Online Public Feedback on Mid- to High-Rise Biophilic Buildings: A Study of the Asia–Pacific Region over the Past Decade

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 architectural 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.

1. Introduction

Humans have a deep-rooted desire to live in harmony with nature, often referred to as “Poetically Man Dwells” [1]. This understanding is the foundation of “biophilic architecture” [2]. In recent years, advancements in technology and craftsmanship have led to a surge in biophilic buildings worldwide, aiming to address environmental challenges [3], achieve sustainability goals [4,5], and bridge the gap between urban culture and nature [6]. In urban environments, nature not only alleviates pollution and urban heat island effects but also addresses social issues such as mental health and crime [7,8,9]. Existing studies indicate that direct exposure to natural elements significantly benefits human attention restoration, emotional stress improvement, and cognitive function [10,11,12]. 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 [15,16,17,18,19]. Watchman et al. [15] evaluated biophilic characteristics in school buildings using architectural parameters in three elementary schools in Canada. Yaseen and Mustafa [16] explored quantitative assessment methods for biophilic design in nine school buildings using spatial syntax, validated by surveys of local teachers and students. Watchman et al. [17] studied design vocabulary and development patterns of biophilic school buildings in cold, humid regions based on six cases. Zhong et al. [18] analyzed “natural” design in three-dimensional green spaces using a biophilic design framework based on semi-structured interviews, design document analysis, and field observations in two building practices. DeLauer et al. [19] investigated the impact of natural environments and biophilic design on residential 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 biophilic architectures or buildings using “biophilia” as a selling point [15,16,17,18,19]. 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 characteristics 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.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Process

Figure 1 presents the flow of research process.

Given the complexity and integrative nature of modern biophilic architecture, the definition and classification of biophilic buildings remain ambiguous or contentious [3]. Many studies are dedicated to the analysis of concepts and theoretical frameworks [23,24]. Stephen and Calabrese [25] proposed a three-category overview of biophilic architectural design from an experiential perspective: direct exposure of natural elements in the space, such as light, water, and plants; indirect contact through the symbolization or materialization of natural elements, such as wood and nature-themed artworks; and simulation of local culture and sense of place. However, the third category has a strong relationship with individual experiences and is hard to quantify. Therefore, this study focuses on the quantifiable analysis and discussion of the first two categories of biophilic design.

To quantitatively assess the biophilic design of building spaces using a consistent standard, this study focuses on the easily quantifiable, directly exposed natural elements in 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. Using the NLTK corpus [27], researchers then conducted natural language processing on public comments from Google Maps. Sentences related to building evaluation and spatial design were filtered, and comments mentioning direct and indirect natural elements were classified. These text groups underwent sentiment analysis, text clustering, word frequency analysis, and negative content semantic analysis. Finally, the correlation between the analyzed results of public reviews and the objective design characteristics of typical floors was examined, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of biophilic architectural design. Detailed technical methods can be found in Section 2.3.

2.2. Case Selection

Given the study’s objective to analyze public reviews of biophilic architecture and fill the current research gap in quantitative analysis based on typical floor plans, while minimizing 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. Case study selection of biophilic buildings.

NO	Name		Designer	Time	Location	Function	Density	Awards	Appearance Photo	Design Concept
1	One Central Park	OCP	Ateliers Jean Nouvel and PTW Architects	2014	Sydney, Australia	Apartments/Hotel	Super High	Best Tall Building In The World (2014); Best Tall Building In Asia and Australia/CTBUH, Chicago, USA (2014) [28]		Vertical landscapes covering 50% of the façades, combining green walls and sustainable strategies to create a green icon in the skyline [28,29].
2	Oasia Hotel Downtown	OHD	WOHA	2016	Singapore	Hotel	Super High	President’s Design Award Singapore (2018); Best Tall Building Worldwide (2018) [30]		Combines innovative land use with a tropical approach, featuring a verdant, permeable tower with distinct strata and sky gardens that create public spaces for recreation [30].
3	Chicland Hotel	CH	VTN Architects	2019	Da Nang, Vietnam	Hotel	High	World Architecture Community Awards 36th Architecture Master prize 2020 [31]		Integrate vertical facades covered with an alternating tree pot system [32].
4	Hamacho Hotel	HH	UDS and the Range Design	2019	Tokyo, Japan	Hotel	High	Winner in Architecture, Building and Structure Design Category, 2019–2020 [33]		Centers on “handicraft” and “greenery”, aiming to create a cultural and communal hub [34].
5	PARKROYAL on Pickering	PP	WOHA	2013	Singapore	Hotel	High	MIPIM Asia Awards Gold Winner (2015); Design for Asia Awards—Grand Award (2014) [35]		A “hotel-as-garden”, integrating extensive sky gardens and green spaces to create an urban landmark that doubles the site’s green potential [36].
6	The Hive (NTU Learning Center)	TH	Heatherwick Studio	2015	Singapore	Education	High	BCA Green Mark Platinum Award for sustainability (2013) [37]		Creates a passive, sustainable, connected, and interactive educational environment with rough curved concrete structures and materials [38].
7	Jewel Changi Airport	JCA	Safdie Architects	2019	Singapore	Retail	High	President’s Design Award Singapore (2020) [39]; Building of the year 2020—Public Architecture (2020) [40]		Blends nature with marketplace, transforming the airport into a lively urban hub that captivates travelers, visitors, and residents, reflecting Singapore’s identity as ‘The City in the Garden’ [41].
8	SHIROIYA Hotel	SH	Sou Fujimoto Architects	2020	Maebashi, Japan	Hotel	Mid-High	AD’s 2021 Hotel Awards [42]		A seamless blend of streets, buildings, and natural elements with a large atrium and a grass hill, fostering community and diverse activities in Maebashi [43].
9	Atlas Hoi An Hotel	AH	VTN Architects	2017	Hoi An, Vietnam	Hotel	Mid-High	Green Good Design Awards (2017); FuturArc Green Leadership Award/Commercial (2018) [44,45]		Blends greenery and natural ventilation to create an open, eco-friendly urban retreat that reconnects guests with nature in a heritage site [45].

). “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).

This study finally selected 9 high-rise buildings from the Asia–Pacific region over the past decade as cases (Table 1). Careful consideration balanced project locations and design teams to avoid overly similar projects, while ensuring a sufficient number of Google Maps reviews (at least 50 useful reviews). These 9 buildings, showcasing diverse architectural styles, originate from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan—representing key countries in the Asia–Pacific region. It is noteworthy that Singapore contributes a significant proportion (3/12) due to its proactive efforts in biophilic architecture under urban strategies like “Gardens in the City” [46] and “Biophilic Urbanism” [47]. The absence of Chinese projects is due to restrictions on accessing homogeneous public review data from Google Maps within mainland China [48].

2.3. Technical Evaluative Methods

2.3.1. Methods of Quantitative Analysis of Objective Biophilic Spatial Design Characteristics

The most notable feature of biophilic architecture is the incorporation of natural elements, yet there are currently few tools available to analyze and quantify their spatial characteristics. Spatial syntax tools, often used in studies of Public Urban Green Spaces (PUGSs), are employed to quantify and evaluate spatial accessibility [49,50]. Buildings with medium- or high-intensity development are comparable to small city blocks, and indoor walkability indices are frequently used in BIM-supported circulation studies [51]. Some have already applied spatial syntax tools to evaluate the natural characteristics of biophilic design in education buildings [16,52]. Therefore, this study will use spatial syntax tools to evaluate connectivity and spatial depth and to calculate the average accessibility and 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. Design parameters and index.

Design Parameter	Units	Meanings	Calculation Formula
Direct BE Projected Area/Level	m2/level	Projected area of direct biophilic elements per level	$=Projected Area of Direct Biophilic Elements$
Direct BE Projected Ratio	----	Ratio of projected area of direct built environment to floor area	$={\displaystyle \frac{Projected Area of Direct Biophilic Elements}{Floor Area of Typical Floor Plan}}$
Saturated User Number/Level	persons	Maximum user number that can comfortably occupy the space	$$\begin{gathered} ={\displaystyle \frac{Daily People Number of Flow}{Building Levels}} \\ \times {\displaystyle \frac{Average visit time}{24 hours}} \end{gathered}$$
Min. Biophilic Space/User	m2/user	Minimum biophilic space allocated per user	$={\displaystyle \frac{Projected Area of Direct Biophilic Elements}{Saturated user number each level}}$
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 Length (Direct BE)	m	The average length of the shortest paths between each point to direct biophilic elements.
Average Metric Step Shortest Path Length (Direct BE)/Floor Area	m/m2	The average metric step shortest path length to direct biophilic elements normalized by the floor area.
Average Metric Step Shortest Path Angle (Direct BE)	rad	The average angular change along the shortest paths between each point to direct biophilic elements.
Average Metric Step Shortest Path Angle (Direct BE)/Floor Area	rad/m2	The average metric step shortest path angle to direct biophilic elements normalized by the 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 BE)/Floor Area	steps/m2	The total visual step depth to direct biophilic elements normalized by the 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 influenced 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 reviews, 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. Keywords for architecture- and design-related text selection.

	Architecture- and Design-Related Keywords
Specific	name of building, function of building
Architecture elements	architecture, building, construction, space, room, interior, area, gate, lobby, entrance, lift, stair, balcony, floor, structure, layout, plan, way, walk, toilet, corridor, door, window, pool, lights, lighting, ventilation
Design	architect, designer, design, lighting, view, scenery, place, park, atmosphere, wood, stone, concrete, glass, color, furniture, environment, environmental
Landscape	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, greening, tree, grass, flowers, leaves, colorful, color, wood, stone, evoke, imagery, biomimicry, geometry, form, shape, texture, imitation, mimic, attraction, forest

). 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.

Subsequently, the public comment sentences related to architecture and design were subjected to a series of natural language processing (NLP) procedures using Python. (1) Using 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 [59,60,61], and TF-IDF was used to extract themes [62].

Using the same method, sentences related to biophilic experience were further extracted from these texts and classified into direct nature-related elements and indirect nature-related groups (

Table 4. Keywords for biophilic experience related text selection.

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

). The sentiment and semantic analysis methods mentioned above were then applied to these sentences groups.

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. Biophilic design parameter quantification results.

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

shows the biophilic design parameter quantification results of the 9 cases.

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. Number of related sentences for sentiment analysis.

Project	No. of Architecture and Design	No. of Biophilic Experience	BE Mention Rate	Direct Nature Experience	Indirect Nature 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.

3.2.2. Sentiment Analysis Results

Figure 3 present the results of sentiment analysis, including negative, neutral, positive, and overall scores. In the legends, “-A” and “-B” represent “Architecture & Design related sentences” and “Biophilic Experiences related sentences” for the same project, respectively.

Overall sentiment analysis indicates that neutral sentiments are predominant, negative sentiments are relatively infrequent, and the overall scores are high, suggesting a very positive attitude towards these buildings. Compared to all comments on architecture and design, sentences mentioning biophilic experiences exhibit a higher degree of emotional 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. 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. Word frequency analysis result of each text group.

	Word Frequency List (Tot 50)
Architecture and Design	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), experience (178), architecture (178), friendly (172), comfortable (170), space (164), see (164), love (152), walk (149), world (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)
Biophilic Experience	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), greenery (91), design (90), recommend (89), window (88), canopy (85), inside (78), plants (77), food (76), love (75), staff (74), 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)
Direct Nature	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), 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)
Indirect Nature	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 (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)

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.

Figure 4 presents the clustering analysis results of architecture- and design-related texts from all cases, including scatter plot mapping, the number of texts in each cluster, and content summaries.

3.3. Correlation Analysis Results of Subjective Design Parameters and Objective Evaluations

Figure 5 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the 20 parameters in a matrix 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 highlighted in green. The analysis reveals that the greater the total green and blue projected area (I), the higher the frequency of biophilic experience mentions in architectural design evaluations (XVI), with a strong correlation coefficient as high as 0.80. Although the correlation coefficient between III and XVI also reached 0.71, it is difficult to determine a strong relationship between III and XVI due to the high correlation coefficient of 0.96 between I and III.

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% expressed disappointment with typical public building space design aspects such as wayfinding, 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. Additionally, 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 mentioning 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 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. Following 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, unpleasant 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 environments 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 [75,76,77]. 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. Additionally, 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 diminish 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 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.