Colenberg, S; Jylhä, T and Arkesteijn, M (2021) The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being: A literature review. Building Research & Information, 49(3), pp. 352-366. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Health is a trending topic in the office market, yet scientific research on healthy offices is scattered. This study undertakes a systematic literature review on the relationship between the interior space of offices and physical, psychological and social well-being. The review identifies the characteristics of interior office space that have been studied in relation to employee health, and outlines the empirical evidence. Of 2816 papers in the database, 50 addressed the relationship between interior office space and health and did so based on six features: layout, furniture, light, greenery, controls and noise. Evidence on the relationship between interior space and health has accumulated only within a few topics. On the one hand, open-plan offices, shared rooms and higher background noise are negatively related to health. On the other hand, positive relationships are found between physical well-being and aspects that encourage physical activity; between physical/psychological well-being and (day)light, individual control and real/artificial greenery; and between social well-being and small shared rooms. In measuring health, physical well-being is predominant. Similarly, studies have predominantly aimed to prevent health problems rather than enhance health. Overall, the related research is in a nascent stage. Further research is required to verify claims about healthy offices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | health; interior design; interior space; office; well-being; workplace design |
| Index terms: | database, health and wellbeing, well-being, physical activity, office space, workplace design, evidence, interior design, literature review, healthy office, systematic literature review |
| Subjects: | specialized design, mental health and wellbeing, construction type, design practice, research evaluation and metrics, occupational health and safety management, health behaviours and lifestyles, evaluation and assessment methods, data management, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here