دورالنظم البيونيكية في تعزيز أنسنة الفراغات لتطوير المفهوم (الكونسبت) لدى طلبة التصميم الداخلي بجامعة طرابلس
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65405/jz50xd05Keywords:
Bionic Systems; Biomimicry; Humanization of Space; Design Concept; Design Thinking; Interior Design EducationAbstract
This study examines the role of bionic systems in enhancing the humanization of interior spaces as a pathway to developing the design concept among interior design students at the University of Tripoli, Libya. The research problem is that interior design education in the Libyan academic context still lacks a systematic, structured application of these systems and remains dominated by a conventional approach focused on formal and basic technical aspects. The study aims to identify the effect of employing biomimetic systems on design concept development and the humanization of space, and to determine the key design-thinking indicators these systems can foster.
A mixed-methods design was adopted, combining descriptive-analytical, quasi-experimental, and statistical methods. The experiment involved twenty eighth-semester students enrolled in Interior Design 5, working on a radio studio design project. They were divided into two groups:
- An experimental group (n = 10), which attended a specialized lecture on bionic systems and their levels (organism, behavior, and ecosystem).
-A control group (n = 10), which followed conventional methods.
Final projects were assessed using a quantitative and qualitative evaluation form validated by three faculty members. The form covered four axes: design concept development, humanization of space, technical and functional efficiency, and innovation.
The results were as follows:
Quantitative results: The experimental group outperformed the control group on all axes. Its "excellent" and "very good" ratings ranged from 80% to 100%, with mean scores between 4.30 and 4.50 out of 5. The control group's ratings were concentrated at the "average" and "weak" levels, with means between 1.14 and 2.00. The Mann-Whitney U test showed statistically significant differences (p < .001) favoring the experimental group on all indicators.
Qualitative analysis: The evaluators' comments were consistent with the quantitative results. In the experimental group, they noted clear development in concept formulation, integration of Libyan vernacular elements within a bionic logic, spatial flexibility, and responsiveness to users' psychological and physical needs, with a shortcoming in organizing visitor circulation. They described the control group's projects as stereotypical and lacking innovation.
The study concludes that employing bionic systems contributes effectively to developing the design concept and enhancing spatial humanization. It recommends integrating these systems systematically into studio courses, linking them to the functional and operational requirements of space, and training faculty members to apply them.
Downloads
References
1. Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. William Morrow.
2. ورد، ي. ع. ع.، وحسين، ع.، ويوسف، أ. م.، وطنطاوي، ض.، ولبيب، أ. م. (2024). المحاكاة الحيوية كأيديولوجية تفكير تناظري في التصميم المعماري والداخلي. مجلة العمارة والفنون والعلوم الإنسانية، 9(43)، 64–98. https://mjaf.journals.ekb.eg/article_213149.html
3. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
4. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
5. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
6. Amer, N. (2019). Biomimetic approach in architectural education: Case study of 'Biomimicry in Architecture' course. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 10(3), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.11.005
7. Shahda, M. M. (2019). Biomimicry as a tool to enhance the skills of architecture students in understanding construction systems. Architecture Research, 9(5), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.arch.20190905.02
8. Akçaova, A. (2025). The role of biomimicry in interior design education and structural forms. The Journal of Social Science, 9(18), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.30520/tjsosci.1742023
9. Fuller, R. B. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship earth. Southern Illinois University Press.
10. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
11. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491
12. أبو العال، أميرة سعودي محمد. (2017). المحاكاة البيولوجية وتطبيقاتها في الشكل المعماري والعمارة الداخلية. مجلة العمارة والفنون والعلوم الإنسانية، (7)، 1–14. https://doi.org/10.12816/0038024
13. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (J. Koch, Trans.). Island Press.
14. عبد الفتاح، محمد أحمد. (2018). علم البيئة والأسس البيئية. دار الفكر العربي.
15. Biomimicry Institute. (n.d.). The biomimicry process. Biomimicry Toolbox. Retrieved October 6, 2026, from https://toolbox.biomimicry.org/methods/process/
16. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
17. Pawlyn, M. (2016). Biomimicry in architecture (2nd ed.). RIBA Publishing.
18. Kilmer, R., & Kilmer, W. O. (2014). Designing interiors (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
19. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press.
20. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
21. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
22. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
23. Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00033-4
24. Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00032-5
25. Antoniades, A. C. (1990). Poetics of architecture: Theory of design. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
26. Steadman, P. (2008). The evolution of designs: Biological analogy in architecture and the applied arts (Rev. ed.). Routledge.
27. Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. L. (Eds.). (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
28. Fathy, H. (1973). Architecture for the poor: An experiment in rural Egypt. University of Chicago Press.
29. Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Prentice-Hall.
30. Pedersen Zari, M. (2007). Biomimetic approaches to architectural design for increased sustainability. In Proceedings of the SB07 New Zealand Sustainable Building Conference (Paper No. 033). Auckland, New Zealand. https://www.academia.edu/81078522/Biomimetic_approaches_to_architectural_design_for_increased_sustainability
31. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking
32. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
