Abstract

Historically, sustainability research in architecture has focused on interior comfort and operational energy efficiency, leaving the ecological performance of the immediate building façade relatively unexplored. By creating a comparison framework to assess the performance of biomimetic, bioclimatic, and biophilic architecture under external ecological conditions across four climatic zones—hot-humid, cold-humid, hot-dry, and cold-dry—this thesis closes that gap. Using quantitative data such as NDVI, land surface temperature, PM2.5, NO2, infiltration rates, and species count in addition to qualitative analysis of these three architectural strategies at the building-site interface, twelve case studies are evaluated against four ecological indicator groups: air quality, soil quality, microclimate, and biodiversity.  The results verify that biophilic architecture produces the most significant gains in vegetation cover, biodiversity, and microclimate moderation; bioclimatic architecture is best at passive thermal regulation and airflow optimization; and biomimetic architecture is best at envelope efficiency and systems-level responsiveness with little direct contribution to habitat creation. Ecological improvement is severely limited in cold, dry conditions, and all typologies converge toward energy efficiency and durability. The study concludes that the comparative framework developed here supports more regenerative, context-sensitive architectural design practices and that hybrid strategies combining all three approaches offer the greatest potential for comprehensive ecological performance.

Publication Date

5-2026

Document Type

Thesis

Student Type

Graduate

Degree Name

Architecture (M.Arch.)

Department, Program, or Center

Architecture, Department of

College

Golisano Institute for Sustainability

Advisor

Nathaniel J. Heckman

Advisor/Committee Member

Alissa De Wit-Paul

Advisor/Committee Member

Seth H. Holmes

Campus

RIT – Main Campus

Download

Share

COinS