Two Ways to Learn from Nature: What I’ve Discovered About Biomimicry and Biophilic Design

When you’ve been modifying the same house for nearly four decades, you develop a certain perspective on how design ideas come and go. But lately, I’ve been reading about two approaches to bringing nature into our built environments that seem like more than just passing trends. They’re called biomimicry and biophilic design, and while they both draw inspiration from the natural world, they go about it in very different ways.

I first encountered these concepts when I was researching therapeutic gardens for my wife after her stroke. One article led to another, and before I knew it, I was deep into reading about how engineers are copying nature’s solutions and how designers are trying to reconnect us with the outdoors. As someone who’s spent years figuring out practical solutions for home problems, both approaches fascinated me for different reasons.

**How We Got Here**

Looking back at how we’ve built homes over the past century, it’s interesting to see how far we’ve moved away from nature. When my grandparents’ generation built houses, they didn’t have much choice but to work with natural light, natural ventilation, and local materials. Porches weren’t just decorative – they were where you spent summer evenings because you didn’t have air conditioning. Windows were positioned to catch breezes and maximize daylight because electricity was expensive.

Then we got better at controlling indoor environments artificially. Central air, fluorescent lighting, sealed windows. We could build anywhere, orient buildings however we wanted, and ignore local climate completely. More comfortable in many ways, but we lost something too.

The biomimicry movement really took off thanks to a biologist named Janine Benyus, who pointed out that nature has been solving engineering problems for millions of years. Why reinvent the wheel when you could study how a spider makes silk stronger than steel, or how a lotus leaf stays clean without soap? It’s the kind of practical thinking that appeals to my engineering background.

Biophilic design came from a different direction – a psychologist named Edward Wilson who studied our innate connection to living things. Instead of copying how nature works, this approach focuses on why we need nature around us for our mental and physical wellbeing. Having lived through my wife’s recovery, I can tell you there’s definitely something to this idea.

**What Each Approach Actually Means**

Biomimicry is essentially reverse-engineering nature. Engineers study how termites keep their mounds at constant temperature, then design buildings with similar ventilation systems. They look at how bird beaks are shaped, then redesign train noses to reduce wind resistance. It’s about copying nature’s most successful solutions to solve human problems.

I’ve seen some impressive examples. The Eastgate Centre in Zimbabwe uses termite-inspired ventilation and needs 90% less energy for climate control. The Japanese bullet train nose design, copied from a kingfisher beak, reduced noise and energy consumption. These aren’t just clever ideas – they’re practical solutions that work.

Biophilic design takes a different approach. Instead of copying nature’s engineering, it focuses on our psychological need for natural elements. It’s about incorporating plants, natural light, water, and organic shapes into our built environments because these things make us feel better.

When I enlarged windows in our house and added the greenhouse for my wife, I was essentially doing biophilic design without knowing the term. The goal wasn’t to copy how nature works, but to bring more of it into our daily environment because I could see how much better she felt when surrounded by plants and natural light.

**Real-World Applications**

The practical applications of both approaches are pretty impressive. I mentioned the termite-inspired building ventilation and the train nose design – those are biomimicry successes that solve real engineering problems while reducing environmental impact.

On the biophilic side, I’ve read about projects like the Amazon Spheres in Seattle, which are essentially giant greenhouses where employees work surrounded by plants and natural light. Singapore’s airport has a massive indoor waterfall and garden. These aren’t just pretty additions – studies show these environments reduce stress, improve creativity, and help with overall health.

In my own much smaller scale projects, I’ve seen similar results. The raised beds I built at wheelchair height didn’t just solve an accessibility problem – they gave my wife a reason to spend time outdoors and working with plants again. The greenhouse extends her growing season and gives her something to tend even during Michigan winters. These modifications have had benefits beyond what I originally intended.

**The Challenges Are Real**

Neither approach is without problems, though. Biomimicry sounds great in theory, but nature’s solutions evolved over millions of years in specific contexts. Copying them for human use can be incredibly complex and expensive. The research and development costs can be huge, which makes these solutions less accessible for smaller projects or tight budgets.

Biophilic design has its own issues. There’s a tendency for some designers to just add a few plants and call it biophilic, without understanding what actually provides psychological benefits. I’ve seen buildings with token nature elements that don’t accomplish much beyond looking fashionable.

Maintenance is another real concern. Living walls look beautiful, but who’s going to water them and replace dead plants? Water features need cleaning and repair. The greenhouse I built for my wife requires daily attention – watering, temperature monitoring, pest control. It’s rewarding work, but it is work.

Then there’s the question of what actually counts as biophilic design. Is a nature photograph on the wall beneficial? What about artificial plants? How much natural light do you need to see real benefits? The research is still catching up to the enthusiasm in some cases.

**Looking Ahead**

What interests me most is how these two approaches could work together. Biomimicry gives us more efficient building systems – better ventilation, lighting, and energy use. Biophilic design makes those buildings places where people actually want to spend time and feel good.

In our house modifications, I’ve ended up using elements of both without really planning it that way. The greenhouse design incorporates passive solar heating principles I learned from reading about energy-efficient building (similar to biomimicry thinking), but the real goal is giving my wife access to plants and gardening year-round (biophilic benefits).

I think we’ll see more integration of these approaches as they mature. Buildings that are both more efficient and more livable. Design solutions that solve practical problems while supporting human wellbeing. It makes sense to me – why choose between buildings that work well and buildings that make us feel good?

For those of us modifying existing homes rather than building new, both approaches offer useful ideas. You might not be able to redesign your building’s ventilation system based on termite mounds, but you can think about natural airflow when planning room layouts. You might not be able to add a living wall, but you can position plants where they’ll get good light and where you’ll see them regularly.

The key seems to be understanding the principles behind both approaches rather than just copying specific solutions. Nature-inspired design isn’t about making everything look like a forest – it’s about learning from natural systems and reconnecting with the natural world in ways that make sense for how we actually live.

After years of practical home modifications, I’m convinced that bringing more nature into our built environments isn’t just trendy – it’s necessary. Whether that means copying nature’s engineering solutions or simply making sure we can see trees from our windows, the goal is creating spaces that work better for both humans and the environment. That’s something worth working toward.