Research on the impact of biophilic office space environments on employee health promotion

Abstract

Background

In modern office environments, prolonged exposure to artificial settings that lack natural elements can aggravate employees’ psychological and physiological health issues, such as depression and insomnia. Biophilic design, which incorporates natural elements into the workspace, has been shown to effectively alleviate these issues and improve overall employe health.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the impact of biophilic design on employes’ physical and mental health in office environments, with a focus on how varying levels of natural element integration (such as indoor and outdoor greenery) affect employes’ mood, stress levels, and work efficiency.

Methods

Thirteen office spaces with differing levels of biophilic elements in Dalian, China, were selected as study subjects. Based on their biophilic characteristics and integration levels, the spaces were categorized into four types: (A) no greenery, (B) outdoor greenery only, (C) both indoor and outdoor greenery, and (D) indoor greenery combined with outdoor terraces. Employes were assessed through pre- and post-intervention surveys (including the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS)) and on-site observations. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to determine the weight of different influencing factors, combined with the TOPSIS model to quantify the correlation between employe health and biophilic office environments.

Results

Office spaces with higher levels of biophilic integration—particularly those with both indoor and outdoor greenery (Type D)—had the most significant positive effects on employes’ physical and mental health. Compared to environments with fewer biophilic features, employes in such environments demonstrated greater emotional stability, better sleep quality, lower stress levels, and improved work efficiency.

Conclusions

This study confirms the positive influence of biophilic design on enhancing employe health and work performance, especially in environments that integrate both indoor and outdoor natural elements. These findings suggest that incorporating biophilic design into office environments can foster healthier and more productive workspaces. However, further longitudinal research is recommended to verify the long-term effects.

Keywords

workplace biophilic design health promotion employes mental health health and well-being

Introduction

As the pace of modern work and life accelerates, employe health issues such as depression and insomnia have become increasingly severe, drawing widespread attention from both society and academia.According to the World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2023 Global Mental Health Report, approximately 280 million people worldwide suffer from depression, and over 300 million people are affected by anxiety disorders. These conditions result in an estimated 1.2 billion lost workdays annually and nearly one trillion USD in direct economic losses.¹ Studies have shown that prolonged exposure to office environments lacking natural elements—such as enclosed spaces, artificial lighting, and low green view index—significantly increases the physical and mental health risks for employes,^2,3 posing not only a threat to individual well-being but also a potential barrier to sustainable organizational development.Against this backdrop, biophilic design—a strategy that systematically integrates natural elements (such as greenery, natural light, and water features) to restore the human-nature connection—has gradually become a research focus in architecture and environmental psychology.^4–7 Its theoretical foundation lies in Wilson's “Biophilia Hypothesis,” which emphasizes the innate human affinity for the natural environment.⁸ Empirical studies have shown that biophilic design can enhance employe health through multiple mechanisms: indoor plants can purify air pollutants (such as formaldehyde and PM2.5) and release negative ions, not only significantly improving employes’ physical and mental well-being but also regulating attention to effectively reduce stress and improve work efficiency.⁹ Natural light helps regulate melatonin secretion and improves circadian rhythms, significantly reducing the incidence of insomnia. Meanwhile, dynamic environmental elements (such as flowing water and natural ventilation) stimulate the parasympathetic nervous system through multisensory input, effectively lowering stress hormone levels, alleviating fatigue and boosting employes’ positive emotions.^10,11 These findings provide scientific insights into how biophilic environments regulate human health.

However, existing studies largely focus on the isolated effects of single natural elements (such as greenery or lighting), with limited exploration of the synergistic effects of multiple elements and the integrated design of indoor and outdoor spaces.¹² Moreover, empirical research on the effectiveness of biophilic design in non-Western cultural contexts remains scarce, which may limit the universality of such strategies.¹³

Based on this, this study takes 13 differentiated office spaces in Dalian, China as research subjects and adopts a mixed-method approach, aiming to propose practical design guidelines that support the creation of healthy, comfortable, and efficient work environments. The research not only focuses on the integration of physical natural elements (such as vegetation, natural light, and organic materials), but also emphasizes the promotion of interaction between employes and the environment. It seeks to deepen the understanding of biophilic design applications in office settings and promote the development of workplaces conducive to physical and mental well-being, providing a design guide that is both scientifically grounded and practically applicable for building healthy office environments. The findings have significant practical implications for enhancing employe well-being, reducing corporate healthcare costs, and optimizing organizational performance.

Research overview

Over the past decade, interdisciplinary research between environmental psychology and occupational health has increasingly revealed that biophilic design can bring numerous health benefits in office environments. This section systematically reviews the research progress and theoretical frameworks in this field from three dimensions—mental health promotion, cognitive function enhancement, and physiological indicator improvement—while identifying existing theoretical gaps and research limitations.

Mechanisms for promoting mental health

Empirical studies have shown that the incorporation of natural elements in the workplace can significantly alleviate psychological stress and improve emotional states. Perrins et al., through a quasi-experimental study, demonstrated that increasing exposure to nature within or around the workplace significantly improved employes’ mental health, with particularly notable effects in reducing anxiety levels.¹⁴ This finding echoes the longitudinal tracking results of Rios-Rodriguez's team, which revealed a positive correlation between nature-integrated office environments and employes’ self-reported stress reduction and enhanced well-being, further validating the early evidence supporting biophilic interventions.¹⁵ At the same time, it is worth noting that natural light, as a crucial component of biophilic design, also plays a key role in promoting employe health. Beute et al., based on light environment monitoring data, confirmed that employes with greater exposure to natural daylight exhibited higher sleep quality and lower stress levels compared to those with limited daylight access.¹⁶ Li et al.'s research further confirmed that dynamic spectrum lighting can increase prefrontal cortex activation, thereby enhancing emotional regulation and work engagement.¹⁷

Cognitive function and work efficiency enhancement

Based on Kaplan's Attention Restoration Theory (ART), the restorative effects of natural environments on depleted cognitive resources have been validated across multiple disciplines. Bergefurt et al., in a study on cognitive performance, found that employes with access to green views performed better in memory recall and problem-solving tasks compared to those without such exposure.¹⁸ This research, grounded in ART, supports the idea that natural environments help restore cognitive capacity. Ojala et al. (2022) further demonstrated through neuroimaging studies that brief exposure to virtual natural scenes can activate the default mode network, promote recovery from cognitive fatigue, and positively influence overall work efficiency.¹⁹ These findings provide neuroscientific evidence supporting the idea that “nature acts as a cognitive enhancer.”

Empirical evidence on physiological health indicators

In addition, there is substantial evidence indicating the impact of biophilic design on employes’ physiological health indicators. For example, Toyoda et al., through a randomized controlled trial comparing employes in biophilic offices and traditional office environments, found that employes in biophilic offices exhibited significantly lower heart rates and blood pressure.²⁰ Aristizabal's team, through multimodal monitoring, discovered that the green wall intervention group had reduced levels of stress hormones and significantly lower muscle tension.²¹ Such studies confirm that biophilic environments can regulate the balance of the autonomic nervous system, effectively counteracting the chronic physiological stress induced by prolonged sitting in office settings.

Research limitations and theoretical gaps

Although a substantial amount of research has revealed the numerous positive effects of biophilic design, there are still several gaps and limitations in this field of study:

First, there is a limitation in terms of timeliness: for example, Yin and Sadick's studies rely on cross-sectional designs and lack tracking of the long-term effects of biophilic interventions.^22,23 Alipour et al. pointed out that to deeply understand the lasting value of biophilic interventions in office environments, longitudinal studies are necessary to track their sustained impact over time.²⁴

Secondly, there is methodological heterogeneity: The methods used to quantify the benefits of biophilic design vary. Measurements using subjective scales (such as the PSS Perceived Stress Scale) and objective indicators (such as HRV and EEG) often yield divergent results.^25,26 Shin et al.'s meta-analysis indicated significant differences in findings based on different measurement methods, suggesting that future research needs standardized assessment methods to ensure the comparability and robustness of results.²⁷

Third, there is a bias towards single-element focus: Most research on biophilic office design currently centers around green features (such as plants and natural landscapes), with less focus on other biophilic elements (such as natural materials, textures, and dynamic lighting).²⁸ As Demirkol et al. pointed out, this imbalance limits the understanding of the overall effects of biophilic design. They argue that integrating a broader range of natural elements could yield different, potentially more comprehensive benefits.⁹ Future research should explore the combined effects of multiple biophilic elements to better capture their synergistic impact on well-being and productivity.^29,30

Finally, there is a lack of cultural adaptability: Most existing research on biophilic design has been conducted in Western countries, while Fang's team found that Chinese employes have cultural differences in their appreciation of nature and preferences for workspaces. Addressing this issue would help make design strategies more culturally adaptable, maximizing the potential benefits of biophilic elements for office workers globally.³¹

In summary, existing literature emphasizes the numerous health benefits of integrating biophilic elements into office spaces, including stress reduction, improved well-being, enhanced cognitive abilities, and promoted physiological health. However, there are still some limitations, and future efforts need to address areas such as longitudinal research, standardization of measurement methods, exploration of multiple biophilic elements, and cross-cultural research adaptability. As increasing attention is given to employe health and work efficiency, biophilic design is undoubtedly a promising field for ongoing research. However, to unlock its full potential, a more comprehensive and systematic approach is needed.³² This study aims to fill these gaps by integrating both subjective and objective measurement tools, incorporating the coordination of indoor and outdoor space designs, and focusing on non-Western workplace contexts, providing new evidence for the aforementioned gaps.

Research methods

Selection of study area and data collection

Selection of study area

To further verify the role of biophilic design in office spaces and its impact on employes’ physical and mental health, this study selected 13 representative office spaces in Dalian, China, as research subjects. These spaces incorporated different levels of biophilic design, and the sample selection was based on the following criteria:

Space Representativeness: The selection included a variety of space types, such as office buildings (n = 5), co-working spaces (n = 4), and corporate headquarters (n = 4).

Design Gradient: The office spaces were categorized along a continuum, ranging from “no greenery” to “combined indoor and outdoor design,” based on the degree of integration of natural elements.

Environmental Controllability: Spaces with recent renovations or layout adjustments within the past 6 months were excluded. Additionally, the stability of the green view index (GVI) was verified using the GIS system.

Data collection

The study employed a mixed-methods design, with data collection carried out in two phases: June and October 2024, in order to control for seasonal variability. The research team worked closely with facility management personnel to ensure correct participant identification and appropriate space allocation. All participants were employes working in the selected office spaces. The specific process is as follows:

Participant Recruitment: Recruitment was conducted via email, and a total of 340 full-time employes were included in the study (excluding part-time/remote workers). The sample consisted of 49.71% male and 50.29% female participants, with an average age of 34.2 ± 6.5 years (Table 1)> .

Ethical Compliance: The recruitment email included the study background, an explanation of the experimental procedure, and a link to the informed consent form. This ensured that participants voluntarily participated after fully understanding the research objectives and methods. All participants signed the informed consent form, and the entire research process adhered to ethical review standards. During data collection and analysis, participants’ anonymity was maintained to protect their privacy and encourage honest responses. This approach not only ensured the credibility of the data but also reinforced the ethical compliance of the research.

Quantitative Data Collection: Surveys were distributed twice through a secure online platform, with a 3-month interval between distributions. The response rate was 92.5%, and invalid questionnaires (such as those not fully completed) were excluded, leaving 667 valid samples. The questionnaire used the Chinese revised version of the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS), which measured participants’ psychological states both before and after the experiment. The data collected included the following indicators: mood, sleep quality, depression, fatigue, attention, and stress levels (Cronbach's α = 0.83), with responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree”, 5 = “Strongly Agree”). This quantitative method allowed participants to numerically assess their attitudes towards various health indicators.¹² Additionally, to comprehensively evaluate the impact of biophilic design, the study also collected additional data related to employes’ work efficiency and absenteeism, which further complemented the assessments of mood, sleep quality, and stress levels, providing a broader perspective on performance.

Table 1.

Statistical analysis of the sample.

Category	Office Space ID	Number of Employees	Sex (m/f)	Proportion of sample size
A	A1	17	9/8	5.00%
A	A2	25	11/14	7.35%
A	A3	32	20/12	9.41%
B	B1	19	7/12	5.59%
B	B2	34	23/11	10.0%
B	B3	22	10/12	6.47%
C	C1	28	9/19	8.24%
C	C2	37	16/21	10.88%
C	C3	24	11/13	7.06%
C	C4	33	19/14	9.71%
D	D1	21	7/14	6.18%
D	D2	30	18/12	8.82%
D	D3	18	9/9	5.29%

Through multi-dimensional data collection and analysis, this study attempts to reveal the specific effects of different biophilic designs on workplace health and performance, offering a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of biophilic environments on employe health and providing scientific evidence for optimizing office environments.

Classification framework and experimental design

Classification framework

Based on the integration patterns of natural elements within the space, the office spaces were divided into four experimental groups (Table 2):

Table 2.

Classification of office space types and specific quantities.

Category	Description	Number of Office Spaces	typical characteristic
A	Group A: No indoor or outdoor greenery, only a green view from the window	3	Closed space, no vegetation, artificial lighting dominates
B	No indoor greenery, but outdoor greenery visible from the window	3	Workstations near windows with view of external greenery, no indoor plants
C	Both indoor and outdoor greenery with a green view from the window	4	Indoor potted plants + window-side greenery, natural light ratio > 40%
D	Both indoor greenery and an outdoor terrace with multi-functional use	3	Indoor green walls + terrace garden, equipped with relaxation and collaboration facilities

Group A: No indoor or outdoor greenery, only a green view from the window;

Group B: No indoor greenery, but outdoor greenery visible from the window;

Group C: Both indoor and outdoor greenery with a green view from the window;

Group D: Both indoor greenery and an outdoor terrace with multi-functional use.

Through comparative analysis of the health data of employes in these four types of spaces, the study aims to reveal the key role of biophilic design in alleviating employe stress, enhancing work performance, and promoting overall health, thereby providing more targeted and practical guidance for future office space design.

Experimental design

AHP-TOPSIS Integrated Model for Health Benefit Prioritization:

Determination of Indicator Weights (AHP Method):

Five environmental psychology experts were invited to perform pairwise comparisons of eight indicators (such as mood, sleep quality, etc.), resulting in a consistency ratio (CR) of 0.038 (<0.1). The final weights for each indicator were determined.

Prioritization of Office Spaces’ Impact on Employe Physical and Mental Health through TOPSIS Model:

The TOPSIS model, a comprehensive analysis method suitable for comparing and selecting multiple indicators and alternatives, was used to assess the priority order of each office space's effect on employes’ health. This model allows for more accurate and comprehensive evaluation of incomplete and uncertain data, compensating for the potential subjectivity in responses due to the limited cognitive abilities of respondents.

① The data collected (Table 3) were standardized using the extreme value method, and the decision matrix Z was formed. N is the evaluation factors, and M represents the objects to be evaluated. The Euclidean distance $Z_{j}^{+}$ 、 $Z_{j}^{-}$ and $D_{j}^{+}$ 、 $D_{j}^{-}$ between each evaluation factor (e.g., mood, sleep quality, depression, fatigue, work efficiency, attention, stress level, and sick leave rate) and the positive and negative ideal solutions were calculated, respectively. The formula is as follows:

Table 3.

Indicator scores for the impact of biophilic design in office space on employe health.

Office Space ID	Mood Score（+）	Sleep Quality（+）	Depression（-）	Fatigue（-）	Work Efficiency（+）	Sick Leave Rate（-）	Concentration（+）	Stress（-）
A1	1.5	2.8	4.5	4.7	2.0	3.5	2.2	4.6
A2	1.6	3.0	4.3	4.6	2.1	3.4	2.3	4.5
A3	1.7	2.9	4.4	4.8	2.0	3.6	2.1	4.8
B1	2.5	3.8	3.7	4.0	3.0	2.8	3.4	3.9
B2	2.6	3.9	3.6	3.9	3.2	2.7	3.5	4.0
B3	2.4	3.7	3.8	4.1	3.1	2.9	3.3	3.8
C1	3.5	4.5	2.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	4.3	3.2
C2	3.6	4.4	2.6	2.8	4.2	1.7	4.4	3.1
C3	3.7	4.6	2.4	2.7	4.3	1.9	4.2	3.3
C4	3.8	4.3	2.7	3.0	4.4	1.6	4.5	3.0
D1	4.5	4.6	2.0	2.3	4.6	1.2	4.4	2.5
D2	4.6	4.5	1.9	2.2	4.4	1.1	4.8	2.4
D3	4.7	4.7	2.1	2.1	4.7	1.0	4.6	2.3

For benefit criteria, the formula is:

r_{ij} = \frac{x_{ij} - \min (x_{j})}{\max (x_{j}) - \min (x_{j})}

(1)

For cost criteria, the formula is:

r_{ij} = \frac{\max (x_{j}) - x_{ij}}{\max (x_{j}) - \min (x_{j})}

(2)

The normalized decision matrix is given by:

Z = (z_{ij})_{m \times n} = (Y_{ij} \times W_{j})_{m \times n}

(3)

The formulas for the positive ideal solutions $Z_{j}^{+}$ and the negative ideal solution $Z_{j}^{-}$ are:

Z_{j}^{+} = (\max {z_{i 1}}, \max {z_{i 2}}, \dots, \max {z_{in}})

Z_{j}^{-} = (\min {z_{i 1}}, \min {z_{i 2}}, \dots, \min {z_{in}})

(4)

The Euclidean distances $D_{j}^{+}$ and $D_{j}^{-}$ are given by:

D_{j}^{+} = \sqrt{\sum_{j = 1}^{n} {(z_{ij} - z_{j}^{+})}^{2}}

D_{j}^{-} = \sqrt{\sum_{j = 1}^{n} {(z_{ij} - z_{j}^{-})}^{2}}

(5)

②The proximity of each office space to the optimal solution $C_{i}$ was calculated, and the ranking assessment of each office space's contribution to promoting employe health was obtained, where 0≤ $C_{i}$ ≤1, and the closer to 1, the better the office space is in promoting employe health. The formula is as follows:

C_{i} = \frac{D_{j}^{-}}{D_{j}^{+} + D_{j}^{-}}

(6)

Results analysis

The results of the study (Tables 4 and 5) show a significant correlation between biophilic elements in office spaces and employe physical and mental health. The relative proximity ranking: D3 > D1 > D2 > C3 > C4 > C2 > C1 > B2 > B1 > B3 > A2 > A3 > A1 reveals a significant spatial gradient effect. Data analysis indicates that:

Table 4.

Scoring normalised decision matrix and indicator positive and negative ideal solution results.

KPI	A1	A2	A3	B1	B2	B3	C1	C2	C3	C4	D1	D2	D3	Positive Ideal Solution, $Z_{j}^{+}$
Mood Score	0.0000	0.0055	0.0110	0.0550	0.0605	0.0495	0.1100	0.1155	0.1210	0.1265	0.1650	0.1705	0.1760	0.1760
Sleep Quality	0.0000	0.0174	0.0087	0.0868	0.0955	0.0782	0.1476	0.1389	0.1563	0.1303	0.1563	0.1476	0.1650	0.1650
Depression	0.0000	0.0122	0.0061	0.0489	0.0550	0.0428	0.1223	0.1162	0.1284	0.1101	0.1529	0.1590	0.1468	0.1590
Fatigue	0.0048	0.0096	0.0000	0.0382	0.0430	0.0334	0.0908	0.0956	0.1003	0.0860	0.1194	0.1242	0.1290	0.1290
Work Efficiency	0.0000	0.0052	0.0000	0.0522	0.0627	0.0574	0.1044	0.1149	0.1201	0.1253	0.1358	0.1253	0.1410	0.1410
Sick Leave Rate	0.0044	0.0088	0.0000	0.0354	0.0398	0.0310	0.0796	0.0840	0.0752	0.0885	0.1062	0.1106	0.1150	0.1150
Concentration	0.0028	0.0056	0.0000	0.0361	0.0389	0.0333	0.0611	0.0639	0.0583	0.0667	0.0639	0.0750	0.0694	0.0750
Stress	0.0032	0.0048	0.0000	0.0144	0.0128	0.0160	0.0256	0.0272	0.0240	0.0288	0.0368	0.0384	0.0400	0.0400

Table 5.

Relative progress of different office spaces.

Office Space ID	Euclidean Distance $D_{j}^{+}$	Euclidean Distance $D_{j}^{-}$	Relative Proximity $C_{i}$	Sorting
D3	0.0134	0.3687	0.9649	1
D1	0.0237	0.3528	0.9369	2
D2	0.0250	0.3558	0.9344	3
C3	0.0861	0.2995	0.7766	4
C4	0.0951	0.2851	0.7500	5
C2	0.0960	0.2835	0.7470	6
C1	0.1023	0.2806	0.7329	7
B2	0.2241	0.1576	0.4130	8
B1	0.2398	0.1411	0.3704	9
B3	0.2501	0.1309	0.3436	10
A2	0.3499	0.0271	0.0718	11
A3	0.3633	0.0153	0.0404	12
A1	0.3709	0.0078	0.0205	13

Group A (No indoor greenery and no outdoor greenery with a green view): The proximity values were (0.0205, 0.0718, 0.0404). Employes working in such office spaces had the lowest scores for mood and sleep quality, while their depression and stress levels were the highest. Work efficiency and attention were only 43% and 48% of those in Group D, and the sick leave rate was the highest across all groups. These findings suggest that environments lacking biophilic elements (completely artificial environments) may have a significant negative impact on employes’ mental and physical health.

Group B (No indoor greenery, but outdoor greenery with a green view): The proximity values were (0.3704, 0.4130, 0.3436), significantly higher than those in Group A. Employes working in Group B office spaces showed slight improvements in mood and sleep quality; however, these changes were not significant. This result indicates that relying solely on external greenery has limited effects on improving employe health, and a single natural element is insufficient to significantly enhance overall health.

Group C (Both indoor and outdoor greenery with a green view): The proximity values rose significantly to (0.7329, 0.7470, 0.7766, 0.750). Office spaces in this group had a significant positive impact on employes’ physical and mental health. Participants reported significant improvements in mood, sleep quality, and notable reductions in depression and fatigue levels. Work efficiency and attention were significantly enhanced, while stress levels and sick leave rates significantly decreased. These results highlight the comprehensive benefits of combining both outdoor greenery and indoor plants.

Group D (Both indoor greenery and an outdoor terrace with multi-functional use): With the smallest positive ideal distance (0.0237, 0.0250, 0.0134) and the largest negative ideal distance (0.3528, 0.3558, 0.3687), the optimal proximity was achieved (0.9369, 0.9344, 0.9649). Group D office spaces showed the most significant health benefits for employes. Employes in these spaces had the highest scores for mood and sleep quality, and the lowest levels of depression, fatigue, and stress. Work efficiency and attention were at the highest levels, and sick leave rates were the lowest. The duration of terrace use was negatively correlated with stress relief. These results suggest that the design strategy combining outdoor greenery with indoor plants has the strongest positive impact on employes’ physical and mental health, as well as work performance, further validating the enhanced effects of dynamic natural contact.

Discussion

The results of the study indicate that integrating biophilic design elements into office spaces has a significant positive impact on employes’ physical and mental health. By applying varying degrees of biophilic elements in different office spaces (from Group A to Group D), employes’ physical and mental health indicators showed significant gradient improvements. Specifically, Group D spaces, which combine both indoor greenery and an outdoor terrace, had the most pronounced effects on alleviating employe stress, stabilizing emotions, improving sleep quality, and enhancing work efficiency. This result aligns with Demirkol et al.'s (2024) theory of multi-element coupling,⁹ indicating that the synergistic effect of indoor and outdoor natural elements can optimize employe well-being through multiple mechanisms.

In terms of stress relief mechanisms, employes who were exposed to natural elements such as indoor plants and outdoor greenery exhibited lower stress levels. Especially in Group C and Group D spaces, the combination of indoor plants and outdoor greenery significantly activated the parasympathetic nervous system, thereby reducing cortisol secretion and promoting physical and mental relaxation. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of Hilbert et al.,^33–35 further supporting the hypothesis that natural elements regulate stress responses through biological neural pathways.

Another important mechanism observed in this study is the enhancement of mood and cognitive abilities through exposure to natural elements. Group C and Group D office spaces, which included both indoor plants and outdoor terraces, significantly improved participants’ emotional states and increased work efficiency. This finding aligns with Kaplan's Attention Restoration Theory,² which suggests that natural environments help restore depleted cognitive resources.

The improvement in sleep quality is closely related to the regulatory function of natural light. Tang et al.'s study also showed that employes working in environments with more access to natural landscapes scored higher on mood and attention,³⁶ further supporting the importance of natural elements in creating a positive work atmosphere. The incorporation of natural light also played a crucial role in improving sleep quality. Compared to Group A and Group B, employes in Group C and Group D had significantly higher sleep quality scores and lower fatigue levels. This result is consistent with Beute et al.'s research, which found that exposure to natural light promotes sleep and alleviates fatigue, indicating that natural light is an indispensable component of biophilic design.^37,38

Limitations

However, it must be acknowledged that this study has several limitations:

First, the cross-sectional study design used in this research makes it difficult to reveal the long-term effects of biophilic design on employe health. As Alipou et al. pointed out, longitudinal studies are better suited for assessing the long-term benefits of biophilic interventions.³⁹ Future research should consider adopting longitudinal methods to more comprehensively capture the sustained impacts of biophilic elements on health and work efficiency over time;

Second, this study primarily relied on self-reported data, which may introduce subjective bias. Although questionnaires can effectively assess employes’ psychological states, future studies should incorporate more objective physiological indicators (such as heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol levels) to supplement subjective data, thereby providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact of biophilic design. Lei et al. also emphasized the need for standardized and objective measurement methods to ensure the comparability of research findings in the field of biophilic design^21,40;

Additionally, this study was conducted in Dalian, China, and its findings may be limited in their applicability to other regions due to cultural preferences and differences in natural attitudes. As Fang et al. pointed out, different cultures’ perceptions and acceptance of natural elements can significantly influence the effectiveness of biophilic design.³¹ Future research should explore cross-cultural differences to develop more culturally adaptable design strategies.

Research conclusion

This study used a mixed-methods approach to systematically explore the impact of biophilic office space design on employe health and well-being in Dalian, China. Through both quantitative and qualitative methods, including observational surveys and pre-and post-experiment questionnaires, the study collected relevant data from employes in 13 different office spaces with varying levels of biophilic design. The study aimed to address the key question of how the integration of natural elements at different levels in the office environment affects employes’ physical and mental health, work efficiency, and overall well-being.The results of the study indicate:

Biophilic design has a positive impact on various aspects of employe health, particularly in improving mood, enhancing sleep quality, reducing stress, and increasing work efficiency. Office spaces that incorporate both indoor and outdoor natural elements (especially Category D: outdoor terraces with green plants and indoor plants) showed the most significant benefits. Employes working in such environments reported the highest levels of happiness, better sleep quality, lower stress levels, and higher work efficiency;

This study further emphasizes the key mechanisms by which biophilic design improves employe well-being. The integration of natural elements (such as green plants, natural light, and outdoor spaces) can activate the parasympathetic nervous system, reduce stress, and promote relaxation. The findings align with the Attention Restoration Theory, which suggests that natural environments help restore cognitive resources, thereby improving work efficiency and mood. The multi-level integration of natural elements not only directly alleviates employes’ physiological and psychological stress but also enhances their focus and happiness in an indirect manner;

The results of this study have significant practical value for office design, advocating that priority should be given to integrating biophilic elements into the environment. Introducing indoor greenery, natural light, outdoor terraces, etc., is not only beneficial for improving employe health and job satisfaction but also significantly contributes to enhancing overall work efficiency.

Although the research provides important evidence for biophilic design, its limitations suggest that future exploration should focus on three aspects: First, longitudinal tracking should be employed to assess long-term effects; second, combining both subjective and objective data (such as cortisol testing and eye-tracking) to enhance the credibility of the conclusions; third, expanding cross-cultural research, with a particular focus on the cultural symbolism and preferences for natural elements in non-Western contexts. Through interdisciplinary collaboration and standardized methods, biophilic design is expected to become a core strategy for creating healthy workplace ecosystems, providing scientific support for organizational sustainability and employe well-being improvement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author sincerely thanks the anonymous reviewers for their rigorous review and constructive comments. Special thanks are also extended to Dr Dian Jiao for his valuable suggestions during the drafting and revision of the manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in this study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by The National Social Science Fund of China (Grant numbers 21BSH039).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Jiao

Zhao

Tang

, et al. Impact of office light environment on mental health interventions for employees: An investigative analysis. Work-a J Prev Assess Rehabil 2025; 81(1): 2207–2214.

Taubman

Parikh

. Understanding and addressing mental health disorders: a workplace imperative. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2023; 25: 455–463.

Kelloway

Dimoff

Gilbert

. Mental health in the workplace. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 2023; 10: 363–387.

Jiao

Tang

Guo

. Proactive health interventions in the workplace: the role of spatial playfulness in promoting mental health. Work 2023; 76: 1203–1217.

Colenberg

Jylhä

Arkesteijn

. The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being - a literature review. Build Res Inf 2021; 49: 352–366.

Othman

MKF

Rais

SLA

Azir

, Iop, (eds) Exploring Determinants of Healthy Workplace Elements in The Office Building. In: 5th International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering for Sustainability (IConCEES), 2019 Dec 19-20, Senai, MALAYSIA2020.

Sidossis

Gaviola

Sotos-Prieto

, et al. Healthy lifestyle interventions across diverse workplaces: a summary of the current evidence. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2021; 24: 490–503.

Barbiero

Berto

. Biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: an onto- and phylogenetic framework for biophilic design. Front Psychol 2021: 12.

Demirkol

Önaç

. Integrating biophilic design elements into office designs. Ain Shams Eng J 2024; 15(10).

10.

de Vries

Hermans

Langers

. Effects of indoor plants on office workers: a field study in multiple Dutch organizations. Front Psychol 2023: 14.

11.

Bergefurt

Weijs-Perrée

Appel-Meulenbroek

, et al. The physical office workplace as a resource for mental health-A systematic scoping review. Build Environ 2022: 207.

12.

Díaz-Benito

Moro

MIB

Vanderhaegen

, et al. Intervention of physical exercise in the workplace on work ability, depression, anxiety and job satisfaction in workers with sedentary tasks. Work 2022; 72: 921–931.

13.

Nowrouzi-Kia

Gohar

Sithamparanathan

, et al. Workplace mental health characteristics of the indigenous workforce in Canada: a descriptive study. Work 2023; 74: 129–136.

14.

Perrins

Varanasi

Seto

, et al. Nature at work: the effects of day-to-day nature contact on workers’ stress and psychological well-being. Urban For Urban Greening 2021: 66.

15.

Rios-Rodriguez

Moreno

Moreno-Jimenez

. Nature in the office: a systematic review of nature elements and their effects on worker stress response. Healthcare 2023; 11: 2838.

16.

Beute

Lowden

Aries

MBC

. The relationship of light exposure to sleep outcomes among office workers. Part 2: comparison of days with and without social constraints. Light Res Technol 2024; 56: 126–135.

17.

Fang

Guo

, et al. Diurnal effects of dynamic lighting on alertness, cognition, and mood of mentally fatigued individuals in a daylight deprived environment. Light Res Technol 2024; 56: 136–155.

18.

Bergefurt

Appel-Meulenbroek

Arentze

. How salutogenic workplace characteristics influence psychological and cognitive responses in a virtual environment. Ergonomics 2024; 67: 339–355.

19.

Ojala

Neuvonen

Kurkilahti

, et al. Short virtual nature breaks in the office environment can restore stress: an experimental study. J Environ Psychol 2022: 84.

20.

Toyoda

Yokota

Barnes

, et al. Potential of a small indoor plant on the desk for reducing office Workers’ stress. Horttechnology 2020; 30: 55–63.

21.

Aristizabal

Byun

Porter

, et al. Biophilic office design: exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human well-being. J Environ Psychol 2021: 77.

22.

Yin

Arfaei

MacNaughton

, et al. Effects of biophilic interventions in office on stress reaction and cognitive function: a randomized crossover study in virtual reality. Indoor Air 2019; 29: 1028–1039.

23.

Sadick

Kamardeen

. Enhancing employees’ performance and well-being with nature exposure embedded office workplace design. J Build Eng 2020: 32.

24.

Gritzka

MacIntyre

Dörfel

, et al. The effects of workplace nature-based interventions on the mental health and well-being of employees: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry 2020: 11.

25.

Jiang

Lin

. The impact of biophilic design in the workplace on the health, comfort and wellbeing of office workers. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102: 79.

26.

Schiavon

Zhang

, et al. The impact of a view from a window on thermal comfort, emotion, and cognitive performance. Build Environ 2020: 175.

27.

Shin

Dennis

Mohammed

. Mental health outcome measures in environmental design research: a critical review. Herd-Health Environ Res Des J 2021; 14: 331–357.

28.

Romano

Laviola

Uva

, et al. (eds) Biophilic Design of Virtual Workplaces: Effect of Animations on User Attention. In: 20th EuroXR International Conference (EuroXR), 2023 Nov 29-Dec 01, Rotterdam, NETHERLANDS, 2023.

29.

Hui

FKP

Aye

. Occupational stress and workplace design. Buildings 2018; 8: 33.

30.

Riches

Taylor

Jeyarajaguru

, et al. Virtual reality and immersive technologies to promote workplace wellbeing: a systematic review. J Mental Health 2024; 33: 253–273.

31.

Fang

Lin

Chen

, et al. Mental health in China: exploring the impacts of built environment, work environment, and subjective perception. Front Psychol 2024: 15.

32.

Szewranski

Mrowczynska

van Hoof

. Biophilia in contemporary design: Navigating future opportunities and challenges. Indoor Built Environ 2025; 34(1): 3–6.

33.

Hilbert

Binnewies

Berkemeyer

. Identifying restorative environments for Employees’ recovery: an interdisciplinary mixed methods approach. Leis Sci 2023: 1–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2023.2201243

34.

Yildirim

Globa

Gocer

, et al. Multisensory nature exposure in the workplace: exploring the restorative benefits of smell experiences. Build Environ 2024: 262.

35.

Korpela

Klementtilä

Hietanen

. Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environ Behav 2002; 34: 634–650.

36.

Tang

Klotz

McClean

, et al. From natural to novel: the cognition-broadening effects of contact with nature at work on creativity. J Manage 2024; 50: 2490–2533.

37.

van Drongelen

Boot

CRL

Hlobil

, et al. Evaluation of an mHealth intervention aiming to improve health-related behavior and sleep and reduce fatigue among airline pilots. Scand J Work Environ Health 2014; 40: 557–568.

38.

Nie

Zou

Chen

, et al. The lower correlated color temperature with higher illuminance nocturnal light environment improves cognitive performance and sleep quality. Build Environ 2024: 251.

39.

Alipour

Khoramian

. Investigating the impact of biophilic design on employee performance and well-being by designing a research instrument. Kybernetes 2024; 53: 4431–4447.

40.

Lei

Yuan

Lau

SSY

. A quantitative study for indoor workplace biophilic design to improve health and productivity performance. J Cleaner Prod 2021: 324.

Office Space ID	Mood Score（+）	Sleep Quality（+）	Depression（-）	Fatigue（-）	Work Efficiency（+）	Sick Leave Rate（-）	Concentration（+）	Stress（-）
A1	1.5	2.8	4.5	4.7	2.0	3.5	2.2	4.6
A2	1.6	3.0	4.3	4.6	2.1	3.4	2.3	4.5
A3	1.7	2.9	4.4	4.8	2.0	3.6	2.1	4.8
B1	2.5	3.8	3.7	4.0	3.0	2.8	3.4	3.9
B2	2.6	3.9	3.6	3.9	3.2	2.7	3.5	4.0
B3	2.4	3.7	3.8	4.1	3.1	2.9	3.3	3.8
C1	3.5	4.5	2.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	4.3	3.2
C2	3.6	4.4	2.6	2.8	4.2	1.7	4.4	3.1
C3	3.7	4.6	2.4	2.7	4.3	1.9	4.2	3.3
C4	3.8	4.3	2.7	3.0	4.4	1.6	4.5	3.0
D1	4.5	4.6	2.0	2.3	4.6	1.2	4.4	2.5
D2	4.6	4.5	1.9	2.2	4.4	1.1	4.8	2.4
D3	4.7	4.7	2.1	2.1	4.7	1.0	4.6	2.3

Office Space ID	Mood Score（+）	Sleep Quality（+）	Depression（-）	Fatigue（-）	Work Efficiency（+）	Sick Leave Rate（-）	Concentration（+）	Stress（-）
A1	1.5	2.8	4.5	4.7	2.0	3.5	2.2	4.6
A2	1.6	3.0	4.3	4.6	2.1	3.4	2.3	4.5
A3	1.7	2.9	4.4	4.8	2.0	3.6	2.1	4.8
B1	2.5	3.8	3.7	4.0	3.0	2.8	3.4	3.9
B2	2.6	3.9	3.6	3.9	3.2	2.7	3.5	4.0
B3	2.4	3.7	3.8	4.1	3.1	2.9	3.3	3.8
C1	3.5	4.5	2.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	4.3	3.2
C2	3.6	4.4	2.6	2.8	4.2	1.7	4.4	3.1
C3	3.7	4.6	2.4	2.7	4.3	1.9	4.2	3.3
C4	3.8	4.3	2.7	3.0	4.4	1.6	4.5	3.0
D1	4.5	4.6	2.0	2.3	4.6	1.2	4.4	2.5
D2	4.6	4.5	1.9	2.2	4.4	1.1	4.8	2.4
D3	4.7	4.7	2.1	2.1	4.7	1.0	4.6	2.3

Office Space ID	Mood Score（+）	Sleep Quality（+）	Depression（-）	Fatigue（-）	Work Efficiency（+）	Sick Leave Rate（-）	Concentration（+）	Stress（-）
A1	1.5	2.8	4.5	4.7	2.0	3.5	2.2	4.6
A2	1.6	3.0	4.3	4.6	2.1	3.4	2.3	4.5
A3	1.7	2.9	4.4	4.8	2.0	3.6	2.1	4.8
B1	2.5	3.8	3.7	4.0	3.0	2.8	3.4	3.9
B2	2.6	3.9	3.6	3.9	3.2	2.7	3.5	4.0
B3	2.4	3.7	3.8	4.1	3.1	2.9	3.3	3.8
C1	3.5	4.5	2.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	4.3	3.2
C2	3.6	4.4	2.6	2.8	4.2	1.7	4.4	3.1
C3	3.7	4.6	2.4	2.7	4.3	1.9	4.2	3.3
C4	3.8	4.3	2.7	3.0	4.4	1.6	4.5	3.0
D1	4.5	4.6	2.0	2.3	4.6	1.2	4.4	2.5
D2	4.6	4.5	1.9	2.2	4.4	1.1	4.8	2.4
D3	4.7	4.7	2.1	2.1	4.7	1.0	4.6	2.3