An Evidence-Based Assessment of Biophilic Interior Design in a Traditional Context: The Case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Biophilia is a concept that suggests humans have an innate connection to nature. Biophilic design needs to be addressed under the umbrella of environmentally sustainable design, which is crucial in regard to the current urban development agenda. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as a Gulf country possessing valuable traditional architecture with rich local diversity, also needs to implement strategies for the establishment of sustainable development goals. The evaluation of biophilic design in the interior design environment through the values of traditional architecture can be a positive step towards reconnecting the built environment with nature. Within this scope, after a theoretical evaluation of biophilia, biophilic design (BD), and existing BD frameworks, in this study, we used the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) to assess biophilia in traditional Saudi architecture. Three heritage buildings in each of the four regions, amounting to twelve buildings in total, were rated for each of the BID-M matrix’s 54 listed features. According to the findings of a quantitative assessment based on the qualitative evaluation of biophilia in the chosen heritage buildings, these traditional buildings have a remarkably high score regarding biophilia. As such, there is a clear indication of the potential for aligning heritage building values with biophilic interior design features. This new approach, uniquely tailored to the rich and diverse cultural identity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is crucial for incorporating sustainability into modern construction and has significant implications for the future of architecture in this region.

1. Introduction

The term “biophilia”, which comes from the Ancient Greek “bios” (life) and “philia” (love), denotes the love of life, and the main goal of its proponents is to preserve and advance human life in all its forms (physical, psychological, social, artistic, moral, etc.). The theory of biophilia, initially described by Erich Fromm and later by Edward O. Wilson, suggests that people are inherently drawn to connecting with nature. Understanding that people are inherently drawn to nature, biophilic design theory proposes incorporating nature into a city’s planning, architecture, and administration through a variety of biophilic urban design techniques that can be applied at a range of scales, from buildings to regions [1].

Several cultures throughout history have used natural representations in their designs. Architecture is a remarkable and significant feature in every society and cannot be separated from nature. Since the emergence of humans, humanity has been immersed in nature and surrounded by it; the harmony in nature has been exploited by humanity throughout history as a source of inspiration in various ways [2]. Biophilic designs have been described as a way of showing people’s connection to natural systems, and nature-themed designs can be found in some of the earliest structures built by humans. For instance, the styles of the ancient Roman and Mesopotamian civilizations and Byzantine, Gothic, and Renaissance architecture in medieval times provide remarkable and solid evidence of biophilic design [3]. In other words, local materials and forms employed according to site conditions and nature-inspired decoration have been used in building construction throughout human history. However, especially after the Industrial Revolution and as a result of urbanization, there has been an isolation of humans from nature, despite the importance of the connection between the two [4].

As such, technological development, especially life inside buildings, has weakened humans’ connection with nature, harming their health; physical, mental, and emotional well-being; and daily performance [5]. In contrast, evidence shows that a space with exposure to nature has a large positive influence on people. Natural views/light, accessibility, and openness in a space produce positive experiences [6]. Further, there are valuable studies pointing out that BD promotes health and well-being [7,8], enhances social interaction [9,10], increases productivity [11], reduces stress and anxiety [12], impacts creativity [13] and positive emotion [14], supports pro-environmental behavior [15,16], etc.

Thus, it can be suggested that since the end of the 1980s, nature has been re-explored as an inspiration for architecture as a consequence of the emergence of sustainable development [17]. Since the 1990s, sustainability has been a key concept that is widely accepted. In particular, in the last few decades, sustainable architecture has gained significance, and various environmentally based solution approaches are being employed in order to fulfil this new crucial agenda. A new design framework for built spaces is emerging, and this agenda needs to include aspects such as biophilia, ecology, inclusive design, etc., to respond to the multifaceted physical, physiological, and psychological needs of these spaces’ occupants [18]. Green buildings and zero-carbon homes are among these new terms under the umbrella of sustainable urban development. Biophilic design based on the theory of biophilia can also be argued to be one of these rising approaches that aims to deal with the diverse interactions between humans, nature, and buildings [19,20].

Biophilic design provides multiple benefits to environmentally sustainable design in many ways [21]. It can be argued that BD makes direct and indirect positive contributions to the fulfillment of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [22]. For instance, although predicted to be the least relevant feature, BD encompasses examples considering gender in design, addressing concerns regarding “Gender Equality” as the fifth goal [23].

Therefore, various frameworks of biophilic design for different urban scales have been proposed in Western architecture, as the concern for linking nature to the built environment has increased. However, it can be argued that there is a deficiency of knowledge regarding biophilic design theories focusing on the non-Western world. As such, theoretical and evidence-based research is also crucial for countries in the Middle Eastern context in order to shift towards more environmentally responsive, sustainable, nature-based architectural solutions, particularly those including biophilic design. In developing countries, including the Gulf states, there has been a situational and contextual ignorance of sustainable housing design strategies, lacking theoretical and practical attention with isolation from local practices [24].

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as a Gulf state possessing valuable traditional architecture with rich local diversity, also needs to implement strategies for the establishment of sustainable development goals. From the 1930s to the 1990s, Saudi Arabia experienced unparalleled urban growth as a result of oil discoveries, resulting in the development of modern cities and high-tech structures [25]. Furthermore, the 1970s witnessed the process of the adoption of “imported” models. In the last few decades, there have been remarkable governmental attempts at valorizing local culture, values, heritage, and resources based on the development of new economic sustainable strategies and a post-oil economy. However, this new path towards implementing a sustainable approach mirroring the architectural heritage of this country needs to be supported and diversified. Biophilic design has the potential to be an efficient tool for this new path.

At this point, it can be hypothesized that architectural heritage possessing a rich vernacular identity and reflecting unique religious, environmental, ecological, social, and aesthetic values of the Arabian Peninsula has a remarkable advantage with respect to being integrated into a biophilic design theory that can be specific and suitable for this country. Within this framework, in this study, we seek to assess biophilia in traditional Saudi architecture. Such an approach has the potential to develop a new understanding of biophilic interior design that can be more efficiently and specifically used in the Middle Eastern context. Further, the new understanding developed from the findings of this study can offer new insights into sustainable housing design solutions in this region.

Within this scope, the relevant literature on the topics of biophilia, biophilic design (BD), and BD frameworks is evaluated in the next section. Later in the study, in the methodology section, the research context, research materials, and method are explained. Three traditional buildings were chosen for each of Saudi Arabia’s four regions. These buildings, twelve in total, were assessed using BID-M [26], including 54 features in six main categories, in order to understand the link between biophilia and traditional Saudi architecture. Afterwards, our findings and a discussion are provided, and the final section includes our conclusions and recommendations based on the literature review and our findings.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Biophilia and Biophilic Design

Biophilia originates from the fusion of “bio”, denoting nature, life, and living things, and “philia”, signifying love or affinity. It encapsulates the interplay between constructed surroundings and the natural world, aiming to harness the advantages of both realms for human benefit. This concept underscores the intrinsic link between a human-made environment and nature, positing that individuals require a holistic connection with nature across physical, emotional, and communal dimensions to cultivate overall well-being [27]. Biophilia has been characterized as humans’ predisposition to link themselves with nature, which has persisted throughout the course of human existence. It is a notion that arose from a complete perspective of human development, in which humans’ past is connected with adapting to natural factors rather than human-created forces. Humans tend to respond instinctively to natural stimuli and forces.

Numerous modern constructed spaces can be likened to structures that deprive individuals of sensory experiences, drawing parallels with zoo enclosures, which have similarly been criticized and deemed inhumane [28]. The absence of nature in contemporary built environments has led to an increasing gap between humans and essential natural elements such as sunlight, vegetation, organic shapes, materials, and fresh air. However, according to [29], in general, research supports the notion of a basic psychological need for nature relatedness, as is well evidenced in the literature.

As such, there is a remarkable amount of research pointing out the positive connection between human well-being and biophilic architectural design features, encompassing physical, emotional, and mental aspects [30] argue that humans’ relationship with nature shields them from the damaging effects of daily life, facilitates personal healing, and promotes coexistence with Earth’s systems. Furthermore, ref. [31] point out green environments’ therapeutic effects on humans, such as increased productivity, positive mood, well-being, and stability. In addition, it must be underlined that there are studies suggesting and reinforcing the profound influence of nature on human quality of life [32]. Therefore, there has been a recent surge in incorporating nature into the built environment. In addition to biophilic design’s link with human well-being with respect to reduced stress and increased health, welfare, well-being benefits, etc., it is arguably a technique that provides a sustainable design strategy [33,34]. Sustainability in built environments is a crucial concept to account for as we deal with the consequences of global warming and climate change.

Although it appears to be a recent trend in architecture and interior design, the notion of biophilia was originally introduced by psychologist Erich Fromm in 1964, and it was emphasized in the 1980s by biologist Edward Wilson, who investigated the loss of connection to nature caused by urban living [35]. The following question emerged: how can architecture reconnect people with nature to improve their health and well-being? In the search for ways to incorporate natural materials or processes into these structures’ designs, transferring natural characteristics to the built environment was eventually established as the most common method [36]. As such, based on this fundamental understanding of humans’ connection with nature as instinctive, according to [17], “biophilia”, “habitat and dwelling”, “restoration”, and “place” are the core perspectives pertaining to the theoretical basis of biophilic design in environmental psychology. Within these four core perspectives, there are prominent theories such as “place attachment theory” and “prospect–refuge theory”.

Within this framework, it can be argued that various dimensions, elements, and attributes have been conceptualized by different scholars, academics, and theorists since the 2000s. In other words, different BD frameworks from different scientific studies have been proposed in the field of architecture in order to reconnect buildings with nature.

2.2. Biophilic Design Frameworks

In recent decades, biophilic design approaches have been applied at various scales, ranging from interior to city scales, including campuses, office buildings, healthcare spaces, hospitals, preschools, etc.

One of the most remarkable concepts was framed by [37]. In this framework, two primary dimensions, six elements, and 72 attributes were systematically proposed. Understanding the two dimensions of biophilic design, i.e., naturalistic/organic and vernacular/place-based, is crucial as they significantly shape human identities. According to Stephen Kellert, the pioneer of this concept, the naturalistic or organic component involves three main elements: “environmental features”, “natural shapes and forms”, and “natural patterns and processes”. For the second dimension, the place-based or vernacular component, there are another three main elements: “light and space”, “place-based relationships”, and “evolved human–nature relationships”.

Later, ref. [38] investigated biophilic design, suggesting it was a widely used framework with 14 patterns within three categories. Further, ref. [39] proposed 25 attributes synthesized across three experiential categories to reflect the practice of BD [40].

Recently, Kellert transformed this conceptualization into three experiences [41]. The first experience is the “direct experience of nature”. The second is the “indirect experience of nature”, and the third is “the experience of space and place”. Direct contact with the natural environment incorporates the actual sensory forms of nature into a building; these forms include clean water, fresh air, sunlight, and plants and trees. Second, an indirect connection to the natural environment simulates the feeling of nature in the built environment through the use of colors, materials, patterns, textures, and natural shapes. Thirdly, the experience of space and place refers to spatial qualities concerning users’ responses to their environmental circumstances, such as those regarding mobility, prospects and refuge, etc.

In addition, another pioneering framework was recently developed by [42]. This concept involved three main categories: “nature in the space”, “natural analogues”, and the “nature of the space”, incorporating 15 patterns. Furthermore, there are BD frameworks that have been developed specifically for university campuses, water criteria, sustainable design, preschools [34,43], clinical environments, hospitals [44,45,46], etc. It can be suggested that BD is also highly required and even crucial for interior architecture. As such, there are several scientific evidence-based and theoretical studies investigating BD in the context of interior design. One of these remarkable frameworks for interior design was developed by [26]: the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M). Initially, ref. [47] proposed the Biophilic Design Matrix (BDM) to operationalize biophilic design for interior design applications with the help of examining a scoring procedure to indicate the variety of biophilic design features present in interior pediatric hospital playrooms. Consequently, some items on Kellert’s list of 72 biophilic design attributes were eliminated, and 52 features were suggested. Later, BDM was revised in order to make it more valid and reliable, after considering the findings of pre- and postquestionnaires, and thus, BID-M was developed, now containing six elements and 54 attributes [26]. See Figure 1 for more details.

3. Study Methodology

3.1. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the Research Context

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has an area of 2.15 million square kilometers. It is one of the largest countries in the Middle East by area, covering 80% of the area of the Arabian Peninsula [48]. This country’s climate is characterized by little and irregular rainfall with limited areas with vegetation and dry winds [49].

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s population surged to 33.1 million people in 2018, with a significant number, 83.8%, residing in urban areas. This urbanization trend is set to continue, with the population projected to reach 37.6 million by 2025. This country is home to various ethnic groups, each with its own unique culture and language, contributing to the rich cultural heritage of Saudi Arabia [50,51].

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands out for its unique and diverse traditional architecture due to its vast territory and varied geographical and climatic conditions. This diversity is mirrored in its society, wherein the environment shapes human life, leading to distinct architectural styles in each region.

Heritage buildings are sustainable because of building skills that have been passed down through generations and the stability of environmental and climate factors for each region [52]. The architectural styles of heritage buildings constitute the reason behind the division of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into four regions [53]. See Figure 2.

Saudi Arabia’s central, western, eastern, and southern regions have distinctive architectural characteristics shaped by each region’s unique properties (Figure 3). However, all four regions’ traditional architecture reflects religious, environmental, cultural, social, and aesthetic values.

3.2. Materials

Three traditional buildings for each region (central, eastern, southern, and western), accounting for architectural massing, external facades, interior design, doors, and windows, were chosen for the assessment. In total, twelve buildings (three for each of the four regions) were evaluated. See

Table 1. List of selected traditional buildings for each region.

Region	Selected Traditional Buildings
Central	Al Bassam Heritage House—Unayzah Al Salhi Heritage House—Unayzah HeritageVillage—Ushaiqer
Western	Baeshen’s Heritage House—Jeddah Noor Wali’s Heritage House—Jeddah Bayt Nassief Heritage House—Jeddah
Eastern	Al Mulla Heritage House—Al-Ahsa (Hofuf) Almelhem Heritage House—Al-Ahsa Traditional Souq Market—Al-Ahsa
Southern	Al Aan Palace—Najran Al-Muftaha Art Village—Assir, Najran Almaa Village—Assir, Najran

for further details.

The traditional houses of the central region, built with a deep respect for the environment, are constructed of mud bricks mixed with straw and water, as well as tamarisk wood, all sourced locally [54]. The buildings, typically with one or two floors and rarely three, feature an internal courtyard in the middle, designed not only to provide light and natural ventilation but also to cater to the privacy needs of the residents. The upper floors, with no external openings, and the ground floor, with its tiny openings, are both designed to meet the privacy needs of the residents [55]. See

Table 2. Characteristics of buildings in the central region.

Central Region	Building Massing	External Facades	Interior	Door	Window
Building (1) Al Bassam Heritage House—Unayzah
	Source: [56]
Building (2) Al Salhi Heritage House—Unayzah
	Source: 1—[57] 2—Taken by the author
Building (3) Heritage Village—Ushaiqer
	Source: 1—[58] 2—[59] 3—[60]

for characteristics of buildings in the central region.

Different cultures have influenced the western region [61]. This region is characterized by the high density of the architectural blocks and their interconnectedness with the urban fabric. At the same time, the streets are narrow and winding, providing cold air and shade for passersby [62]. This region features a multi-story row house made of coral stone and imported wood. It is typical for traditional houses in Medina to have wide-open courtyards surrounded by rooms. In contrast, in Mecca, heritage houses have outdoor courtyards, while Jeddah houses do not have courtyards. See

Table 3. Building characteristics of the western region.

Western Region	Building Massing	External Facades	Interior	Door	Window
Building (1) Baeshen’s Heritage House—Jeddah
	Source: 1—[63]
Building (2) Noor Wali’s Heritage House—Jeddah
	Source: 1—[64] 2—[65] 3—[66] 4—[67]
Building (3) Bayt Nassief Heritage House—Jeddah
	Source: 1—[68] 2—[69] 3—[70]

.

The eastern region’s climate, characterized by hot and humid summers, has influenced its urban fabric throughout its history. The architectural blocks, designed to be adjacent and dense, provide shade from the intense sun and protection from dust storms and winds. The building materials employed, such as clay, plaster, and coral stone, are locally sourced and abundant in the surrounding environment. See

Table 4. Building characteristics of the eastern region.

Eastern Region	Building Massing	External Facades	Interior	Door	Window
Building (1) Al Mulla Heritage House—Al-Ahsa (Hofuf)
	Source: 1—[71] 2—[72] 3—Taken by the author
Building (2) Almelhem Heritage House—Al-Ahsa
	Source: 1—Taken by the author
Building (3) Traditional Souq Market—Al-Ahsa
	Source: 1—[73] 2—Taken by the author

.

The southern region possesses rich natural properties, ranging from its distinctive geographical location to its climate and terrain. These factors have been instrumental in crafting the diverse heritage urban patterns and the materials and construction methods that define them. These natural influences have given rise to three distinct urban patterns in this region, each with its own unique characteristics and construction methods. These patterns include stone, mud, and thatched houses [62]. See

Table 5. Building characteristics of the southern region.

Southern Region	Building Massing	External Facades	Interior	Door	Window
Building (1) Al Aan Palace-Najran
	Source: 1—[74] 2—[75] 3—Taken by the author
Building (2) Al-Muftaha-Art-Village-Assir-Najran
	Source: 1—Taken by the author
Building (3) Almaa-Village–Assir-Najran
	Source: 1—[76] 2—Taken by the author

for building characteristics of the southern region.

3.3. Method

In this study, we used the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) developed by [26] to assess biophilia as expressed by traditional Saudi architecture. Its criteria, which include six elements and 54 features, were used to quantitatively score the biophilia in each of the chosen three buildings for each of the four regions (central, east, west, and south). This tool was used to assess the chosen buildings’ massing, external facades, interior design, doors, and windows as a whole in order to evaluate each of the matrix’s features See Figure 4 for research design flow chart.

As a result of qualitatively evaluating the houses, a total of (0) or (1) was quantitatively assigned for each of the BID-M matrix’s 54 listed features. See

Table A1. Assessment conducted using the BID-M matrix for the central region.

Central Region		Building (1)	Building (2)	Building (3)	Total Scores
Actual Natural Features
1	Air	1	1	1	3
2	Water	1	1	1	3
3	Plants	1	1	1	3
4	Animals	1	1	1	3
5	Natural materials	1	1	1	3
6	Views and vistas	1	1	1	3
7	Habitats	1	1	1	3
8	Fire	1	1	1	3
Sub score		8	8	8	24
Natural Shapes + Forms
9	Botanical motifs	1	0	0	1
10	Animal likenesses	0	0	0	0
11	Shells and spirals	0	0	0	0
12	Curves and arches	1	0	1	2
13	Fluid forms	0	0	0	0
14	Abstractions of nature	1	1	1	3
15	Shapes that are inside-out	1	1	1	3
Sub score		4	2	3	9
Natural Patterns + Processes
16	Sensory richness	1	1	1	3
17	Age, change, and patina	1	1	1	3
18	Area of emphasis	1	1	1	3
19	Patterned wholes	1	1	1	3
20	Bounded spaces	1	1	1	3
21	Linked series and chains	1	1	1	3
22	Integrations of parts with wholes	1	1	1	3
23	Complementary contrasts	1	1	1	3
24	Dynamic balance and tension	1	1	1	3
25	Natural ratios and scales	1	1	1	3
Sub score		10	10	10	30
Color and Light
26	Composition	1	1	1	3
27	Communication	1	1	1	3
28	Preference	1	1	1	3
29	Engagement	1	1	1	3
30	Pragmatics	1	1	1	3
31	Natural light	1	1	1	3
32	Filtered light	1	1	1	3
33	Reflected light	1	1	1	3
34	Light pools	1	1	1	3
35	Warm light	1	1	1	3
36	Light as shape and form	1	1	1	3
37	Spaciousness	1	1	1	3
38	Spatial variability	1	1	1	3
39	Space as shape and form	1	1	1	3
40	Spatial harmony	1	1	1	3
Sub score		15	15	15	45
Place-based relationships
41	Geographic connection to place	1	1	1	3
42	Historic connection to place	1	1	1	3
43	Ecological connection to place	1	1	1	3
44	Cultural connection to place	1	1	1	3
45	Integration of culture and ecology	1	1	1	3
46	Spirit of place	1	1	1	3
Sub score		6	6	6	18
Human–nature relationships
47	Prospect/refuge	1	1	1	3
48	Order and complexity	1	1	1	3
49	Curiosity and enticement	1	1	1	3
50	Mastery and control	1	1	1	3
51	Attraction/attachment	1	1	1	3
52	Exploration/discovery	1	1	1	3
53	Fear/awe	1	1	1	3
54	Reverence/spirituality	1	1	1	3
Sub score		8	8	8	24
Total score		51	49	50	150
Average					50

in Appendix A for a sample of the assessment for the central region.

4. Findings

Limitations of the Study

The aim of this study was to assess biophilia in traditional Saudi architecture. It is hypothesized that this country’s architectural heritage, reflecting a rich vernacular identity, has remarkable potential for adoption into a new understanding of biophilic design. A limitation of this research was the number of buildings chosen to be assessed, a number that can be increased in future studies. Four traditional buildings in each of Saudi Arabia’s regions, twelve in total, were randomly selected for this study. Further assessments pertaining to other non-Western countries, including those in the Middle East, can be carried out with the aim of developing new biophilic design frameworks reflecting the local vernacular identity.

The Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) scores for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are 51, 49, and 50, respectively, out of 54 in the central region. See Figure 5 for further details.

The Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) scores for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are 48, 48, and 50, respectively, out of 54 in the western region. See Figure 6 for further details.

The Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) scores for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are 47, 49, and 49, respectively, out of 54 in the eastern region. See Figure 7 for further details.

Finally, the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) scores for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are 49, 48, and 48, respectively, out of 54 in the southern region. See Figure 8 for further details.

The data tables present a significantly high score for biophilia in regard to the traditional buildings investigated, a clear indication of the potential for aligning heritage building values with biophilia features for interior design See Figure 9 and Figure 10. In this study, we extracted new physical features from the values of architectural heritage found in previous studies and added them to the biophilic framework of interior design.

5. Discussion

The aim of this study was to assess traditional buildings with respect to their biophilic design features. Such an assessment has the potential to provide data for developing a new revised biophilic interior design framework for the Middle East region.

Regarding the first element (actual natural features) of the BID-M matrix, it can be argued that the environmental values of the traditional architecture analyzed highly satisfied all the criteria for environmental features such as air, water, plants, views, and vistas. For example, corresponding to the air feature, ventilation and thermal moderation in these traditional buildings are achieved through several architectural elements. For instance, the use of local and traditional materials such as coral stone, clay, wood, and timber help traditional buildings achieve relatively high environmental value by incorporating the first element (actual natural features) of the matrix.

The second element (natural shapes + forms) within the BID-M framework also satisfies traditional architecture characteristics in specific ways. For instance, the use of curves and arches in traditional architecture mirrors natural shapes and forms. As such, heritage buildings in the central region have circular arches reflecting their aesthetic and religious values.

In addition, several aesthetical elements, such as badgir, mashrabiya (roshan), tarma, alsharaf, and alfuraj, are traditional items inspired by nature, preserving residents’ privacy inside the house from the outside. They are elements that support aesthetic and religious values. One such element is the badgir, a channel with two openings similar to air clamps. This element, which is inspired by nature and designed to adapt to it aesthetically, aligns with the biophilia framework’s emphasis on natural ventilation and light. One of the two openings opens outside, while the other opens to the roof or interior rooms to provide cool air, a natural and sustainable way of maintaining indoor comfort [62]. In addition, the “mashrabiya” element and the open courtyard in the middle or outside of the building also number among these aesthetic items of traditional buildings.

Hejaz heritage architecture is celebrated with its unique features, notably the Roshan element. This architectural element, which is inspired by nature, aligns with the biophilia framework’s emphasis on natural light. The roshan element, as a type of window, refracts the intense sunlight during daylight hours; it is strategically placed to ensure the residents’ privacy while offering a discreet view of the outside world. It provides soft and diffuse light indoors.

Sharaf are stepped units in the form of arrows, triangles, or squares covered with plaster that characterize the exterior facades of heritage houses in the central region. In addition, there are alfuraj, which are rectangular or triangular openings that provide ventilation and lighting. The tarma element is found near the doors and in the outer walls of buildings, and it allows one to see outside while maintaining privacy and not revealing those inside [77].

The third element of the framework (natural patterns + processes) is of particular significance in the context of heritage buildings. This element, which aligns with heritage buildings’ aesthetic and religious values, is not just a spatial constraint but a reflection of religious values, segregating residents’ spaces from guests’ spaces in various ways, such as through boundary spaces to preserve residents’ privacy and by segregating male spaces from female spaces in the sleeping area.

The inclusion of open courtyards, a physical feature that aligns with the values of religious and social heritage architecture, is not just a design choice but a practical and cultural element that significantly enhances the livability of a space. These courtyards, a common feature in traditional houses in Medina, serve as a central gathering space and provide natural ventilation, enhancing the comfort and livability of a space. This example clearly demonstrates how natural patterns and processes shape the interior design of heritage buildings.

This region’s unique geographical location, characterized by its proximity to the sea, mountainous terrain, and specific climate, has been instrumental in shaping its diverse heritage urban patterns. These patterns, in turn, have influenced the materials and construction methods used for heritage buildings, highlighting the integration of natural patterns and processes in their interior design.

These natural influences have given rise to three distinct urban patterns in this region, each with unique characteristics and construction methods. For instance, stone houses are known for their durability and thermal insulation properties, mud houses are valued for their natural cooling effect, and thatched houses are appreciated for their lightweight and flexible structure [62]. Additionally, there are several diverse ornamentation methods, such as the use of geometric, botanical, and written elements.

The capitals of the columns in Jeddah and Medina are distinguished by their rich decoration, unlike the houses of Mecca. This diverse ornamentation includes shapes (geometric and botanical) and written elements, some of which are carved on small pieces of wood and then assembled to form large pieces, and some are in relief. These ornamental elements not only enhance the aesthetic appeal of these buildings but also reflect the cultural and religious values of the region [55]. In addition, depending on the region, there are several different construction methods and urban formations (unity, ratios, proportions, harmony, and rhythm).

As for aesthetic and religious values, there are motifs inspired by the environment and culture of all regions in Saudi Arabia, namely, geometric, symbolic, Islamic, and epigraphic motifs, as well as local botanical motifs (palm). Another significant motif is ‘ornamentation without animate beings’, a unique feature of heritage architecture that aligns with the framework’s emphasis on incorporating natural elements into the built environment. This motif, which avoids the depiction of living creatures, reflects the religious values of the region and the respect for all forms of life.

The Asiri cat decoration, a cultural phenomenon, originated in the south of the Asir region before gaining popularity and spreading across the Kingdom. It is a distinct pattern of contrasting geometric shapes and repeating lines adorned with colors derived from the region’s natural features. This decoration, which is inspired by the natural environment, aligns with the biophilic interior design framework’s emphasis on incorporating natural elements into the built environment [78]. The names of the Asiri cat decorations, such as Al-Binah, Al-Aryash, Al-Muharib, and Al-Amshat, reflect its various forms [79].

The fourth element within the framework of biophilic interior design, color and light, is aesthetically pleasing and aligns with the environmental values of heritage buildings. Physical features derived from the values of heritage buildings consistent with the features of the fourth element, such as the theme of local bright colors, which we often find in decorations, can be incorporated. This not only enhances visual appeal but also promotes sustainability, a crucial and inspiring aspect of biophilic design.

The reception area, a crucial space that signifies generosity and welcome, has always received special attention from houses’ owners. It is a rich tapestry of diverse decorations in various shapes (geometric, plant, symbolic, and epigraphic motifs) and bright, natural colors (red, yellow, and blue). Some decorations stand out, while others are more subtle, creating a unique aesthetic harmony that is a feast for the eyes and a testament to thoughtful design. This space, with its incorporation of biophilic design elements, not only enhances the visual appeal of a building but also creates a welcoming and nurturing environment [66,77].

The fifth element, “place-based relationships”, is of paramount importance in the interior design framework. It addresses the profound influence of traditional architecture’s cultural, religious, and social values, highlighting the importance of these values in the design process. Cultural values, deeply rooted in their connection to a place, play a pivotal role in shaping regional cultural identity. This influence is significant as it contributes to the distinctiveness of a region’s character. For example, the use of vibrant colors in a region’s interior design may reflect its lively and festive cultural values, thereby adding to each region’s unique character.

Religious values, such as maintaining privacy, respecting neighbors’ rights, and ornamentation without animate beings, are integral to interior design and fascinatingly diverse in their application across regions. For instance, in the central region, tarma is used to see outside, while in the western region, mashrabia serves this purpose.

Social values and their influence on interior design, the distribution of public and private spaces, attention to communication between the inside and the outside, the amount of ornamentation, and even the number of floors vary across regions.

“Human–nature relationships” is the sixth element within the framework of biophilic interior design that satisfies the social values of heritage architecture, as it enables Saudi people to coexist and adapt to the desert climate through innovative architectural solutions. Small architectural openings organized geometrically isolate residents’ voices from the outside and maintain calm in the area. Calm and contemplation fit the nature of this quiet desert country with clear skies most days of the year.

All of the above valuable features not only match the values of heritage architecture but also remarkably integrate with the biophilic interior design framework. In sum, based on the findings and the related discussion, a new strategy for finding a revised framework of biophilic interior design can be developed for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in particular while also reflecting the Middle Eastern context in general.

6. Conclusions

Biophilic design, an innovative approach in architecture, including in regard to interior design, has the potential to significantly enhance the human–nature connection, thereby promoting healthy impacts and positive behaviors. Understanding biophilic design in its entirety can inspire creativity and elevate spatial experiences, offering a new perspective on design. It also has the power to stimulate innovation in design, elevate the quality of construction, and lead to the creation of sustainable interior spaces.

Developing a new understanding of biophilic design in the interior design environment for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through the characteristics of traditional architecture can be a positive step with regard to allowing Saudi Arabia’s built environment to reconnect with the natural environment. The application of the biophilic interior design framework is not just about creating sustainable spaces; it is also about preserving the cultural identity of contemporary buildings. This reassures the local community that their heritage is not lost in the pursuit of modernity, fostering a sense of connection and continuity.

To achieve this study’s objectives, a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on the subject was conducted, covering the stages of the development of biophilic design frameworks inspired by biophilia. One of these frameworks is the Biophilic Interior Design Matrix (BID-M) developed by [26]. BID-M was then used quantitatively to determine the aspects of biophilia in each region’s traditional construction. We collected data for three traditional architectural buildings in Saudi Arabia’s four regions (center, east, south, and west). The chosen framework, which contains six elements and 54 characteristics, was then used to assess buildings as a whole according to their massing, external facades, interior design, doors, and windows. According to the findings, the traditional buildings achieved remarkably high scores in biophilia. As such, there is a clear indication of the potential for aligning heritage building characteristics with biophilic interior design features.

Furthermore, these findings can be used to develop a new approach, uniquely tailored to the rich and diverse cultural identity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, mirroring the traditional context in the Middle East. Such an approach is crucial for incorporating sustainability into modern construction in this country; it also has significant implications for the future of architecture in this region.

Finally, there is an urgent need for more research on how biophilic interior design affects public health. In addition, there is a need for more research focusing on the link between sustainable development and biophilic design. Lastly, expanding future studies to develop new biophilic frameworks specifically designed for the local and traditional context worldwide is also crucial. Such an objective can be achieved by incorporating the values of a region’s local, vernacular, and traditional identity.