Investigating restorative effects of biophilic design in workplaces: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

This systematic review synthesized the evidence on the restorative benefits of biophilic design in the workplace. The literature search was performed based on PRISMA guidelines using two databases (Scopus and Web of Science). 74 peer-reviewed papers meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The descriptive analysis provided an overview of biophilic design research conducted in workplaces and fed into refining a biophilic design framework with the inclusion of additional elements. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis revealed that biophilic design can yield significant psychological, physiological, and cognitive benefits in the workplace, with varying effect sizes observed across the four distinct outcome measures for each design pattern. The results demonstrated that greenery, window views of nature, and daylight & visual comfort were associated with the largest effect sizes, while simulations of nature, multisensory experiences, water features, and natural materials had small effect sizes. On the other hand, some biophilic design patterns displayed negligible impacts across the outcome measures.

KEYWORDS:

• Biophilic design
• workplace
• restorativeness
• health and well-being
• productivity

Introduction

Worldwide, the unprecedented rate of urbanization led a considerable portion of society to reside in densely populated cities (United Nations 2018). Cities are the greater source of various environmental stressors, including noise, crowding, pollution, and heat waves, threatening urbanites’ health and well-being, and their quality of life (Hartig and Kahn 2016; Paull, Irga, and Torpy 2018; Wang et al. 2021). Since the modern lifestyle forces the majority of people to spend approximately 90% of their time indoors, whether at home or at work (EPA 2022), which points to a growing disconnection from nature and natural environments, the enhancement of the indoor built environment has become an effective technique to promote public health and well-being. In this respect, workplaces have received a lot of attention from scholars, as individuals spend most of their daytime at work, and current workplaces are strongly associated with various indoor environmental stressors, including noise, inadequate lighting, poor air quality, lack of thermal comfort, and lack of connection to outdoors due to air-conditioned, sealed, and artificial climatic conditions (Ortiz and Bluyssen 2022). Studies have linked the poor indoor environmental quality of contemporary workplaces with several psychological and physical issues, such as stress, fatigue, emotional exhaustion, depression, anxiety, burnout, sleep disorders, and building-related health problems called as sick building syndrome (Joyce et al. 2016; McIntyre et al. 2015; Sarkhosh et al. 2021; Sohail and Abdul Rehman Professor 2015), leading to reduced productivity, increased absenteeism, and other negative outcomes for both employees and employers. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), work-related health problems are a major part of the global disease burden and result in an economic loss of 4–6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for most countries (World Health Organization 2017). Previous studies have explored a range of intervention methods to address the negative consequences of working in such environments, including workplace health promotion programs, reorganization of work, job design, rest breaks, and changes in the physical working environments (Robertson and Cooper 2011).

A growing body of evidence has documented the numerous benefits of exposure to natural environments. The biophilia hypothesis proposed by Wilson and Kellert (Wilson and Kellert 1993) contends that we have an inherent affinity to interact with nature and other forms of life and simply viewing or spending time in nature is beneficial for our health and well-being. Recently, the biophilia hypothesis has evolved into a design philosophy, known as ‘biophilic design’, which aims at bringing nature back into modern built environments through the inclusion of elements and features of nature. Implementing the biophilic design concept in workplace settings can help counteract the negative effects of indoor environmental stressors and benefit employees’ physical and mental health, psychological well-being, productivity, creativity, mood, job satisfaction, and social interactions (Korpela, de Bloom, and Kinnunen 2015). Despite extensive research on the potential benefits of biophilic design, to the best of our knowledge and based on our search of peer-reviewed databases, no previous research has comprehensively investigated the existing literature on the studied biophilic design patterns and their associated restorative benefits in the context of workplaces, highlighting the need for further investigation in this area. A recent systematic review has explored the effects of indoor/outdoor nature exposure on office workers around the themes of restoration, stress reduction, health, motivation, and stress coping strategy (Sadick and Kamardeen 2020). However, Sadick and Kamardeen (2020)'s study did not present the individual contributions of exposure types to the abovementioned variables. Another systematic review has examined the effectiveness of nature-based interventions to foster mental health and well-being of employees in workplace settings (Gritzka et al. 2020). The main limitation of this review was the paucity of available studies (n = 8), leading to weakness of evidence and hindering the applicability of their findings at a larger scale. There is a need of research to specify the quantifiable impacts of each biophilic design pattern on employees based on empirical evidence and compare their effectiveness. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review of the literature by synthesizing and evaluating the existing research on biophilic design applications in workplaces. The main objective of this systematic review is to identify the commonly studied biophilic design patterns, along with their associated benefits, and the magnitude of these effects to inform future efforts to design and implement effective biophilic design strategies that can promote employee health, well-being, and productivity in workplace environments. In particular, the following research questions guided this systematic review:

RQ1: What type of biophilic design patterns have been studied in workplaces?

RQ2: What are the evidence-based restorative benefits of biophilic design implementations in a workplace for its employees?

RQ3: What are the effect sizes of each individual biophilic design pattern on employees in workplaces?

Methods

PRISMA

The present systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the updated 2020 version of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al. 2021). PRISMA statement provides a standard protocol comprising a checklist of 27 items and a flow diagram for systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature search was performed on October 21, 2022, using the database of Scopus and Web of Science. In order to determine search terms for this systematic review, two major steps were taken: (1) the key studies in the literature were analyzed; and (2) existing biophilic design frameworks were referenced. As shown in Table 1, there are two mainstream biophilic design frameworks that are widely used in biophilic design research and are employed to implement biophilic design in practice. Kellert and Calabrese (2015) proposed a biophilic design framework classifying 24 attributes into three experiences, including ‘direct experience of nature’, ‘indirect experience of nature’, and ‘experience of space and place’. Browning, Ryan, and Clancy (2014) divided 14 biophilic design patterns into three categories, including ‘nature in the space’, ‘natural analogues’, and ‘nature of the space’. Recently, Lei et al. (2022) selected these two representative conceptual frameworks as the research references to determine and develop biophilic design principles applicable to workplace environments. According to the definitions of the 24 attributes and 14 patterns and the overlaps/connections between them, Lei et al. (2022) devised 9 biophilic design patterns for workplace design. Based on the abovementioned biophilic design patterns/attributes and the analysis of key studies, the keywords given in Table 2. were identified in accordance with RQ1. The search terms consisted of the following three subsets: intervention; context; and outcome. The terms were combined with the ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ boolean operators and search was employed in the fields of title, abstract, and keywords. The following inclusion criteria were applied in this stage: (1) peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings; (2) published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusive); (3) full-text available in English.

Table 1. Mainstream biophilic design frameworks.

14 patterns of biophilic design (Browning, Ryan, and Clancy 2014)	Nature in the space: Visual connection with nature; Non-visual connection with nature; Non-rhythmic sensory stimuli; Thermal & airflow variability; Presence of water; Dynamic & diffuse light; Connection with natural systems
	Natural analogues: Biomorphic forms & patterns; Material connection with nature; Complexity & order
	Nature of the space: Prospect; Refuge; Mystery; Risk/peril
24 attributes of biophilic design (Kellert and Calabrese 2015)	Direct experience of nature: Light; Air; Water; Plants; Animals; Weather; Natural landscapes and ecosystems; Fire
	Indirect experience of nature: Images of nature; Natural materials; Natural colors; Simulating natural light and air; Naturalistic shapes and forms; Evoking nature; Information richness; Age, change, and the patina of time; Natural geometries; Biomimicry
	Experience of space and place: Prospect and refuge; Organized complexity; Integration of parts to create wholes; Cultural and ecological attachment to place; Transitional spaces; Mobility and wayfinding
9 patterns of biophilic design for workplaces (Lei et al. 2022)	Greenery/vegetation; Natural light; Natural colors; Thermal comfort & airflow; Air quality; Biodiversity; Artworks; Natural materials; Building forms and layout

Table 2. List of key words.

Subset	Keywords
Intervention	biophilia OR biophilic OR ‘natural environment’ OR ‘restorative environment’ OR ‘natural setting’ OR ‘natural element’ OR ‘nature exposure’ OR ‘exposure to nature’ OR ‘nature connection’ OR ‘connection to nature’ OR ‘nature experience’ OR ‘nature contact’ OR ‘outdoor nature’ OR ‘connection to outdoor’ OR ‘indoor nature’ OR greenery OR greenspace OR ‘green space’ OR ‘green wall’ OR ‘green roof’ OR ‘indoor plant’ OR ‘potted plant’ OR ‘window view’ OR daylight OR ‘natural sound’ OR ‘nature sound’ OR ‘natural odor’ OR smell OR scent OR ‘water feature’ OR ‘natural material’ OR ‘natural color’ OR biomorphic OR ‘natural ventilation’
	AND
Context	workplace OR ‘work place’ OR workspace OR office OR employee
	AND
Outcome	recovery OR restoration OR health OR well-being OR wellbeing OR stress OR productivity OR ‘cognitive performance’ OR mood OR emotion

The initial search with the noted keywords resulted in a total of 675 studies for Scopus and 382 studies for Web of Science. After the removal of duplicates, the titles, and abstracts of 807 papers were screened independently by team members. An Excel sheet containing the title, authors, and abstract of each source was developed to facilitate the screening process. Any conflicts between researchers in the study selection were resolved through a joint decision reached through a discussion. Two eligibility criteria were implemented in this stage: (1) studies dealing with the application of biophilic design principles through exposure to elements and features of nature in indoor/semi-outdoor workplace environments (RQ1); (2) studies reporting the impact of biophilic design on employees using primary or secondary data (RQ2 and RQ3). 127 studies remained following the elimination of articles based on title and abstract screening. Furthermore, a snowballing technique was applied to the references of included studies to identify potentially relevant studies, resulting in 27 additional records, thus arriving at a total of 154 studies for full-text reading. After the full-text review of the 154 papers, 80 papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, resulting in a total of 74 records for detailed review (Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection and identification.

Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

As each biophilic design attribute was covered to varying extents among the reviewed studies with different qualities, this makes it difficult to identify the effect sizes of biophilic design patterns in the workplace. Therefore, it is crucial to consider multiple attributes using a systematic and structured approach. In this systematic review, we introduce a multi-criteria decision-making tool, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), to quantify the magnitude of the restorative effects of each biophilic design pattern (RQ3). AHP, originally developed by Saaty (1972), has been extensively used in various sectors, such as finance, education, engineering, business, and health, regarding applications correlated with multiple criteria decision-making (Ho 2008; Ishizaka and Labib 2011). AHP has also been a popular multiple criteria decision-making tool in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. AHP has been used in AEC for various purposes, ranging from architectural design assessment (Harputlugil 2018) and evaluation of life-cycle performance of buildings (Al-Saggaf, Nasir, and Hegazy 2020) to appraisal of green building rating systems (Chodnekar, Yadav, and Chaturvedi 2021) and assessment of habitability performance of residential buildings (Lee, Cheon, and Han 2019).

AHP establishes the relative importance of each criterion through subjective judgments and pairwise comparisons. The calculated overall weights of decision elements represented by numerical values are then used to compare alternative options. Figure 2 shows the hierarchy of AHP in this study. A web-based AHP online system (Business Performance Management Singapore (BPMS) 2023) was used to carry out the calculations. We first defined three evaluation criteria to consider: (1) total number of studies showing positive associations; (2) quality of paper; and (3) total number of studies investigating that specific biophilic design pattern. Following that, we assigned subjective weights to each criterion based on their relative importance and performed pairwise comparisons (Table 3). The consistency ratio (CR) of the pairwise comparisons was computed as 0.0%. The threshold value for CR was set as 0.1% by Saaty (1972). Next, these subjective weights were fed into a decision matrix as shown in Table 4. After that, the total of each row (T₁, T₂, T₃) was calculated. Then, the sum of totals (T_total) was computed. Finally, the total of each row was divided by the sum of totals to calculate the priority weights of each criterion (P₁, P₂, P₃) as shown in Table 5. The results tell us that criterion 1 (total number of studies showing positive associations) accounts for 66.7% of the overall decision of the associations between biophilic design patterns and their restorative effects. On the other hand, criterion 2 (quality of paper) and criterion 3 (total number of studies investigating that specific biophilic design pattern) account for 22.7% and 11.1% of the overall decision, respectively. As for criterion 2, we defined three alternatives: Q1 journal papers, other journal papers, and conference proceedings. Following the same steps as main criteria, we found that while Q1 journal papers account for 57.1% of the overall score for criterion 2, other journal papers and conference proceedings account for 28.6% and 14.3% of the overall score, respectively. We used a respected journal ranking system (Scimago Journal & Country Rank 2023) to identify the quality of papers. The next step was to calculate the utility scores (U) of each biophilic design pattern for the respective outcome measures. U scores here represent the weighted sum of all three criteria. The associated restorative benefits of each biophilic design pattern based on the results of U scores are interpreted in section 4.

Figure 2. Hierarchy of AHP.

Table 3. Pairwise comparisons of evaluation criteria.

(AHPC scale: 1- equal importance, 3- moderate importance, 5- strong importance, 7- very strong importance, 9- extreme importance (2, 4, 6, 8 values in-between)).

Table 4. Decision matrix.

	Criterion 1	Criterion 2	Criterion 3	Total
Criterion 1	1.00	3.00	6.00	T1: 10.00
Criterion 2	0.33	1.00	2.00	T2: 3.33
Criterion 3	0.17	0.50	1.00	T3: 1.67
Total				Ttotal: 15.00

Table 5. Priority weights.

Criteria	Priority	Rank
Criterion 1	P1: 66.7%	1
Criterion 2	P2: 22.2%	2
Criterion 3	P3: 11.1%	3

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in section 3, the general characteristics of the selected studies are presented around 11 themes which were identified as ‘publication date’, ‘publication country’, publication journal’, ‘biophilic design pattern’, ‘outcome measure’, ‘collected data’, ‘sensory input’, ‘experimental approach’, ‘delivery mode’, ‘population’, and ‘sample size’. In Appendix A, Table A1 (factors 1–3), Table A2 (factor 4), Table A3 (factors 5–7), and Table A4 (factors 8–11) lists and compares the reviewed studies based on the abovementioned factors and their sub-factors. In section 4, the restorative effects of each individual biophilic design pattern on employees in workplaces are presented through supporting evidence. Section 5 includes the critical evaluation of AHP effect size analysis, its practical implications, and limitations of the study. The conclusions are provided in section 6.

Descriptive analysis of the reviewed studies

In this section, the descriptive properties of the reviewed studies are presented to provide an overview of biophilic design research in the context of workplace environments.

Publication date, country, and journal

According to the chronological order of the reviewed studies with geographical locations presented in Figure 3, the number of studies in the literature exhibited a clear upward trend over the period. More than three-quarters of the studies (n = 58) were published in 2016–2022, which indicates a growing interest in investigating biophilic design implementations at workplaces in recent years. Particularly, the order demonstrates that the number of studies peaked in 2020 (n = 15). When examining the publication location, the largest part of the studies focused on Europe (40.5%), North America (31.0%), and Asia (24.3%). The selected studies were conducted in 21 different countries, representing a great diversity in terms of geographical location (Figure 4). The literature was dominated by studies published in the USA (n = 22), followed by 12 in UK and 6 in China. Other leading countries in the field were Australia and Japan with 5 studies, Sweden with 4 studies, and Singapore, Netherlands, South Korea, and South Africa with 3 studies. Furthermore, only one study was carried out in several countries, including Canada, Italy, Nigeria, and India. Of the 74 papers reviewed, the vast majority of them were journal papers (90.5%), except for 7 conference proceedings. The selected articles were published in 55 different scientific journals. ‘Journal of Environmental Psychology’ was the most highly cited journal with 7 studies, followed by 4 in ‘Building and Environment’ and ‘Landscape and Urban Planning’, 3 in ‘International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health’ and ‘Intelligent Buildings International’, 2 in ‘Buildings, ‘Frontiers in Psychology’, ‘HortTechnology’, and ‘Building Research & Information’, and one in several different journals.

Figure 3. Distribution of the reviewed studies by publication date and geographical location.

Figure 4. Distribution of the reviewed studies by publication country.

Outcome measure, collected data, and research method

Cognitive performance was the most reported outcome measure (52.7%). 39 studies investigated the effect of workplace biophilic design implementations on employee cognitive performance related to productivity, creativity, working memory, attention, response inhibition, task switching, information processing, divergent thinking, etc. These studies employed various tasks and tests to objectively quantify cognitive performance, such as digit span test, Stroop task, Alternative Uses Test (AUT), sustained attention to response task, visual reaction time task, operation span test, arithmetic task, and proofreading task. 30 studies (40.5%) reported their results with the changes in stress levels based on self-reported and physiological measures. The most reported physiological measures were heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance, blood pressure, brain activity (alpha waves), and salivary cortisol level.

Several studies looked at employees’ physical, psychological, and mental health and well-being (41.8%) using self-rated questionnaires. A relatively lower number of studies (n = 16) examined emotion and mood using qualitative data collected through self-reported questionnaires, such as Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Semantic Differential, and Profile of Mood States (POMS). Finally, a significant portion of the reviewed studies (66.2%) used other metrics, including but not limited to State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), depression, burnout, fatigue, perceived restorativeness scale (PRS), job satisfaction, quality of life, sleep quality, physical activity, work/task-load, and absenteeism. When examining the sensory inputs of biophilic design applications, the reviewed studies exclusively focused on the visual attributes of biophilic practices as vision is the major sense to perceive and interact with our surroundings (66.2%). In addition, nature sounds (e.g. birdsong, chirping cricket, flowing water, waves, blowing wind, rain) were considered in 14 studies. There was far less research on the olfactory (5.4%) and thermal (2.7%) cues as very few studies presented biophilic design implementations incorporating smells (e.g. lemon) and thermal (e.g. natural breeze) experiences of nature. The distribution of the reviewed studies by outcome measure, collected data, and sensory input is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Distribution of the reviewed studies by outcome measure, collected data, and sensory input.

In regard to the experimental approach, a significant part of the analyzed studies was conducted in actual workplaces (40.5%) with actual employees comprising office workers from various knowledge-intensive sectors, such as administration, education, engineering, finance, marketing, media, and public sector. These were field research allowing employees to experience biophilic design interventions in real-life contexts. 24 studies took place in controlled laboratory settings which offer greater control over the experimental variables (e.g. independent, dependent, irrelevant). The majority of these studies (70.8%) recruited university students. As for delivery mode, a substantial portion of the field and laboratory studies employed real representations of biophilic design interventions (n = 40), while 17 studies utilized technological mediums, such as plasma displays, to create the digital simulations of biophilic design interventions through photos, slideshows, and videos. Moreover, most of the field and laboratory studies considered a small sample size of 20–50 (n = 27). Some studies were based on the administration of self-reported surveys/questionnaires collecting qualitative/quantitative data from a large sample of employees regarding the influence of biophilic design applications in workplaces (27.0%). Such studies had a sample size over 100 due to the ease and affordability of recruiting a large sample group. There were only 4 studies employing virtual reality (VR) to develop immersive and engaging experiences of biophilic workplace environments and test their effects through systematic manipulations. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the reviewed studies by experimental approach, delivery mode, population, and sample size.

Figure 6. Distribution of the reviewed studies by research method.

Biophilic design pattern

In this research, we build on the 9 patterns of biophilic design for workplaces proposed by Lei et al. (2022) through an extensive literature review. While this framework provides a comprehensive overview of biophilic design elements applicable to workplaces, we have further extended and refined this framework by incorporating additional four design patterns. Figure 7 demonstrates the overlaps and discrepancies between Lei et al. (2022)'s framework and our proposed modifications. While the same fill colors indicate the overlaps between column A and column B, red outline color shows the added design patterns. As can be seen from the presented connections, pattern 1 in column A is linked to pattern 1 in column B; pattern 2 in column A is interrelated with pattern 7 in column B; pattern 3 in column A is interconnected to pattern 10 in column B; patterns 4 and 5 in column A are linked to pattern 5 in column B; pattern 6 in column A is connected to pattern 2 in column B; patter 7 in column A is linked to pattern 8 in column B; pattern 8 in column A is interrelated with pattern 9 in column B; and pattern 9 in column A is linked to pattern 11 in column B. There are no patterns in column A matching patterns 3, 4, 6, and 12 in column B. Finally, the 12 biophilic design patterns for workplaces were grouped into three categories based on Browning, Ryan, and Clancy (2014)'s framework, namely ‘nature in the space’, ‘natural analogues’, and ‘nature of the space’.

Figure 7. The connections between 9 patterns of biophilic design for workplaces (column A) and 12 biophilic design patterns for workplaces (column B).

Among the 12 biophilic design patterns, greenery (41.8%) and window views of nature (39.1%) were utilized the most. These are common strategies to apply biophilic design in indoor workplace settings. Many studies investigated the impact of introducing plants, flowers, and green walls into workplaces on employees. Several studies also considered access to natural environments through windows as micro-restorative breaks, favoring viewing natural elements over built elements. 24 studies (32.4%) explored the potential benefits of exposure to daylight or dynamic light mimicking natural light in the workplace. In some studies (20.2%), multisensory impressions of nature through a non-visual connection, including sounds, smells, and thermal experiences of nature, were examined. The beneficial effects of viewing simulated nature (e.g. images, videos, etc.) and integrating water features into workplaces were investigated in 9 and 11 studies, respectively. 8 studies (10.8%) explored the restorative properties of natural materials (e.g. wood). Other biophilic design patterns, including natural ventilation & thermal comfort (n = 5), organic shapes & natural patterns (n = 4), semi-outdoor nature exposure (n = 4), spatial configurations of nature (n = 3), and natural colors (n = 2), have received less attention from scholars. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the reviewed studies by biophilic design pattern.

Figure 8. Distribution of the reviewed studies by biophilic design pattern.

Findings: restorative effects of biophilic design patterns

This section presents a review and analysis of selected papers on the impact of 12 biophilic design patterns through supporting evidence as shown in Table B1, Table B2, Table B3, Table B4, and Table B5 in Appendix B.

Restorative effects of ‘Nature in the Space’

Greenery

Table B1 (Appendix B) summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of greenery. These studies have investigated three main methods to introduce greenery into workplace settings: (1) plants; (2) flowers; and (3) green walls. Studies considered indoor plants with different types (e.g. foliage, flowering, succulent, cactus, bush, shrub, tree, fern, vine, herb, palm), sizes (e.g. small, moderate, large), locations (e.g. individual desks, shelves, windowsills, corners, break rooms), densities (e.g. two plants per person, one plant unit per 1.8 m²) and so forth. The evidence supported the use of indoor plants for reducing both psychological and physiological stress among employees. Physiological responses, including heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance, blood pressure, brain activity, and salivary cortisol level, were correlated with stress reactions. For example, the EEG analysis of Hassan et al. (2020)’s study revealed that looking at plants even for 5 min increased brain activity (high alpha waves) indicating relaxation and decreased mental stress. Hähn, Essah, and Blanusa (2021) showed that the removal of plants from individual offices and break-out spaces elicited a substantial increase in perceived stress levels. Lei, Yuan, and Yu Lau (2021) however found no correlation between exposure to indoor plants and heart rate variability and skin conductance results, which was believed caused by the absence of a stress source in the experiment setting.

The majority of these studies also pointed out the beneficial effects of indoor plants on cognitive performance metrics, including attention, response inhibition, working memory, and creativity. For instance, Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Vega Sanchez (2018) highlighted significant improvements in work performance on information processing and knowledge creation tasks by introducing indoor plants into a workplace. On the other hand, Archary and Thatcher (2022) found no significant impact of plants on working memory measured by the backward digit span test due to limited exposure duration. As for the key findings regarding emotion and mood, only few studies found positive associations. Yin et al. (2018) showed that participants reported increased positive emotions and diminished negative emotions in the presence of plants with other natural elements. The evidence also strongly supported indoor plants as an effective method to enhance employees’ health and well-being. For instance, Lei et al. (2022) found positive correlations between plants and satisfaction with health. Kim et al. (2011) indicated that presenting indoor plants in office environments exhibited reductions in sick building syndrome and mental health symptoms. Finally, several studies considered other metrics (e.g. anxiety, burnout, fatigue, workload, job satisfaction, quality of life, engagement) to quantify the impact of plants in the workplace and found mixed results. For example, Toyoda et al. (2020) showed that seeing and caring for plants led to substantial reductions in anxiety levels. However, Thatcher et al. (2020) found that the presence of plants resulted in a significant decrease in work engagement, which was suggested to be only a reflection of employees who were on the verge of leaving the company.

Apart from plants, some studies examined the psychophysiological relaxing effects of flowers with different colors, including purple, blue, white, red, yellow, orange, green, and pink. Overall, these studies found that viewing flowers was related to lower stress levels and improved mood. It was suggested that even 3-minute observation of flowers after the end of daily work might have immediate positive influences. However, results varied depending on the color of the flower. For instance, Elsadek and Liu (2021) showed that blue flowers had greater restorative effects than purple flowers. In another study (Xie et al. 2021), viewing yellow and red flowers resulted in significantly better physiological and psychological responses compared to white flowers. As a result, it is crucial to take color into consideration while implementing flowers in workplace settings to promote employees’ well-being. Furthermore, few studies investigated applying green walls to workplace settings. Green walls with foliage plants that clean the air from volatile organic compounds (VOC) and disperse it back into the office environment were found to benefit employees’ skin health and immune system regulation (Soininen et al. 2022).

Overall, the key outputs regarding the implementation of greenery in workplaces are as follows:

• Indoor plants were effective at reducing stress levels and improving cognitive performance, mood, health, and well-being in workplace settings.

• The presence of flowers elevated mood and lowered stress. However, the degree of their benefits differed between flower colors.

• Even brief exposure to greenery had immediate positive influences.

• Greenery was incorporated into a variety of space types, including workstations, meeting rooms, break-out spaces, rest areas, rooftops, and balconies, in the form of potted plants, green walls, and flowers.

• Green coverage ratios above a certain threshold, such as 15%, were perceived as overwhelming and the positive effects were offset.

Window views of nature

Table B2 (Appendix B) summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of window views of nature. Window views are the primary means to provide employees with opportunities for restorative experiences during micro- or lunch breaks. Studies considered window views with different contents (e.g. natural elements (green space, vegetation, body of water, sky, etc.), built elements (streets, buildings, traffic, etc.)), features (e.g. coherence, mystery, complexity, refuge), qualities (e.g. low, moderate, high), distances (e.g. less than 500 m) and so forth. The evidence showed significant positive associations between nature views and cognitive performance (e.g. concentration, short-term memory), emotion and mood, and health and well-being (e.g. physical, psychological, mental). For instance, Lee et al. (2018) revealed that 90-second micro breaks through workplace nature views of a green roof considerably improved work performance. In another study, Ko et al. (2020) found higher positive emotions and lower negative emotions for the participants with window views of trees and sunny sky vs. the windowless condition. Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino (2015) demonstrated that natural features seen in window views were significantly and positively correlated to employee well-being. Furthermore, some studies, including Chang et al. (2020), McFarland (2017), and Lottrup, Grahn, and Stigsdotter (2013), showed positive relations between nature views from the window and life satisfaction, job satisfaction, quality of life, and workplace attitude. Lastly, viewing nature through workplace windows led to reductions in psychological and physiological stress levels. For example, Elsadek, Liu, and Xie (2020) found that 3-minute observation of a window view of green space after a normal working day increased parasympathetic brain activities and decreased skin conductance levels. Overall, although most studies highlighted the overall amount of nature seen in window views, van Esch et al. (2019) found that view features were better predictors of employee well-being. It was observed that the well-being effects of some urban views with specific view features, such as coherence and refuge, were similar to those of nature views. Therefore, it is essential to consider various aspects of window views, including view content, view features, view distance, view access, and view clarity, for better restorative outcomes.

Overall, the key outputs regarding the implementation of nature views in workplaces are as follows:

• Viewing nature through workplace windows during brief micro-breaks or lunch breaks had significantly beneficial effects, particularly on the cognitive performance of employees.

• Most of the reviewed studies favored nature views over urban views. However, it was shown that built views with specific features, such as coherence and refuge, might be considered as restorative as natural views (van Esch et al. 2019).

• It was demonstrated that the presence of nature views beyond 500 m was not positively correlated with life satisfaction (Chang et al. 2020).

Daylight & visual comfort

Table B2 (Appendix B) also summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of daylight & visual comfort. The significance of access to daylight in workplaces was well-established among the reviewed studies. Studies showed that daylight had dramatic impacts on employees’ sleep by playing a central role in regulating circadian rhythm and melatonin production. For instance, J. Lee and Boubekri (2020) found that occupants of daylit offices had higher sleep quality from the aspects of sleep efficiency, sleep time, and daily light exposure than those of non-daylit offices. Similarly, Hu and Davis (2021) exhibited that daylight had greatest circadian effects compared to electric lighting systems and self-luminous displays. Münch et al. (2012) found a significant interaction between exposure to daylight and alertness. Studies also revealed that employees in workplaces without daylight are less productive than their colleagues in workplaces with steady sources of daylight. For example, Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Vega Sanchez (2018) indicated that the introduction of natural light into workplace design resulted in significant improvements in objective intellectual performance (information processing and knowledge creation). Moreover, studies showed that lack of daylight in workplaces was linked with poor physical and mental well-being (Boubekri et al. 2014; Lee and Boubekri 2020). On the contrary, the reviewed studies did not observe significant effects of daylight on mood and stress, although some studies investigating the combined effects of daylight and window views of nature provided favorable results (Woo et al. 2021; Yin et al. 2019). Additionally, studies presented results regarding the impact of dynamic lighting mimicking the daily variations in natural light in terms of illuminance and color temperature in workplaces. Zhang et al. (2020) found that the installation of dynamic lighting increased alertness and benefited mood, although it led to a substantial reduction in perceived sleep quality and sleep time. Koppel and Tint (2013) reported moderate improvements in well-being, perceived productivity, and work performance on a computerized reaction speed test for participants working in offices outfitting dynamic lighting. However, in another study (de Kort and Smolders 2010), no significant impacts of dynamic lighting on subjective performance, sleep quality, mental health, vitality, alertness, need for recovery, and headache and eyestrain were observed, although office workers were more satisfied with dynamic lighting conditions compared to static lighting conditions.

Overall, the key outputs regarding the implementation of daylight and dynamic lighting in workplaces are as follows:

• Daylight had dramatic impacts on circadian rhythm and cognitive performance.

• The reviewed studies did not test the effects of some factors, including building orientation, building geometry, window-to-wall ratio, window position, window glazing, shading, seating arrangement, and proximity to window, on daylight exposure and its resulting benefits.

• Dynamic lighting applications in workplace settings were characterized by mixed results.

Simulations of nature

Table B3 (Appendix B) summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of simulations of nature. These studies investigated the benefits of viewing images, videos, and other simulations of nature exhibited by small and large displays. Scholars considered simulated nature as an inexpensive and convenient way to compensate for the lack of access to nature in workplace environments. The evidence supported the cognitive benefits of simulated nature. For instance, Chulvi et al. (2020) found no significant differences in creativity scores between real nature consisting of a garden with natural features and simulated nature comprising walls with large photographs of natural environments. Simulated nature was also associated with stress reduction. Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022) showed that the presence of a mediated atmosphere table providing occupants with a forest scene through an LED display and congruent environmental conditions including lighting, audio, smell, airflow, and temperature decreased participants’ heart rates compared to baseline. As for emotion and mood and health and well-being, viewing digital nature generated negligible effects. Finally, some studies suggested that simulated nature contributed to employees’ work attitude (job satisfaction and organizational commitment), and perceived atmosphere of the workplace. Thus, visual representations of nature, including (static) photos and videos, presented by digital media might be an alternative way to benefit from nature in workplace settings.

Overall, the key outputs regarding the implementation of simulated nature in workplaces are as follows:

• Viewing simulated nature in the forms of images and videos through paintings, screens, or projectors relieved stress and boosted cognitive performance. Even brief exposures as long as 15 min produced positive effects (Pilotti et al. 2015).

• Digital projections of nature were particularly related to creative thinking.

• It was found that adding congruent sounds to nature videos improved results (Jahncke et al. 2011).

Multisensory experiences – water features

Table B4 (Appendix B) summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of multisensory experiences and water features. These studies examined the restorative properties of auditory and olfactory experiences of nature in workplace environments. The reviewed studies produced contradictory results regarding the cognitive benefits of nature sounds. For instance, Aristizabal et al. (2021) found that presenting nature sounds, such as blowing wind, trickling water, and singing birds, into the workplace boosted employees’ cognitive performance test scores measuring working memory, response inhibition, and task switching when compared to baseline. Jahncke et al. (2016) showed that participants’ performance in a serial short-term memory task improved when the background noise was masked by nature sounds featuring bird twitter and rippling water. On the other hand, Y. Lee et al. (2020) and Hongistob et al. (2017) found a negative impact of water-based masking sounds on employees’ cognitive performance in comparison to typical office noise, white noise, and silence. Furthermore, Ma and Shu (2018) and Newbold et al. (2017) could not find positive associations between listening to birdsong and flowing water and cognitive performance. Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn about the adequacy of nature sounds to boost cognitive performance in workplace settings. When it comes to the impact of nature sounds on stress, mixed results were generated. Largo-Wight, O’Hara, and William Chen (2016) found that a brief (less than 7 min) exposure to nature sounds (ocean waves) led to significant reductions in muscle tension, pulse rate, and self-reported stress levels compared to classical music and control groups. However, Aristizabal et al. (2021), Y. Lee et al. (2020), Ma and Shu (2018), Hongistob et al. (2017), and Jahncke et al. (2011) did not support the effectiveness of nature sounds in decreasing psychophysiological stress levels. Finally, the evidence mostly supported the use of natural odors in the workplace. Ardelet, Fleck, and Grobert (2022) and Ueda et al. (2021) found that exposure to ambient scents (floral musky note and lemon fragrance) enhanced mood and intellectual concentration, respectively, compared to baseline conditions without any ambient augmentation. Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022), however, failed to demonstrate the restorative effects of forest scent in workplace environments.

Overall, the key outputs regarding the implementation of multisensory nature experiences and water features in workplaces are as follows:

• The potential of nature sounds to lower stress and improve cognitive performance was inconclusive due to mixed results.

• Natural odors evoked a positive mood and lifted intellectual concentration.

• The results did not support the use of water features with visual and auditory attributes in workplaces.

Natural ventilation and thermal comfort

Studies have demonstrated that naturally ventilated offices through operable windows support employee physical health, comfort, and productivity thanks to improved air quality (Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome 2021; Lei et al. 2022; Pasini et al. 2021). The evidence also highlighted the significance of personal control over the thermal environment. For example, Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022) found that the incorporation of local cooling and heating systems increased the perceived restorativeness of the office and lowered physiological stress responses. In another study, Shahzad et al. (2016) even showed that building-related symptoms were less common among occupants of air-conditioned offices with a high level of control over the thermal environment than those of naturally ventilated offices with a low level of control over the thermal conditions.

Restorative effects of ‘Natural Analogues’

Table B5 (Appendix B) summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of organic shapes & natural patterns, natural materials, and natural colors.

Natural materials

The evidence supported the cognitive and psychophysiological benefits of natural materials in the workplace. Burnard and Kutnar (2020), Shen, Zhang, and Lian (2020), and Yin et al. (2018) showed that exposure to natural materials (wood) led to lower stress levels (salivary cortisol, skin conductance, and blood pressure levels) and higher cognitive performance scores related to divergent creativity, visual working memory, sustained attention, perception, learning, thinking, and expressive functions. As a result, incorporating nature-sourced materials (e.g. wood, stone, leather) instead of synthetic processed materials (e.g. plastic) is critical for the development of restorative workplaces.

Organic shapes & natural patterns

The reviewed studies also favored the usage of organic shapes & natural patterns in the workplace. For instance, Roskams and Haynes (2020) found that a 10-minute micro-break from work in a regeneration pod featuring complex biophilic forms resulted in decreased anxiety and perceived task load and enhanced performance in an arithmetic test compared to a break in an enclosed meeting room. Yin et al. (2019) exhibited that offices outfitting biomorphic shapes & forms were correlated with lower levels of blood pressure and heart rate and higher creativity scores compared to non-biophilic offices.

Natural colors

It was shown that introducing natural colors into the workplace (e.g. walls), such as green and blue, had a range of benefits for employees, including improved health and well-being, enhanced mood, and increased relaxation. For instance, Lei et al. (2022) and Pasini et al. (2021) demonstrated that natural color design in offices positively affected employees’ general health, nature-relatedness, and perceived quality and restorativeness of the physical environment.

Restorative effects of ‘Nature of the Space’

Table B5 (Appendix B) also summarizes the key findings of studies exploring the impact of spatial configurations of nature and semi-outdoor nature exposure.

Spatial configurations of nature

Studies have shown that office layouts designed in accordance with the theories of prospect, refuge, mystery, and risk/peril, including uninterrupted views for surveillance over the surrounding environment, adequate protection, partially disclosed views, and threats with perceived control, are preferred by employees as the visual properties of these offices are similar to habitats in which we have evolved (Aduwo, Akinwole, and Okpanachi 2021; Lei et al. 2022). For example, Roskams and Haynes (2020) showed that employees who have taken a short break in a biophilic restoration pod providing opportunities to observe without being seen had lower anxiety scores and perceived task load and higher cognitive performance than those in a regular enclosed meeting room.

Semi-outdoor nature exposure

Having access to semi-outdoor areas at work with greenery, sunlight, fresh air, natural materials, and water features has been shown to positively influence employee mental health, physical activity, and well-being (Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome 2021; Lei et al. 2022; Pasini et al. 2021). For instance, Lyu et al. (2022) found restorative benefits of thermal pleasure/thermal adaptive opportunity in a semi-outdoor workplace environment from the aspects of attention restoration, stress recovery, and mood improvement.

Effect size analysis of biophilic design patterns using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

This systematic review employed AHP to measure the impact of various biophilic design patterns on 4 key workplace outcomes, including stress level, cognitive performance, emotion and mood, and health and well-being. Effect sizes associated with each biophilic element were represented using respective circle sizes with different ink colors (Tables 4 and 6). A larger effect size indicates a stronger association between the biophilic design pattern and the outcome measure. Overall, the evidence demonstrates that while biophilic design strategies have significant impacts on employees in the workplace, they are not equally effective for all measures. Notably, the presence of greenery, window views of nature, and daylight & visual comfort had substantial positive effects, with medium to large effect sizes observed for stress reduction, cognitive performance, and health and well-being. These elements significantly contribute to creating a less stressful, more productive, and healthier work environment. However, the influence on emotional states and mood was somewhat smaller. Simulations of nature, multisensory experiences, water features, and natural materials were found to have relatively small effects on all outcome measures, particularly in fostering emotion and mood and health and well-being. Some biophilic design patterns, including natural ventilation & thermal comfort, organic shapes & natural patterns, natural colors, spatial configurations of nature, and semi-outdoor nature exposure, displayed either small effects or no substantial impact on any of the outcome measure.

Table 6. Effect size analysis of biophilic design patterns.

Discussion

The previous section presented evidence regarding the physical, psychological, and cognitive benefits of biophilic design patterns for employees in the workplace. The use of AHP method to measure effect sizes adds rigor to the study and provides a rational framework for evaluation. This section critically evaluates the evidence and provides insights into the practical implications of the biophilic design concept in the workplace. The results showed that greenery, windows views of nature, and daylight & visual comfort had medium to large effect sizes on stress level, cognitive performance, and health and well-being. This substantiates and corroborates the existing body of literature (Beute and de Kort 2014; Gu, Liu, and Lu 2022; Lin 2021) which has consistently demonstrated that having access to greenery (e.g. plants, flowers, vegetation), nature views (e.g. green space, vegetation, body of water, sky), and natural light are robust contributors to reducing stress levels, enhancing cognitive performance, and promoting employee health and well-being in the workplace. These patterns can particularly be implemented in interactive open and semi-open workstations requiring medium-level concentration, in collaboration spaces where employees can share ideas in an informal atmosphere such as booth, huddle, and meeting rooms, and in support spaces that offer the opportunity to switch off in stress-free environments such as kitchenettes, cafeterias, and restaurants. Nonetheless, AHP analysis revealed limited effects of biophilic design strategies on emotion and mood of employees in the workplace. This represents a contradiction to some extent with the existing literature (Gray 2017; Klotz and Bolino 2021; Lerner and Stopka 2016), which has occasionally reported more significant emotional and mood-related impacts. This may be attributed, in part, to the underrepresentation of this specific outcome measure in the existing literature, highlighting the need for additional research in this domain.

On the other hand, results indicate that true biophilic design applications go beyond simply implementing these three main patterns. Other design features can also meet our inherent need to engage with nature through digital projections, subtle sound and scent effects, material connection, and the presence of water. Introducing static photos, images, and videos featuring natural landscapes through paintings and digital media (e.g. projections, screens) might help the development of creative spaces where employees can thrive. Masking and drowning out inherent noise (e.g. distracting chatter, HVAC) with nature sounds, such as leaves rustling, birds chirping, and water flowing, can provide access to spaces that facilitate focused work. Presenting nature scents, such as rosemary, lemon, peppermint, and jasmine, into frequently used spaces (e.g. workstations) using actual plants/flowers or aromatherapy can positively affect employees’ psychological state of mind. Moreover, incorporating natural materials (e.g. wood, bamboo, cork, stone, leather) in common areas, such as lobbies, break rooms, and meeting rooms, and workstations might reduce stress, boost productivity, and enhance the satisfaction of employees while contributing to the development of comfortable and visually appealing workplaces. Finally, adding water features (e.g. fountains, water walls, aquariums, indoor ponds) in outdoor/semi-outdoor spaces, reception area, break rooms, and workspaces can be a powerful tool for creating a welcoming and relaxing work atmosphere for employees and visitors.

Several biophilic design patterns showed minimal to negligible effect sizes across the range of outcome measures, encompassing elements such as natural ventilation & thermal comfort, organic shapes & natural patterns, natural colors, spatial configurations of nature, and semi-outdoor nature exposure. This is in opposition to existing literature to some extent (Manga and Allen 2022; Mangone et al. 2017; Hyvönen et al. 2018). The absence of significant benefits associated with natural ventilation, natural colors, and semi-outdoor nature exposure in the workplace particularly, constitutes a somewhat unexpected finding within this study. It is worth noting that this discrepancy can be, at least in part, ascribed to the potential limitations of this study. It is plausible the systematic literature search methodology may have missed certain studies focusing on these elements. As for organic shapes & natural patterns and spatial configurations of nature, the contradiction with the literature can be attributed to the scarcity of research exploring these patterns. The limited coverage of these specific elements in the current body of research may be influenced by their relatively lower implementation in real-world workplaces. This suggests a notable association between the extent of biophilic design strategies employed in practice and the extent to which they are represented in the literature. Notwithstanding the small effects observed on workplace outcomes in this study, it is essential to recognize the inherent value of the above-mentioned design patterns withing the broader context of a holistic approach to creating biophilic workplaces. The provision of natural ventilation (e.g. operable windows), nature-inspired shapes, forms, and patterns (e.g. structural system, building form, decorative applications), natural color palette, spatial configurations of nature (e.g. regeneration pods), and semi-outdoor nature interactions (e.g. balconies, rooftops) in the workplace might be important for improving employee well-being and productivity. However, given that it is not often possible to create workplaces featuring all 12 biophilic design patterns due to budgetary, contextual, and maintenance-related constraints, designer teams should be strategic, intentional, and thoughtful in developing such spaces. Designers should be mindful that biophilic elements work in harmony to create an interconnected ecosystem that maintains a connection to the natural world as the core of biophilic design is mostly about the overall atmosphere of spaces and less about the disconnected occurrences of natural elements. It is also important to note that the effectiveness of biophilic design patterns may depend on other factors such as type of workplace, personal preferences, previous experiences, and cultural context, which should be considered when designing biophilic workplaces.

Limitations

In this systematic review, we have discovered that a range of biophilic design strategies exhibited negligible impacts on the outcome measures, which contrasts with findings in some studies. Since AHP analysis took into account both the total number of studies exploring each specific biophilic design pattern and the overall count of positive associations, it is conceivable that these strategies displayed minimal effect sizes across the outcome measures primarily due to their relatively limited representation in the available literature. Therefore, more studies are needed to attain more robust and conclusive results about the effectiveness of these biophilic design patterns in the workplace. Furthermore, the lack of outcome data on some biophilic design strategies might be resulted from the missing evidence in our systematic review. Although we applied a snowballing technique to identify potentially relevant studies that were excluded from the literature search, systematic reviews can still fail to provide complete and up-to-date evidence on a specific research question. Another limitation of this study pertains to the reliance on subjective judgments in AHP analysis when identifying evaluation criteria and establishing their relative importance, introducing bias and leading to inconsistent results. For instance, expert advice could have been sought when assessing the quality of papers.

Conclusions

The present systematic review provides an overview of the current state of biophilic design research in the context of workplaces. The main aim of this systematic review was to determine commonly studied biophilic design patterns, their associated restorative benefits based on empirical evidence, and how this can, in turn, inform future research and practices. The results first led to further refinement and extension of one of the mainstream biophilic design frameworks by Lei et al. (2022) through the incorporation of additional design patterns, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of biophilic design elements applicable to workplaces. The evidence overall supported that the psychophysiological and physical implications of workplace environments could potentially be counteracted by adopting a biophilic design approach. However, the results showed that different design elements can impact differently. Accordingly, we presented AHP multicriteria analysis to systematically measure the effect sizes of each biophilic design pattern across workplace outcome measures. The findings indicated that the inclusion of greenery, access to natural views, and well-designed daylight yielded considerable positive impacts in the workplace. On the other hand, further research is needed to consolidate the evidence regarding the potential restorative benefits of several biophilic design patterns that have been relatively underexplored in the existing literature. Moreover, additional studies are required to examine the role of biophilic workplaces in enhancing employees’ mood states, as this aspect has been notably understudied in comparison to other workplace metrics. Overall, the refined biophilic design framework developed in this study can serve as a valuable resource for design teams to create healthy, productive, comfortable, and stress-free workplaces. The framework can guide the selection and integration of biophilic design elements in a systematic and evidence-based manner. The findings of this research will also inform future research and practices on the effectiveness of different biophilic design patterns in the workplace. This can help design teams make informed decisions about which biophilic design strategies to incorporate into the workplace environment to achieve the desired outcomes.

Data availability statement

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Muhammed Yildirim

Muhammed Yildirim Muhammed is a PhD Candidate in Architecture at the University of Sydney, Australia. His research focuses on investigating the restorative benefits of multi-sensory nature experiences at workplaces using Virtual Reality. He is interested in the impacts of non-visual aspects of nature experiences, particularly sound and smell, on employee health, well-being, and productivity in the workplace. Muhammed completed his bachelor's and master's degree in architecture at Firat University, Turkey. His master's research focused on exploring the potential of Building Information Modelling in combination with energy simulation tools for retrofitting existing building stock.

Ozgur Gocer

Ozgur Gocer Dr Gocer is an architect, and she holds a PhD in Building Science from the Istanbul Technical University (Turkey). Before joining the University of Sydney as a lecturer, she was doing a post-doc at the Indoor Environmental Quality Lab with the study of ‘The impact of indoor environment quality on work efficiency and building energy performance in intelligent workplaces’. Her project was focused on the relationship between indoor environmental quality design parameters and work productivity. Her research interests relate to the sustainable building design, building and building materials performance simulations, and post-occupancy evaluation for indoor and outdoor spaces.

Anastasia Globa

Anastasia Globa Dr. Globa is a researcher, academic and designer working in the field of architecture, with strong research interests in algorithmic design, interactive systems and simulations. Dr. Globa is currently holding a position of Lecturer in Computational Design and Advanced Manufacturing The University of Sydney. She is a member of the CoCoA research lab and SydneyNano research center; closely collaborating with the Computer Aided Architectural Design in Asia community, being elected CAADRIA President in 2022. The research work and most of teaching done in the span of 15 years in Russia, Germany, New Zealand and Australia focuses on the use of computation, algorithmic form-making and integration of parametric modeling in architectural design. Her design and research projects often involve the use of various digital fabrication technologies, including the adaptation and pre-fabrication preparation of digital models for 3D printing, CNC routing or laser cutting.

Arianna Brambilla

Arianna Brambilla Associate Professor Arianna Brambilla was awarded a Ph.D. with honors in Building Engineering from Politecnico di Milano (IT). Her background in both architecture and engineering allowed her to establish her research field at the merging borders of architecture, construction, building physics, and engineering. Drawing upon the different disciplines to assess and interpret construction as a holistic concept, with a strong focus on sustainability. Her research interests relate to human-centered design, building performance assessment, low-carbon living, construction and innovative technologies, and healthy built environments. Arianna is also the co-chair of the Building Efficiencies cluster in the Smart Sustainable Building Network.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A1. Classification of the reviewed studies around factors 1–3.

Literature	Publication year	Publication location	Publication journal
Soininen et al. (2022)	2022	Finland	Scientific reports
Ardelet, Fleck, and Grobert (2022)	2022	France	Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Lyu et al. (2022)	2022	Australia	Building and Environment
Lei et al. (2022)	2022	Singapore, China	Buildings
Palanica and Fossat (2022)	2022	USA, Canada	Thinking Skills and Creativity
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)	2022	USA	IEEE Internet of Things Journal
Jens and Khoudi (2022)	2022	Denmark	Intelligent Buildings International
Archary and Thatcher (2022)	2022	South Africa	Ergonomics
Elsadek and Liu (2021)	2021	China	Indoor and Built Environment
MacNaughton et al. (2021)	2021	USA	Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Lei, Yuan, and Yu Lau (2021)	2021	Singapore	Journal of Cleaner Production
Hu and Davis (2021)	2021	Australia	Applied Sciences
Xie et al. (2021)	2021	China	International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Aristizabal et al. (2021)	2021	USA	Journal of Environmental Psychology
Pasini et al. (2021)	2021	Italy	Frontiers in Psychology
Woo et al. (2021)	2021	USA	Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
Aduwo, Akinwole, and Okpanachi (2021)	2021	Nigeria	IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome (2021)	2021	UK	Intelligent Buildings International
Ueda et al. (2021)	2021	Japan	International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics
Hähn, Essah, and Blanusa (2021)	2021	UK	Intelligent Buildings International
Zhang et al. (2020)	2020	USA	International journal of environmental research and public health
Burnard and Kutnar (2020)	2020	Slovenia	Building Research & Information
Hassan et al. (2020)	2020	China	Journal of Horticultural Sciences
Elsadek, Liu, and Xie (2020)	2020	China	Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Roskams and Haynes (2020)	2020	UK	Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Thatcher et al. (2020)	2020	South Africa	Journal of Environmental Psychology
Chang et al. (2020)	2020	Singapore	Landscape and Urban Planning
Lee et al. (2020)	2020	UK	Building Acoustics
Ko et al. (2020)	2020	USA	Building and Environment
Boubekri et al. (2020)	2020	USA	International journal of environmental research and public health
Choi et al. (2020)	2020	South Korea	Journal of People Plants Environment
Chulvi et al. (2020)	2020	Spain	Journal of Building Engineering
Lee and Boubekri (2020)	2020	USA, South Korea	Journal of Green Building
Toyoda et al. (2020)	2020	Japan	HortTechnology
Thompson and Bruk-Lee (2019)	2019	USA	Occupational Health Science
Yin et al. (2019)	2019	USA	Indoor Air
Jamrozik et al. (2019)	2019	USA	Building and Environment
Göçer et al. (2019)	2019	Australia	Buildings
van Esch et al. (2019)	2019	USA	Journal of Environmental Psychology
Lee et al. (2018)	2018	Australia	Journal of Environmental Psychology
Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Sanchez (2018)	2018	Japan	Energy and Buildings
Yin et al. (2018)	2018	USA	Building and Environment
Ma and Shu (2018)	2018	China	Acta Acustica United with Acustica
Hongistob et al. (2017)	2017	UK	Frontiers in Psychology
Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017)	2017	South Africa	Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors
Newbold et al. (2017)	2017	UK	Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Abdalrahman and Galbrun (2017)	2017	UK	Proceedings of PLEA
Kubota et al. (2017)	2017	Japan	AIP Conference Proceedings
Korpela et al. (2017)	2017	Finland	Journal of Environmental Psychology
McFarland (2017)	2017	USA	HortTechnology
Jahncke et al. (2016)	2016	Sweden	Work
An et al. (2016)	2016	USA, India	PloS one
Largo-Wight, O’Hara, and William Chen (2016)	2016	USA	HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Lindberg, Tran, and Banasiak (2016)	2016	USA	Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
Shahzad et al. (2016)	2016	UK, Norway	Sustainability
Lottrup et al. (2015)	2015	UK	Landscape Research
Pilotti et al. (2015)	2015	USA	Environment and Behavior
Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino (2015)	2015	UK	Landscape and Urban Planning
Jahncke, Eriksson, and Naula (2015)	2015	Sweden	Noise Health
Nieuwenhuis et al. (2014)	2014	Netherlands, UK	Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Ikei et al. (2014)	2014	Japan	Journal of Physiological Anthropology
Boubekri et al. (2014)	2014	USA	Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
Lee et al. (2014)	2014	Australia	Landscape and Urban Planning
Koppel and Tint (2013)	2013	Estonia	WIT Transactions on Biomedicine and Health
Evensen, Raanaas, and Patil (2013)	2013	Spain	Psyecology
Lottrup, Grahn, and Stigsdotter (2013)	2013	Sweden	Landscape and Urban Planning
Münch et al. (2012)	2012	Switzerland	Behavioral Neuroscience
Elzeyadi (2011)	2011	USA	US Green Building Council
Jahncke et al. (2011)	2011	Sweden	Journal of Environmental Psychology
Smith, Tucker, and Pitt (2011)	2011	UK	Facilities
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	2011	USA	Public Health Reports
Kim et al. (2011)	2011	South Korea	Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science
de Kort and Smolders (2010)	2010	Netherlands	Lighting Research & Technology
Aries, Veitch, and Newsham (2010)	2010	Netherlands	Journal of Environmental psychology

Table A2. Classification of the reviewed studies around factor 4.

Biophilic design pattern
Literature	Greenery	Views of nature	Simulations of nature	Multisensory experiences	Natural ventilation	Water features	Daylight	Organic shapes	Natural materials	Natural colors	Spatial configurations	Semi-outdoor nature exposure
Soininen et al. (2022)	x
Ardelet, Fleck, and Grobert (2022)				x
Lyu et al. (2022)												x
Lei et al. (2022)	x	x			x		x	x	x	x	x	x
Palanica and Fossat (2022)			x
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)			x	x	x	x
Jens and Khoudi (2022)		x					x
Archary and Thatcher (2022)	x
Elsadek and Liu (2021)	x
MacNaughton et al. (2021)		x					x
Lei, Yuan, and Yu Lau (2021)	x
Hu and Davis (2021)							x
Xie et al. (2021)	x
Aristizabal et al. (2021)	x		x	x		x
Pasini et al. (2021)	x	x			x		x		x	x		x
Woo et al. (2021)		x					x
Aduwo, Akinwole, and Okpanachi (2021)	x	x	x		x		x		x		x
Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome (2021)	x	x				x	x	x	x			x
Ueda et al. (2021)				x
Hähn, Essah, and Blanusa (2021)	x
Zhang et al. (2020)							x
Burnard and Kutnar (2020)									x
Hassan et al. (2020)	x
Elsadek, Liu, and Xie (2020)		x
Roskams and Haynes (2020)				x				x	x		x
Thatcher et al. (2020)	x
Chang et al. (2020)		x
Lee et al. (2020)				x		x
Ko et al. (2020)		x
Boubekri et al. (2020)		x					x
Choi et al. (2020)	x
Chulvi et al. (2020)	x		x
Lee and Boubekri (2020)							x
Toyoda et al. (2020)	x
Thompson and Bruk-Lee (2019)	x	x					x
Yin et al. (2019)	x	x					x	x	x
Jamrozik et al. (2019)		x					x
Göçer et al. (2019)		x					x
Lee et al. (2018)		x
Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Sanchez (2018)	x						x
Yin et al. (2018)	x	x							x
Ma and Shu (2018)				x		x
Hongistob et al. (2017)				x		x
Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017)	x
Newbold et al. (2017)				x		x
Abdalrahman and Galbrun (2017)				x		x
Kubota et al. (2017)	x
Korpela et al. (2017)	x	x
McFarland (2017)	x	x
Jahncke et al. (2016)				x		x
An et al. (2016)	x	x	x				x
Largo-Wight, O’Hara, and William Chen (2016)				x		x
Lindberg, Tran, and Banasiak (2016)		x
Shahzad et al. (2016)					x
Lottrup et al. (2015)		x
Pilotti et al. (2015)			x
Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino (2015)		x
Jahncke, Eriksson, and Naula (2015)				x
Nieuwenhuis et al. (2014)	x
Ikei et al. (2014)	x
Boubekri et al. (2014)							x
Lee et al. (2014)		x
Koppel and Tint (2013)							x
Evensen, Raanaas, and Patil (2013)	x						x
Lottrup, Grahn, and Stigsdotter (2013)		x
Münch et al. (2012)							x
Elzeyadi (2011)		x					x
Jahncke et al. (2011)			x	x		x
Smith, Tucker, and Pitt (2011)	x
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	x	x	x	x			x
Kim et al. (2011)	x
de Kort and Smolders (2010)							x
Aries, Veitch, and Newsham (2010)		x

Table A3. Classification of the reviewed studies around factors 5-7.

	Outcome measure					Collected data				Sensory input
Literature	Stress level	Cognitive performance	Emotion & mood	Health & well-being	Others	Psychological data	Physiological data	Cognitive data	Others	Visual	Auditory	Olfactory	Thermal
Soininen et al. (2022)				x			x			x
Ardelet, Fleck, and Grobert (2022)			x		x	x						x
Lyu et al. (2022)	x	x	x		x	x	x	x		x	x		x
Lei et al. (2022)				x	x	x
Palanica and Fossat (2022)		x						x		x
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)	x				x	x	x			x	x	x	x
Jens and Khoudi (2022)		x			x			x	x	x
Archary and Thatcher (2022)	x	x	x			x		x		x
Elsadek and Liu (2021)	x		x			x	x			x
MacNaughton et al. (2021)		x						x		x
Lei, Yuan, and Yu Lau (2021)	x	x		x		x	x	x		x
Hu and Davis (2021)					x				x	x
Xie et al. (2021)	x		x			x	x			x
Aristizabal et al. (2021)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Pasini et al. (2021)				x	x	x
Woo et al. (2021)			x	x	x	x				x
Aduwo, Akinwole, and Okpanachi (2021)		x			x	x		x
Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome (2021)		x		x		x		x
Ueda et al. (2021)		x			x	x		x				x
Hähn, Essah, and Blanusa (2021)	x	x		x	x	x		x		x
Zhang et al. (2020)	x	x	x		x	x	x			x
Burnard and Kutnar (2020)	x			x		x	x			x
Hassan et al. (2020)	x				x	x	x			x
Elsadek, Liu, and Xie (2020)	x		x			x	x			x
Roskams and Haynes (2020)	x	x			x	x		x		x	x
Thatcher et al. (2020)		x		x	x	x		x		x
Chang et al. (2020)					x	x				x
Lee et al. (2020)	x	x			x	x	x	x			x
Ko et al. (2020)	x	x	x		x	x	x	x		x
Boubekri et al. (2020)		x			x			x	x	x
Choi et al. (2020)	x					x				x		x
Chulvi et al. (2020)		x						x
Lee and Boubekri (2020)				x	x	x			x	x
Toyoda et al. (2020)	x					x	x			x
Thompson and Bruk-Lee (2019)		x			x	x
Yin et al. (2019)	x	x					x	x		x
Jamrozik et al. (2019)		x		x	x	x		x		x
Göçer et al. (2019)		x			x	x
Lee et al. (2018)		x			x	x		x		x
Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Sanchez (2018)	x	x			x	x	x	x		x
Yin et al. (2018)	x	x	x			x	x	x		x
Ma and Shu (2018)	x	x	x			x	x	x		x	x
Hongistob et al. (2017)	x	x			x	x					x
Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017)		x		x	x	x				x
Newbold et al. (2017)		x	x			x		x			x
Abdalrahman and Galbrun (2017)					x	x			x	x	x
Kubota et al. (2017)	x				x	x	x			x
Korpela et al. (2017)				x		x
McFarland (2017)				x	x	x
Jahncke et al. (2016)		x		x	x	x					x
An et al. (2016)		x		x	x	x
Largo-Wight, O’Hara, and William Chen (2016)	x					x	x				x
Lindberg, Tran, and Banasiak (2016)		x	x	x	x	x		x
Shahzad et al. (2016)				x					x
Lottrup et al. (2015)				x	x	x
Pilotti et al. (2015)	x	x	x		x	x	x	x		x	x
Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino (2015)				x		x
Jahncke, Eriksson, and Naula (2015)					x	x				x	x
Nieuwenhuis et al. (2014)		x			x	x		x		x
Ikei et al. (2014)	x		x			x	x			x
Boubekri et al. (2014)				x	x	x			x
Lee et al. (2014)					x	x			x	x
Koppel and Tint (2013)		x		x		x		x		x
Evensen, Raanaas, and Patil (2013)				x	x	x				x
Lottrup, Grahn, and Stigsdotter (2013)	x				x	x
Münch et al. (2012)		x			x	x	x	x		x
Elzeyadi (2011)				x	x	x			x	x
Jahncke et al. (2011)	x	x			x	x	x	x		x	x
Smith, Tucker, and Pitt (2011)	x	x		x	x	x		x	x	x
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	x			x		x
Kim et al. (2011)				x		x				x
de Kort and Smolders (2010)		x		x	x	x				x
Aries, Veitch, and Newsham (2010)				x	x	x			x

Table A4. Classification of the reviewed studies around factors 8-11.

Research method
	Experimental approach				Delivery mode			Population		Sample size
Literature	Survey	Laboratory	Field	Virtual reality	Real	Virtual	None	Employees	University students	Less than 20	20-50	51-100	Over 100
Soininen et al. (2022)			x		x			x			x
Ardelet, Fleck, and Grobert (2022)			x		x			x				x
Lyu et al. (2022)		x		x		x			x		x
Lei et al. (2022)	x						x	x					x
Palanica and Fossat (2022)			x			x		x				x
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)			x		x	x		x	x		x
Jens and Khoudi (2022)			x		x								x
Archary and Thatcher (2022)		x			x				x			x
Elsadek and Liu (2021)		x			x			x			x
MacNaughton et al. (2021)			x		x			x			x
Lei, Yuan, and Yu Lau (2021)		x		x	x	x				x
Hu and Davis (2021)			x		x			x
Xie et al. (2021)		x			x						x
Aristizabal et al. (2021)		x			x			x			x
Pasini et al. (2021)			x		x			x				x
Woo et al. (2021)			x		x			x			x
Aduwo, Akinwole, and Okpanachi (2021)	x						x	x				x
Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome (2021)	x						x	x		x
Ueda et al. (2021)		x			x				x		x
Hähn, Essah, and Blanusa (2021)			x		x			x			x
Zhang et al. (2020)			x		x			x		x
Burnard and Kutnar (2020)		x			x							x
Hassan et al. (2020)		x			x				x		x
Elsadek, Liu, and Xie (2020)			x		x			x			x
Roskams and Haynes (2020)			x		x			x			x
Thatcher et al. (2020)		x	x		x	x			x	x			x
Chang et al. (2020)	x						x						x
Lee et al. (2020)		x				x		x		x
Ko et al. (2020)		x			x				x			x
Boubekri et al. (2020)			x		x			x			x
Choi et al. (2020)			x		x			x				x
Chulvi et al. (2020)		x			x				x	x
Lee and Boubekri (2020)			x		x			x			x
Toyoda et al. (2020)			x		x			x				x
Thompson and Bruk-Lee (2019)	x						x	x					x
Yin et al. (2019)		x		x		x		x	x		x
Jamrozik et al. (2019)						x		x			x
Göçer et al. (2019)	x						x	x					x
Lee et al. (2018)	x					x		x					x
Jamrozik et al. (2019)			x		x			x	x				x
Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Sanchez (2018)		x			x			x		x
Yin et al. (2018)			x	x	x	x					x
Ma and Shu (2018)		x				x			x			x
Hongistob et al. (2017)			x				x	x				x
Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017)			x		x			x			x
Newbold et al. (2017)		x				x				x
Abdalrahman and Galbrun (2017)			x		x			x		x
Kubota et al. (2017)			x		x			x			x
Korpela et al. (2017)	x						x	x					x
McFarland (2017)	x						x	x					x
Jahncke et al. (2016)		x					x		x		x
An et al. (2016)	x						x	x					x
Largo-Wight, O’Hara, and William Chen (2016)		x				x			x		x
Lindberg, Tran, and Banasiak (2016)	x						x	x				x
Shahzad et al. (2016)	x						x	x					x
Lottrup et al. (2015)	x						x	x					x
Pilotti et al. (2015)		x				x		x				x
Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino (2015)	x						x	x					x
Jahncke, Eriksson, and Naula (2015)		x				x			x		x
Nieuwenhuis et al. (2014)			x		x			x					x
Ikei et al. (2014)		x			x			x			x
Boubekri et al. (2014)	x						x	x			x
Lee et al. (2014)	x					x		x					x
Koppel and Tint (2013)			x		x			x		x
Evensen, Raanaas, and Patil (2013)			x		x			x		x
Lottrup, Grahn, and Stigsdotter (2013)	x						x	x	x				x
Münch et al. (2012)		x			x				x		x
Elzeyadi (2011)	x						x	x					x
Jahncke et al. (2011)		x				x			x		x
Smith, Tucker, and Pitt (2011)			x		x			x					x
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	x						x	x					x
Kim et al. (2011)			x		x			x				x
de Kort and Smolders (2010)			x		x			x					x
Aries, Veitch, and Newsham (2010)	x						x	x					x

Appendix B

Table B1. Key findings on the impact of greenery.

Literature	Biophilic design pattern	Findings
Lei et al. (2022)	Plants	Indoor plants placed on filing cabinets and individual desks, or green walls were related to improved self-reported health and well-being (satisfaction with health, work relationship, and work capacity and ability to concentrate).
Archary and Thatcher (2022)	Plants	Viewing indoor plants during work breaks considerably reduced distress and slightly enhanced subjects’ affective state. Indoor plants had no significant influence on working memory, worry, and task engagement.
Lei, Yuan, and Yu Lau (2021)	Plants	Participants in the greenery conditions performed better in Stroop task than the control group. Physiological brain activities are positively influenced by only green coverage ratios of 12% and 20%. 0.2% and 5% were not effective enough to improve psychological responses and participants perceived 20% option as overwhelming. 12% was the optimal green coverage ratio based on the results across all measures.
Aristizabal et al. (2021)	Plants	Participants had lower non-specific skin conductance responses in the presence of plants, indicating stress reduction. Working memory and response inhibition results measured by operation span test and Stroop test, respectively, showed substantial improvements in the plant condition compared to baseline. Compared to baseline, participant perceived marginally less stress in the workplace with plants.
Al-Dmour, Garaj, and Clements-Croome (2021)	Plants	The presence of plants was associated with improved indoor air quality, resulting in reduced sick building syndrome symptoms and enhanced health.
Hähn, Essah, and Blanusa (2021)	Plants	Introducing indoor plants was positively correlated with perceived attention, creativity, and productivity. Removal of plants increased self-reported stress and reduced perceived attention, productivity, and work efficiency.
Hassan et al. (2020)	Plants	Participants displayed higher alpha waves in the presence of plants, indicating increased relaxation and lower mental stress. Exposure to indoor plants while performing an office-related task elicited lower anxiety levels than the control condition.
Thatcher et al. (2020)	Plants	In the laboratory study, the incorporation of plants led participants to perform significantly better in three different tasks. In the field studies, findings showed no statistically significant improvements across all metrics in the presence of plants (psychological and physical well-being, work engagement, perceived productivity, job satisfaction).
Chulvi et al. (2020)	Plants	Working in an environment containing plants improved creativity in terms of the quantity and variety of product design proposals.
Toyoda et al. (2020)	Plants	The presence of indoor plants was negatively associated with psychological (anxiety) and physiological stress (pulse rate).
Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Sanchez (2018)	Plants	Indoor plants led to a significant decrease in saliva amylase concentrations. Incorporating plants improved participants’ satisfaction with the thermal environment and intellectual performance and diminished subjective feeling drowsiness and workload.
Yin et al. (2018)	Plants	Participants performed significantly better on the visual backward digit span test when they were exposed to indoor plants, implying enhanced short-term working memory. Participants reported greater reductions blood pressure and skin conductance levels in the presence of plants compared to control condition. Plants were associated with increased positive emotions and decreased negative emotions.
Thatcher and Kalantzis (2017)	Plants	There was no statistically significant difference between the no-plant and plant condition across all measures (psychological well-being, physical well-being, perceived productivity), except for work engagement which was considerably lower in the plant condition.
Kubota et al. (2017)	Plants	Foliage plants had restorative psychological and physiological effects, indicated by decreased heart rate, positive evaluations of the work environment, and reduced tiredness.
Korpela et al. (2017)	Plants	The presence of plants was negatively correlated with well-being from the aspects of happiness, vitality, and vigor.
McFarland (2017)	Plants	The presence of live plants and trees in the interior of the office setting increased the chance of higher well-being and quality of life.
An et al. (2016)	Plants	Employees having plants in their workspaces reported higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment and lower levels of depressed mood and anxiety.
Nieuwenhuis et al. (2014)	Plants	Occupants of offices with indoor plants reported higher levels of workplace satisfaction, engagement, concentration, and subjective/objective productivity compared to those without plants.
Evensen, Raanaas, and Patil (2013)	Plants	Participants of the treatment group with indoor plants reported a significant decrease in self-reported health and environmental complaints during and after the intervention.
Smith, Tucker, and Pitt (2011)	Plants	Occupants of offices with indoor plants had substantially lower days of sickness absence than the control group. There were statistically significant differences between the treatment and control group across some metrics, including the contribution of the work environment to pressure, health concerns, and morale. Participants in the offices with plants felt more productive, less pressure, and greater privacy and comfort.
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	Plants	The presence of plants in indoor workplace environments was related to decreased perceived stress and health complaints.
Kim et al. (2011)	Plants	Equipping office settings with indoor plants resulted in significantly decreased sick building syndrome and mental health symptoms, moderated by improved air quality.
Yin et al. (2019)	Plants and green walls	Participants reported significantly lower anxiety and blood pressure levels after exposure to indoor greenery condition.
Yin et al. (2019)	Plants and green walls	Greenery predicted significant reductions in physiological stress (decreased blood pressure and heart rate), especially in open-plan workplaces. Participants’ scores of the creativity test were significantly higher in the presence of greenery, especially in enclosed workspaces.
Soininen et al. (2022)	Green walls	Exposure to air-circulating green walls was positively associated with employee skin health and immune system regulation.
Elsadek and Liu (2021)	Flowers	Participants viewing blue and purple flowers had higher levels of alpha relative waves, parasympathetic activity, and positive feelings and lower levels of skin conductance and negative feelings than those in the control condition, indicating stress reduction and improved mood. Blue flowers had greater positive effects across all variables than purple flowers.
Xie et al. (2021)	Flowers	Viewing yellow and red flowers increased alpha relative power and parasympathetic autonomic nervous activity and lowered skin conductance level and sympathetic autonomic nervous activity significantly. Participants had improved positive and reduced negative emotions while viewing yellow and red flowers vs. white flowers. Yellow flowers had the most significant effects on psychophysiological status of participants.
Choi et al. (2020)	Flowers	One-table one-flower (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple) program induced a considerable decrease in job stress and improved stress coping style.
Ikei et al. (2014)	Flowers	Parasympathetic activity significantly increased while viewing rose flowers compared to the control condition, indicating relaxation and stress reduction. Subjects felt more comfortable, relaxed, and natural while viewing rose flowers. The presence of plants had positive association with the mood states of participants.
Thompson and Bruk-Lee (2019)	Greenery	Exposure to indoor green at work was negatively related to disengagement and job dissatisfaction. There was a positive relationship between indoor green and perceived directed attention.

Table B2. Key findings on the impact of window views of nature and daylight & visual comfort.

Literature	Biophilic design pattern	Findings
Chang et al. (2020)	Nature views	Only close-by nature views (less than 500 m) were associated with higher life satisfaction.
Ko et al. (2020)	Nature views	Participants in the windowed office condition felt thermally cooler, more comfortable, and pleasant compared to those without a window. The windowed office condition led participants to have higher positive emotions and lower negative emotions than the windowless office. Participants’ scores for working memory and concentration tests were higher in the windowed office.
van Esch et al. (2019)	Nature views	The amount of nature in a window view and view features (coherence, mystery, complexity, prospect, refuge, legibility) were positively associated with restoration and job satisfaction and negatively with emotional exhaustion and apprehension. Also, some built views were related to positive outcomes, explained by specific view features such as coherence and refuge.
Lee et al. (2018)	Nature views	Green micro breaks by viewing a green roof with meadow including tall grass and yellow flowers were perceived as coherent, which were in turn correlated with less subsequent effort expenditure and with lower tension and higher work performance compared to viewing a roof covered with grey concrete colored mat.
Yin et al. (2018)	Nature views	Participants who exposed to external views of green space and a river reported lower blood pressure and skin conductance levels and higher scores of short-term memory test than those in the absence of nature views. Moreover, participants’ emotional states were positively influenced by the presence of nature views.
Korpela et al. (2017)	Nature views	Window views containing natural features were negatively correlated with well-being measures (happiness, vitality, vigor).
McFarland (2017)	Nature views	Having a view of plants and/or trees through workplace windows was positively related to mental well-being, quality of life, and job satisfaction.
Lindberg, Tran, and Banasiak (2016)	Nature views	The presence of nature views through workplace windows was associated with improved mood and perceived performance, fewer negative symptoms and physical stressors, less need to cope with noise and more control over workspace.
Lottrup et al. (2015)	Nature views	Window views dominated by natural features such as sky, trees, and flowers were significantly associated with higher levels of view satisfaction, work ability, and job satisfaction compared to those containing urban elements or no view.
Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino (2015)	Nature views	Natural features in the window views (trees/woodland, lawn/mown grass, bushes/flowering plants) were positively related to employee well-being in the workplace.
Lee et al. (2014)	Nature views	Viewing a living roof, especially one with taller flowering green grassy vegetation, had significantly more restorative potential than looking at a concrete roof.
Lottrup, Grahn, and Stigsdotter (2013)	Nature views	Respondents having visual access to a green outdoor environment through workplace windows had more positive workplace attitude and less perceived stress than those without window views of nature.
Aries, Veitch, and Newsham (2010)	Nature views	Window views which were rated as attractive and/or contained natural features were associated with fewer self-reported discomfort problems and higher office impressions.
Jens and Khoudi (2022)	Nature views and daylight	The installation of window blinds had significant differences in occupancy patterns. After the intervention, occupant counts and perceived productivity substantially decreased with an increase in occupancy duration.
MacNaughton et al. (2021)	Nature views and daylight	Participants who worked in offices with electrochromic windows providing optimized daylight and view and no blinds had higher cognitive scores than those in offices with traditional blinds, indicating improved productivity.
Pasini et al. (2021)	Nature views and daylight	Introducing daylight and nature view into workplaces was positively associated with perceived restorativeness, mental health, work engagement, and job satisfaction.
Woo et al. (2021)	Nature views and daylight	When participants worked in an office with electrochromic glass, they reported significantly higher environmental satisfaction, better physical health (lower levels of eyestrain), increased positive affect and decreased negative affect (reduction in feelings of depression) compared to working in the same office with traditional blinds.
Boubekri et al. (2020)	Nature views and daylight	Participants in the electrochromic glass condition slept 37 min longer and performed significantly better in the cognitive test than those with traditional blinds.
Thompson and Bruk-Lee (2019)	Nature views and daylight	The presence of daylight and nature view was negatively correlated with disengagement and job dissatisfaction, mediated by improved directed attention.
Yin et al. (2019)	Nature views and daylight	Compared to baseline, participants exhibited lower physiological stress (decreased blood pressure and heart rate) and higher scores for the creativity test in the presence of natural light and view.
Jamrozik et al. (2019)	Nature views and daylight	Compared to blackout shades lacking daylight and view, participants’ cognitive performance (working memory and inhibition) and satisfaction with the overall environment improved and eye-strain symptoms reduced while they were working in offices having windows with mesh shades and dynamic tint.
Göçer et al. (2019)	Nature views and daylight	Connection to the outdoor environment including window proximity, access to daylight and external view was an important predictor of occupant satisfaction and perceived productivity.
An et al. (2016)	Nature views and daylight	Sunlight exposure and viewing nature through windows had positive associations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and negative associations with depressed mood.
Elzeyadi (2011)	Nature views and daylight	Employees with a window view of nature and daylight took fewer sick leave days and had better physical health than those with an urban view or no view at all.
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	Nature views and daylight	The presence of external view and natural light in indoor workplace environments was related to decreased perceived stress and health complaints.
Hu and Davis (2021)	Daylight	Compared to electric lighting systems and self-luminous displays, daylight had the greatest circadian effect.
Lee and Boubekri (2020)	Daylight	Working in daylit offices resulted in higher sleep quality in regard to sleep efficiency, sleep time, and daily light exposure and improved health and well-being compared to non-daylight offices.
Ayuso Sanchez, Ikaga, and Sanchez (2018)	Daylight	Respondents with daylight through workplace windows reported higher sympathetic activity, thermal satisfaction, improved intellectual performance, and decreased drowsiness and subjective workload compared to those without daylight.
Boubekri et al. (2014)	Daylight	Employees in the windowed offices reported higher physical activity, longer light exposure and sleep time, and improved sleep quality and well-being compared to the group without windows.
Münch et al. (2012)	Daylight	Compared to artificial light, exposure to daylight during the afternoon led participants to feel more alert and less sleepy and perform better in the cognitive test in the early evening hours.
Zhang et al. (2020)	Dynamic lighting	The installation of dynamic lighting increased alertness in the afternoon. It also benefited participants’ mood. However, participants in the dynamic lighting condition had lower sleep quality and less sleep time at night than those in the static lighting condition
Koppel and Tint (2013)	Dynamic lighting	After working in offices outfitting dynamic lighting, workers reported improved well-being and productivity.
Evensen, Raanaas, and Patil (2013)	Dynamic lighting	Participants of the treatment group with dynamic lighting reported a significant decrease in self-reported health and environmental complaints during and after the intervention.
de Kort and Smolders (2010)	Dynamic lighting	Although office workers were more satisfied with dynamic lighting compared to static lighting condition, there was no significant effect of lighting conditions across all measures, including subjective performance, sleep quality, mental health, vitality, alertness, need for recovery, and headache and eyestrain.

Table B3. Key findings on the impact of simulations of nature.

Literature	Biophilic design pattern	Findings
Palanica and Fossat (2022)	Images	Participants having a virtual nature background during videoconferencing got significantly higher creativity scores than those with urban and plain backgrounds.
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)	Images	A mediated atmosphere table providing occupants with a forest scene, including congruent lighting (soft warm), sounds (stream gliding and birds chirping), smell (forest scent mixture), airflow (gentle breeze), and temperature, was perceived substantially more restorative compared to a neutral condition without any ambient augmentation.
Aristizabal et al. (2021)	Images	Multisensory biophilic office design incorporating visual (plants, artwork, digital projections, and water feature) and auditory (nature sounds, such as blowing wind, trickling water, and singing birds) impressions of nature resulted in improved cognitive performance (working memory and response inhibition) and lower stress levels (non-specific skin conductance responses) in comparison to baseline.
Chulvi et al. (2020)	Images	Working in a setting featuring walls with large photographs of a green outdoor environment improved designers’ productivity from the aspects of quantity and variety of product design proposals compared to neutral condition.
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	Images	Depictions of nature such as photographs of natural landscapes and natural sounds were associated with lower levels of perceived stress and stress-related health complaints.
Pilotti et al. (2015)	Videos	Participants viewing nature video performed better in the sustained attention task than those viewing city video. After the nature video, subjects’ blood pressure increased. Participants of the nature video exhibited greater long-term memory.
Jahncke et al. (2011)	Videos	Watching nature movie including river sounds made participants more energetic and motivated in comparison to only river sound, office noise, and silence conditions.
An et al. (2016)	Simulations of nature	Viewing nature through photographs/paintings and computer screens had positive associations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and negative associations with depressed mood.

Table B4. Key findings on the impact of multisensory experiences and water features.

Literature	Biophilic design pattern	Findings
Roskams and Haynes (2020)	Auditory experiences	A 10-minute micro break from work in a biophilic regeneration pod simulating natural sounds resulted in lower levels of anxiety and perceived task load and better performance in an arithmetic test compared to a break in an enclosed meeting room.
Jahncke, Eriksson, and Naula (2015)	Auditory experiences	Nature sound (wind sighing in the trees and twitter of birds) condition were rated highest for fascination and being-away components of perceived restorativeness scale and the total likelihood of restoration and were experienced as more positive compared to red noise, office noise, and quiet conditions.
Largo-Wight et al. (2011)	Auditory experiences	Depictions of nature such as photographs of natural landscapes and natural sounds were associated with lower levels of perceived stress and stress-related health complaints.
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)	Auditory, olfactory, and thermal experiences and water features	A mediated atmosphere table providing occupants with a forest scene, including congruent lighting (soft warm), sounds (stream gliding and birds chirping), smell (forest scent mixture), airflow (gentle breeze), and temperature, was perceived substantially more restorative compared to a neutral condition without any ambient augmentation.
Aristizabal et al. (2021)	Auditory experiences and water features	Multisensory biophilic office design incorporating visual (plants, artwork, digital projections, and water feature) and auditory (nature sounds, such as blowing wind, trickling water, and singing birds) impressions of nature resulted in improved cognitive performance (working memory and response inhibition) and lower stress levels (non-specific skin conductance responses) in comparison to baseline.
Lee et al. (2020)	Auditory experiences and water features	Participants displayed the worst cognitive performance under the water masking (spring water) condition compared to no noise, office noise, and white noise conditions. The highest skin conductance levels were observed in the water masking condition. Subjects were less satisfied with water masking sounds due to lower sound quality and higher disturbance rates.
Ma and Shu (2018)	Auditory experiences and water features	Sounds perceived as pleasant (flowing water, birdsong) significantly reduced self-reported fatigue and annoyance in comparison to unpleasant sounds (footsteps, traffic noise, air-conditioner noise). Continuous pleasant sound was not more restorative than intermittent counterparts. Exposure to flowing water sound with a good visual scene produced the greatest psychological restoration.
Hongistob et al. (2017)	Auditory experiences and water features	Office workers listening to water-based masking sounds (waterfall, babbling river, and occasional bird sounds) while working reported that they were less satisfied with acoustic conditions, had worse work performance, and were disturbed more by other sound sources compared to those exposing to pseudo-random noise resembling a table fan. Furthermore, pseudo-random noise had better sound quality than water-based masking sounds.
Abdalrahman and Galbrun (2017)	Auditory experiences and water features	Installing a water feature in an open-plan office had positive effects on the soundscape assessment, as shown by increased satisfaction with the physical work environment (control/privacy and comfort/functionality aspects), reduced frequency of occurrence of intelligible speech, and favorable perception of the sound environment (more pleasant, less distracting, effective for concentration).
Jahncke et al. (2016)	Auditory experiences and water features	Implementing nature-based (bird twitter and rippling water) sound masking using headphones were beneficial to work performance in a serial short-term memory task and perceived workload.
Largo-Wight, O’Hara, and William Chen (2016)	Auditory experiences and water features	Compared to classical music and control groups, a significant decrease in muscle tension, pulse rate, and self-reported stress from pretest to posttest was observed in the nature group (ocean waves).
Jahncke et al. (2011)	Auditory experiences and water features	Watching nature movie including river sounds made participants more energetic and motivated in comparison to only river sound, office noise, and silence conditions.
Ardelet, Fleck, and Grobert (2022)	Olfactory experiences	The presence of a pleasant clean smell (floral musky note) positively affects participants’ attitude toward sharing an open-plan office with others as it enhances users’ mood.
Ueda et al. (2021)	Olfactory experiences	Respondents in the aroma stimulus (lemon fragrance) condition had higher intellectual concentration and felt more comfortable than those with no aroma.
Yin et al. (2020)	Water features	Exposure to workplaces featuring fish tank and other biophilic design strategies resulted in lower blood pressure and anxiety scores in comparison to non-biophilic workplaces.

Table B5. Key findings on the impact of natural ventilation & thermal comfort, organic shapes & natural patterns, natural materials, natural colors, spatial configurations of nature, and semi-outdoor nature exposure.

Literature	Biophilic design pattern	Findings
Zhao, Kodama, and Paradiso (2022)	Natural ventilation & thermal comfort	Air flow (gentle breeze) and heating provided by a mediated atmosphere table through personal cooling (fans) and heating systems (infrared lights) were perceived significantly more restorative than a neutral condition without any thermal impressions.
Shahzad et al. (2016)	Natural ventilation & thermal comfort	Occupants of air-conditioned offices with cellular workspaces having high level of control over the thermal conditions suffered significantly less from building-related symptoms than those of naturally ventilated open-plan offices with low level of control over the thermal conditions.
Yin et al. (2019)	Organic shapes & natural patterns and natural materials	Offices outfitting natural materials (wood) and biomorphic shapes & forms resulted in lower physiological stress (decreased blood pressure and heart rate) and higher creativity scores compared to control condition.
Roskams and Haynes (2020)	Organic shapes & natural patterns, natural materials, and spatial configurations of nature	Participants who took a 10-minute micro break in a regeneration pod featuring complex biomorphic forms and natural materials (bamboo) and pod providing expansive view and a sense of safety in accordance with prospect-refuge theory reported lower levels of anxiety and task load and performed better in the arithmetic task than those in the enclosed meeting room.
Burnard and Kutnar (2020)	Natural materials	Respondents had lower stress levels in the office setting with oak furniture than the control setting with white furniture as indicated by salivary cortisol levels.
Shen, Zhang, and Lian (2020)	Natural materials	Participants performed substantially better on the cognitive tests in wooden rooms (walls, floor, ceiling) vs. a nonwooden room. Moreover, wooden rooms were related to improved subjective attention and productivity.
Yin et al. (2018)	Natural materials	Participants in a biophilic office area integrating natural materials (bamboo wood) and other biophilic design elements reported lower stress levels (blood pressure and skin conductance level) and enhanced cognitive performance (short-term working memory) and emotional state than those in a non-biophilic setting.
Lyu et al. (2022)	Semi-outdoor nature exposure	Thermal pleasure/thermal adaptive opportunity in semi-outdoor workplace environments is substantially associated with restorative benefits across all outcomes, including attention restoration, stress recovery, and mood improvement.