Ranking Perceived Biophilic Dimensions is Method-Dependent: Evidencefrom Four Ugandan Primary Schools
Keywords:
biophilic design; learning environments; pupil well-being; Uganda; environmental perception; model dependenceAbstract
Schools with limited resources need credible evidence about which environmental qualities to prioritise, yet rankings of biophilic dimensions may change with the analytical method used. This focused secondary analysis examined questionnaire records from 302 pupils in four government-sponsored primary schools in Mukono District, Uganda. Emotional and Social Environment was the outcome; perceived Nature in the Space, Sensory Nature Stimuli, Nature of the Space and Natural Analogues were the environmental domains. Spearman correlations, simultaneous ordinary least-squares regression and a school-fixed-effects sensitivity model were compared. All four domains were positively correlated with well-being (rho=.36-.43, all p<.001). Together, they explained 26.6% of variance (adjusted R2=.256; F(4,297)=26.85, p<.001). In the simultaneous model, Natural Analogues (beta=.23, p<.001) and Nature in the Space (beta=.19, p=.003) retained unique associations. After school adjustment, Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues and Nature of the Space remained associated with well-being, whereas Sensory Nature Stimuli did not. Natural Analogues ranked first by bivariate and simultaneous estimates, but Nature in the Space ranked first after school adjustment. The central finding is therefore not a winning dimension, but the instability of the ranking itself. For low-resource schools, design priorities should be based on converging evidence about direct nature, spatial experience and interior qualities rather than a single coefficient. Larger, longitudinal studies with validated measures are needed before resource-allocation rules are proposed.
References
1. Asad, K. W. (2021). Primary and secondary education in Uganda: Challenges and prospects. *Interdisciplinary Journal of Education*, 4(1). [https://doi.org/10.53449/ije.v4i1.152](https://doi.org/10.53449/ije.v4i1.152)
2. Arola, T., Aulake, M., Ott, A., Lindholm, M., Kouvonen, P., Virtanen, P., Paloniemi, R., & Shibata, S. (2023). The impacts of nature connectedness on children's well-being: A systematic review. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 85, 101913. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101913](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101913)
3. Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils' learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. *Building and Environment*, 89, 118–133. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.013)
4. Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). *14 Patterns of Biophilic Design*. Terrapin Bright Green.
5. Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. *Journal of Planning Literature*, 30(4), 433–452. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441](https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441)
6. Fisher, K. (2024). The biophilic school: A critical synthesis of evidence-based systematic literature reviews. *Architecture*, 4(3), 457–478. [https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture4030025](https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture4030025)
7. Feilden Foundation. (2024). *East African Schools Design Guide*. Feilden Foundation in partnership with Enabel.
8. Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A review of psychological literature on the health and well-being benefits of biophilic design. *Buildings*, 5(3), 948–963. [https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948](https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948)
9. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 15(3), 169–182. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2](https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944%2895%2990001-2)
10. Kellert, S. R. (2018). *Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design*. Yale University Press.
11. Marete, J. N. (2025). The impact of biophilic interior design on pupil well-being in Ugandan primary schools: A convergent mixed-methods study. *International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science*, 9(10), 7961–7967. [https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000653](https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000653)
12. Mukono District Local Government. (2019). *State of the District Report, FY 2018/19*. [https://mukono.go.ug/publications/state-district-report-fy-1819-chairperson-lcv](https://mukono.go.ug/publications/state-district-report-fy-1819-chairperson-lcv)
13. Ngware, M., Hungi, N., Mahuro, G., Mutisya, M., & Abuya, B. (2016). *The Quality of Education in Uganda: A Case of Iganga and Mayuge Districts*. African Population and Health Research Center. [http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18273.92004](http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18273.92004)
14. Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., & Kallianpurkar, N. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. *ArchNet-IJAR*, 8(2), 62–76.
15. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 11(3), 201–230. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944%2805%2980184-7)
16. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2017). *National Population and Housing Census 2014: Area Specific Profile Series—Mukono District*. Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
17. Umeora, C. O., Onwuzuligbo, C. C., & Ononuju, F. I. (2025). The role of biophilic campus design in enhancing university environments in southeast Nigeria. *Open Journal of Environmental Research*, 6(1), 18–27. [https://doi.org/10.52417/ojer.v6i1.858](https://doi.org/10.52417/ojer.v6i1.858)
18. Wilson, E. O. (1984). *Biophilia*. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
