The Impact of Biophilic Design in Residential Interiors on Mental Health and Residential Satisfaction: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study in Tripoli, Libya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65405/a20mva80Keywords:
Biophilic Design, Mental Health, DASS-21, Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Tripoli, Residential Satisfaction, PLS-SEMAbstract
There is growing interest in biophilic design as a tool for improving mental health; however, studies in the Arab residential context remain limited, and Libya bears a significant mental health burden with scarce research linking residential design to psychological outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of residential biophilic interior design on mental health (depression, anxiety, stress) and residential satisfaction, while testing the mediating roles of psychological restoration and residential satisfaction. A comparative cross-sectional study using Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) was conducted with 250 participants (92.6% response rate) from Greater Tripoli, Libya. Instruments included the adapted Arabic version of Browning's 14 Patterns, the DASS-21, the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), and a residential satisfaction scale. Data were analyzed using PLS-SEM with MICOM for multi-group comparison, revealing acceptable model fit indices (SRMR = 0.061, NFI = 0.91). Results showed that the mean Biophilic Design Index (BDI) was 3.18 out of 5 (63.6%), indicating a moderate level, with the model explaining substantial variance (R² for depression = 0.43, anxiety = 0.39, stress = 0.47). Biophilic design strongly predicted psychological restoration (β = 0.69, p < 0.001) and residential satisfaction (β = 0.63, p < 0.001), and high-biophilic homes were associated with approximately 30% lower mean depression scores, with visual connection with nature emerging as the strongest individual predictor (β = 0.46). The findings indicate that residential biophilic interior design is strongly associated with improved mental health and increased residential satisfaction in the Libyan context, and the study recommends integrating biophilic design standards into housing policies while offering the adapted Arabic version of Browning's tool as a valid research instrument for use in Arab contexts.
Downloads
References
1. Al-Mansour, F., & Al-Hajj, S. (2024). Residential satisfaction in post-conflict urban settings: A case of Tripoli, Libya. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 150(2), 04024012.
2. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
3. Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green.
4. Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735-758.
5. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
6. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405-431.
7. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
8. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
9. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182.
10. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
11. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill.
12. Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Sca
13. Meliouh, F., Sekhri, A., Tabet Aoul, K. A., & Hamel, K. (2023). Post-occupancy evaluation of the neo-vernacular courtyard in contemporary mass housing. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 40, 245-258.
14. Obeidat, H. H., et al. (2025). Biophilic design in homes: Impact on resident satisfaction and psychological well-being. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 13(1), 112-125.
15. Taouk, M., Lovibond, P. F., & Laube, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the DASS-21. University of New South Wales.
16. Ulrich, R. S. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and recent scientific research. Journal of Health Care Interior Design, 3(1), 97-109.
17. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
18. World Health Organization. (2023). Libya: Mental health needs assessment. WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.
19. Xing, Y., et al. (2025). Exploring biophilic building designs to promote wellbeing and stimulate inspiration. PLoS ONE, 20(3), e0234567.
20. Zhang, R., et al. (2025). Mediating role of perceived restorativeness in green buildings: A longitudinal study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98, 102412.
21. سمير، أ. (2023). التصميم الداخلي البيوفيلي وتأثيره النفسي والعضوي على مستخدمي المنشآت الصحية. مجلة التراث والتصميم، 4(1)، 89-105.
