No one knows more about evidence-based design than Roger Ulrch. A true change maker.

Like many others, I frequently cite Roger's important work, and I make sure my students are aware of his impact on the field.

The Ulrich study to which you refer is, indeed, still powerful and important. But I hope people take the time to obtain and thoroughly read the many other studies that have been done on this topic. Many are as enlightening -- and, now, we are starting to look at WHY nature works and in which parts of our brains. Fascinating.

As a scientist Roger Ulrich is a pioneer in EBD, and so highly deserving of the Changemaker Award. Congratulations Roger!

I use the study - and others by Ulrich on a daily basis. We all do (and thanks for them, Rodger) but I also find them frustrating, in that the hypothesis Urich presents is too weak to allow practitioners licence to extend the effects beyond views of nature: indeed, even Ulrich showed difficulty - take the tepid results of Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F. & Miles M.A. (2003) for example.

To move forward, we must look into more sound theory - we must learn about WHY. The evolution hypothesis is a schematization of Darwin's theory to the point of meaninglessness. Likewise the Wilson's biophilia hypothesis and its attendant attention hypothesis (Kaplan and Kaplan) are lovely ideas, but don't allow us to reach above and beyond. To establish the importance of 'views of nature' they're great, but beyond that, they are just not that useful.

The reason for the 30-year hiatus on innovation is probably the one thing Sara loves about the Ulrich study - the quality of the evidence. The EBD movement is so tortured by the idea of repeating this, that academics in the space routinely turn their backs on anything that doesn't demonstrate the same standards of evidence - effectively nipping innovation and research in the bud. (And by the way - whilst very high standards are placed on drug testing, most surgical procedures are far less rigorous in their discovery process.)

I don't wonder why we still refer back to Ulrich at all, that part's easy. I wonder why we still have to.

Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F. & Miles M.A. (2003) Effects of environmental simulations and television on blood donor stress. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research 20, 38–47.

As a Feng Shui consultant for over 20 years, I have cited Ulrich's work for several years. My work has taken me mostly into hospitals and medical settings where the application of his findings support good Feng Shui principles as well as remarkable healing in patients.