[
1. Stauskis, G. Identifying Key Criteria for Quality Assessmentof Landscape Architecture Projects. Architecture and Urban Planning, vol. 16, no. 1, 2020, pp. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2020-000210.2478/aup-2020-0002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Sevinç-Kayihan, K., Özçelik-Güney S., Ünal F. C. Biophilia as the Main Design Question in Architectural Design Studio Teaching. Megaron, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2017.5926510.5505/megaron.2017.59265
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: APsychological Perspective. Cambridge, New York: University Press. 1989, p. 340.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Ulrich, R. S. Aesthetic and affective response to naturalenvironment. In Altman I., Wohlwill J. F. (eds) Behavior and the Natural Environment. Human Behavior and Environment(Advances in Theory and Research), vol. 6. Springer, Boston, p. 85–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_410.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M. Is it Really Nature That Restores People? A Comparison with Historical Siteswith High Restorative Potential. Front. Psychol. vol. 9, 2019, pp. 27–42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0274210.3389/fpsyg.2018.02742
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Stigsdotter, U. K., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn J., Toftager,M., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., Randrup, T. B., Scand, J. Healthpromoting outdoor environments--associations betweengreen space, and health, health-related quality of life andstress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, vol. 38, no. 4, 2010,pp. 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/140349481036746810.1177/1403494810367468
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Ward, A., Arrighi, H. M., Michels, S., Cedarbaum, J. M.Mild cognitive impairment: Disparity of incidence andprevalence estimates. Alzheimer Dement. vol. 8, no. 1, 2012, pp. 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.00210.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. Wilson, E. O. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. InS.R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson eds. The biophilia hypothesis, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993, pp. 381–414.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Kellert, S. R. The biological basis for human values ofnature. In S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson eds. The biophiliahypothesis, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993, pp. 42–69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities. In: Meyers R. (eds). Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. New York, NY: Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_1033-210.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_1033-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Ebrahimpour, M. Proposing a framework of biophilic design principles in hot and arid climate of iran by using grounded theory. Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol.16, no. 1,2020, pp. 71–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/cee-2020-000810.2478/cee-2020-0008
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Totaforti, S. Emerging Biophilic Urbanism: The Valueof the Human–Nature Relationship in the Urban Space. Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 13, 2020, pp. 54–87. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1213548710.3390/su12135487
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Hoyaux, A. F. De l’espace domestique au monde domestique. Point de vue phénoménologique sur l’habitation [Fromdomestic space to the domestic world. Phenomenologicalpoint of view on housing]. In B. Collignon and J. F. Staszak(eds.) Espaces domestiques. Construire, habiter, représenter, Bordeaux: Editions Bréal, 2013, pp.33–45.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Chowdhury, S. N., Noguchi, M., Doloi, H. ConceptualParametric Relationship for Occupants’ DomesticEnvironmental Experience. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 5,2021, pp. 29–82. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1305298210.3390/su13052982
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Delbosc, P., Ceccaldi, A., Panaïotis, C., Bioret, F.,Hugot, L. Unités paysagères fonctionnelles: outil d’aide àla planification territoriale [Functional landscape units:a tool to help with territorial planning]. Vertigo: la revueélectronique en sciences de l’environnement, vol. 18, no. 3,2018, pp. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.23657.10.4000/vertigo.23657
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Paquette, S., Poullaouec-Gonidec P., Domon, G. Lepaysage, une qualification socio-culturelle du territoire[The landscape, a socio-cultural qualification of theterritory]. Material History Review, vol. 62, 2005, pp. 60–72.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Kellert, S. R. Biophilia and biomimicry: evolutionaryadaptation of human versus nonhuman nature. IntelligentBuildings International, vol. 8, no. 2, 2014, pp. 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.90280210.1080/17508975.2014.902802
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. CNES/Airbus (2020). Data SI, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO Terra Metrics [online]. Maxar Technologies [cited 1.04.2021].https://www.maxar.com
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. El Kala: Grands Atouts, petit ambition [El Kala: Big Assets, Small Ambition] [online]. Algerie 360 [cited 1.04.2021].https://www.algerie360.com/el-kala-grands-atouts-petite-ambition/
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. Belguidoum, S., Mouaziz, N. L’urbain informel et lesparadoxes de la ville algérienne politiques urbaines etlégitimité sociale [The informal urban and the paradoxesof the Algerian city urban policies and social legitimacy]. Espaces et sociétés, vol. 3, no. 143, 2010, pp. 101–116. https://doi.org/10.3917/esp.143.010110.3917/esp.143.0101
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. Bachar, K. Une lecture de la loi relative à l’achèvementet la mise en conformité des constructions [A readingrelating to the completion and compliance of construction]. RURAL-M Etudes sur la ville – Réalités URbaines en Algérie et au Maghreb, 2020 [online, cited 2.04.2021]. http://ruralm.hypotheses.org/1779
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. Matvejs, J. Private Space in Soviet Cinema: Case Study ofRiga. Architecture and Urban Planning, vol. 14, no. 1, 2018,pp. 75–82. https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2018-001010.2478/aup-2018-0010
]Search in Google Scholar
