.M.H.; Potvin, A. Towards a biophilic experience representation tool (BERT) for architectural walk-
throughs: A pilot study in two Canadian primary schools. Intell. Build. Int. 2022, 14, 455–472. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.