Comparative Evaluation and Determination of Design Priority Hierarchy in Biophilic Architecture of Traditional and Contemporary Housing (Case Study: Qom City)

Abstract

The growing disconnect between humans and nature in contemporary residential environments, particularly as a result of the dominance of quantitative construction patterns, has led to a decline in the quality of living environments and a weakening of residents’ mental well-being. In this context, vernacular architecture based on biophilic principles has emerged as a human-centered and nature-oriented approach. This study aims to comparatively evaluate the components of biophilic architecture in traditional and contemporary housing patterns in the city of Qom and to determine design priorities based on the intensity of structural differences. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method with a comparative approach, drawing on a combination of library research, documentary analysis, field studies, and a researcher-developed questionnaire. Accordingly, thirteen biophilic architecture components were identified and evaluated within the operational research model in selected examples of vernacular Qajar-era houses and contemporary residential complexes in Qom. Data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests in SPSS, and the Friedman test was employed to identify significant differences between the two periods.The findings indicate that in Qom’s vernacular housing, biophilic components—particularly natural lighting and ventilation, evolved human–nature relationships, environmental features, and sense of place—demonstrate a high level of realization, whereas these components have been significantly weakened in contemporary housing. The Friedman test results further show that components such as green spaces and courtyards, natural lighting, and ventilation have the greatest influence on enhancing the spatial quality of housing. The greatest degree of discontinuity between traditional and contemporary architecture was observed in the components of biodiversity and place-based relationships, with a significance level of P < 0.001. Based on this analysis, the biophilic components were classified into three levels: “critical,” “interactive,” and “physical stability.”The findings led to the development of a hierarchical pyramid of biophilic components, indicating that the primary priority for revitalizing biophilic architecture in contemporary housing should focus on “restoring biodiversity” and “strengthening place-based relationships.” This model can serve as a strategic guideline for architects in designing sustainable and biophilic housing.