Building Evolutionary Mismatches
Understanding our built environment evolutionary mismatches. Part 2 of a series exploring the design implications of buildings as both part of the human phenotype and part of our selective environment
In the first article of this series on the implications of our built environment’s dual evolutionary nature, I built off of Kurt Lewin’s formulation of behavior as a function of the person and the environment to lay out the building/occupant organism as both part of the human phenotype as well as part of our selective environment. Now it’s time to dig into the design implications of this evolutionary framing of the built environment. I’ll start with the concept of evolutionary mismatches, which will form a thread through many of the subsequent articles. As I’ve previously explained (p. 60):
Evolutionary mismatches are occurrences where an organism’s traits that were adaptable in the ancestral environment(s) they originally evolved within end up being less adaptive or even dysfunctional in a different environment. For example, the human circadian system (a system of traits) is adapted to optimally function using cues (patterns of light and dark) from the natural 24-hour day/night cycle. However, research has shown that contemporary environments, which are often brightly illuminated well after sunset as we stare into the screens of our electronic devices late into the evening, negatively impact the functioning of our circadian system and ultimately our health. It is mismatched to aspects of our current environments and lifestyles, and this is particularly problematic for shift workers.
Phenotypic traits of our physical and/or social/cultural environments (e.g., large sections of occupied spaces with limited daylight and view access combined with jobs and lifestyles that keep us indoors over 90% of the time, often staring into screens) that are misaligned with varying needs shaped by our evolutionary past (e.g., the needs of our circadian system) can negatively impact our health, wellness, productivity, and success (as well as that of the groups we’re a part of). This physical and/or social/cultural environment can also select for various occupant behaviors (e.g., additional caffeinated beverage consumption to help stay awake during the day, as discussed in the previous article) that may have unintended impacts (negative, neutral, or positive) on building performance, occupant experience, and/or organizational success.
What this means is that we would benefit from incorporating some form of evolutionary mismatch analysis within the design of our environments and organizational policies as well as the development of building related technologies. See the sources listed at the end of this article for more detailed outlines of how this could occur, but essentially start by picking a key human system or set of traits likely impacted by the technology, design strategy, or policy under consideration. Then describe the complexities associated with the system or set of traits using Biologist Nikolaas Tinbergen’s four characterizations of traits, listed below.
Function: The ultimate reason(s) a trait or system of traits exists. Our fitness level, or general health/wellness, is positively impacted if the function is successfully fulfilled.
Mechanisms: The proximate details of how the traits or systems of traits specifically work, which were typically shaped by the environmental conditions in which those traits or systems evolved within.
Development: How our phenotypic traits or systems of traits (including the details of the mechanisms and efficiency of operation) develop and change over the course of our lifetime. This is shaped by our evolutionary history, but how it specifically unfolds depends heavily on proximate (or contextual) factors.
Heritable History: How our phenotypic traits or systems of traits have evolved, and how that history compares to the evolution of similar systems in other species. The evolutionary path of these traits has also been constrained by what came before. The ultimate ultimate story of the trait or system of traits.
Doing so begins to illuminate how our evolutionary history, including past environments, shaped our traits or system of traits to optimally function. And it helps formulate specific questions to answer, or hypotheses to test, regarding how the technology, design strategy, or policy in question might be creating an evolutionary mismatch for the traits or system of traits being examined.
For example, taking the circadian system example referenced above, we could drill further into the evolutionary mismatch created by contemporary environments and behaviors by asking how the culturally influenced behavioral trait of sunglass wearing impacts the susceptibility of older adults to this evolutionary mismatch. Or, foreshadowing the section on thermal alliesthesia and biophilia, ask if the impact of thermal monotony on the homeothermy trait of human physiology leads to an evolutionary mismatch, contributing to obesity for a percentage of the population. It’s also possible that reinterpreting existing research within an evolutionary mismatch framework may answer many of these questions before conducting additional studies.
You might have noted the integration of the terms proximate and ultimate in the descriptions of the four trait characterizations above. This distinction is important because explanations of ultimate causation (functional and heritable history characterizations) explain why a trait exists compared to other potential traits that could have performed the same function. Proximate causation focuses on the context impacting the functioning of the specific trait mechanisms and how they develop over the course of an organism’s life. This will come up in future articles, but I’ll quickly note here that ethnography can be an important tool for understanding many of the social and individual behavioral nuances that are part of this context.
One critical component of an evolutionary mismatch analysis is the assessment of how the real world environments created by said technology, design strategy, or policy varies from the relevant ancestral conditions involved in shaping the system or set of traits in question. Per the circadian evolutionary mismatch post referenced below:
As other specialists are required to help determine the nature of the relevant ancestral environments, you may initially need to use contemporary exterior environments as a proxy for the relevant ancestral conditions. Next, develop a set of research questions or hypotheses focused on how the deltas [between the two environments] might be impacting system or trait performance. Review the existing scientific literature, engage the relevant third party experts, and talk to the manufacturer[s when relevant] to see what supporting or refuting evidence exists for these hypotheses.
The results of the evolutionary mismatch analysis will need to be weighed against potential or confirmed benefits of the technology, strategy, or policy when deciding how to move forward. Additional research may be needed to fully evaluate the potential for an evolutionary mismatch and its impacts, and invoking the precautionary principle, particularly for new and/or unproven technologies, may be warranted as well. As local context also plays a crucial role in determining the nature of an evolutionary mismatch, comprehensive pre and post occupancy evaluations (POEs) that include an ethnographic component can be important for understanding if and why evolutionary mismatches are occurring.
In the next article, I’ll be looking at daylight and view access / control relative to the evolutionary dual nature of our built environments.
Selected Resources: