A space can drain our resources or it can restore some of the resources we’ve used up during the day.

When we talk about the quality of indoor environments, we frequently use words like comfort, well-being, and healthiness. We talk about light, temperature, acoustics, ergonomics, air quality, and materials. These are essential conditions, but there’s an additional design question: How does a person feel after spending time in that environment?

Are they more fatigued or more energized? Did they have to maintain a high level of alertness constantly, or were there moments when they could let their guard down? Were they able to choose where to be, how much to engage, and when to withdraw?

In Environmental Psychology, the concept of “regeneration” describes precisely the power of an environment to contribute to recovery from psychophysiological stress and mental fatigue. It is a central theme in the work of Dr. Rita Berto and in research on regenerative environments, where nature serves as the source of inspiration for design.

For architects and interior designers, this means adopting a significant shift in perspective: even an environment that perfectly meets technical parameters can be “exhausting” to experience.

Entering a new environment means constantly processing information: figuring out where to go, interpreting cues, recognizing functions, selecting relevant information, filtering out distractions, and simultaneously managing sounds, movement, people, light, and distances. Consider an office where others’ conversations can interfere with the task at hand, an overcrowded or under-stimulating school, a healthcare facility where an already anxious person must navigate unclear pathways, or a waiting area where there is no option to choose one’s own distance from others.

These are very different situations, yet they all share the same question:

How much cognitive effort does that environment demand of a person?

Regenerative design begins right here: when, alongside the building’s performance, we also begin to consider the cognitive, emotional, and physiological resources of those who experience it.

One of the key concepts through which Environmental Psychology studies attention restoration concerns attention itself.

In our daily activities, we are constantly called upon to direct our attention to select relevant information, filter out distractions, and make decisions. This type of attention requires considerable cognitive effort and, over time, leads to fatigue.

The Attention Restoration Theory, developed by Stephen Kaplan, describes how certain characteristics of the environment can promote the recovery of attentional resources by engaging attention spontaneously and without cognitive effort. This is where a concept particularly relevant to the project comes into play.

The movement of leaves, reflections on water, variations in light, visual depth, or natural textures attract attention without requiring the voluntary attentional effort needed to perform a task. The design challenge thus becomes very concrete: to provide conditions that allow attention to rest momentarily and regenerate.

This leads us to view nature in a different way.

If natural environments exhibit regenerative properties, we might think that simply introducing vegetation is enough to bring those properties into interior spaces. But a space filled with plants can still be noisy, overstimulating, difficult to interpret, or lacking in choice.

It therefore becomes more interesting to understand which characteristics of the experience of being in contact with the natural environment can inspire design: variation, movement, depth, change over time, organized complexity, material and tactile differences, opportunities for exploration, and the relationship between openness and protection.

Nature takes on the role of a design matrix: a model through which to rethink the sensory and perceptual qualities of space in a regenerative way. It is within this regenerative perspective that Biophilic Design also gains greater depth, as it translates the relationships between the individual, the environment, and natural systems into the design.

Thinking of a regenerative space as an environment that must be calm, quiet, or unstimulating risks being reductive.

A museum must spark curiosity. A school must support learning and interaction. A restaurant can be vibrant. An office must facilitate collaboration.

The challenge, then, is to focus on the quality, intensity, and distribution of stimuli, in relation to the space’s function, the activities taking place there, and the people using it.

Not all environments need to offer the same level of stimulation, because not every moment of the day requires the same level of engagement. The design can therefore create contrasts and transitions: more dynamic spaces alongside intimate areas, highly social settings and opportunities for solitude, and spaces rich in information alternating with zones where one can find reflection and rest.

Stimulate without overwhelming. Protect without isolating. Offer complexity while maintaining clarity.

Within this framework, the possibility of choice also takes on significance.

Approaching a window, moving away from noise, finding a more sheltered spot, adjusting a screen, changing one’s posture, temporarily reducing interactions: these are seemingly trivial choices, yet they affect the quality of the relationship a person can establish with their environment.

Designing for this freedom does not mean indiscriminately multiplying spaces. It means creating meaningful distinctions capable of responding to different activities, people, and psychophysical states.

The design thus ceases to propose a single environmental condition and begins to offer possibilities for “self-regulation.”

When we imagine a regenerative space, we immediately think of a specifically designated area: a garden, a terrace, or a relaxation room.

Everyday life, however, is made up of activities and “intervals”.

The minutes between two meetings. The wait before an appointment. The break between two classes. The walk between two departments. A brief pause during a particularly demanding task.

This opens up an interesting perspective: regeneration can become a “distributed” quality in architecture, rather than being confined to a single space.

A window at the end of a hallway, a seat facing outward, a more sheltered waiting area, a change in lighting, or a visual connection to greenery can take on a value far greater than their apparent function.

The question then becomes: where and at what point in our daily lives do we have the opportunity to recharge?

To answer this, however, we must begin with an analysis.

Before planning for regeneration, we must try to understand how the space is consuming resources. Where is noise increasing? Why do people lose their sense of direction? Where is privacy lacking? Which activities interfere with one another? Where do people spontaneously take a break? Which places are avoided and which are chosen when an alternative exists?

Environmental Psychology encourages us to observe the relationship between the individual and the environment. People modify, occupy, avoid, and reinterpret environments, and through their behavior, they show us what they need even before they can tell us.

This is where regenerative design also intersects with Evidence-Based Design.

The project thus becomes a hypothesis that can be tested and that leads to results.

We can try to distinguish three levels.

1. Functionality
2. Comfort
3. Regeneration

This means recognizing that space continuously contributes to our psychological and physical well-being.

It can facilitate orientation or make it more complex. It can constantly expose us or offer us protection. It can demand constant attention or allow us, for a few moments, to let our guard down. It can impose certain behaviors on us or put us in a position to choose.

Regenerative design therefore shifts the focus from the architectural object to the relationship that develops between the environment and the individual.

And so the question to bring into the design process becomes more precise.

No longer:

“Does this space work?”

but:

“Does this environment drain psychophysical resources or allow us to replenish them?”

It is from this question that we can begin to design environments capable not only of accommodating people but also of supporting them in their activities.

This content is based on a contribution by Dr. Rita Berto, Environmental Psychologist and Research Leader at the GREEN LEAF Laboratory.