© 2008 University of Sydney. All rights reserved.

Architectural Science Review

www.arch.usyd.edu.au/asr Volume 51.2, pp 97-108

Invited Review Paper

Towards an Environmental Psychology

of Workspace: How People are affected by
Environments for Work

Jacqueline C. Vischer

Research Group on Environments for Work, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Montreal, C.P. 6128
Succursale Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada
Corresponding author: Tel: (1-514) 343 6684; Fax: (1-514) 343 5694; Email: jacqueline.vischer@umontreal.ca

Received 31 March 2008; accepted 29 April 2008

Abstract: Inquiry into how people experience environmental conditions at work is a growing area of study. Until the
1980s, there was insufficient research on ‘workspaces’ –and on office environments in particular – to warrant review.
Since that time, the range and number of studies of workspace have burgeoned. This paper will identify and review
the main themes and findings of this area of research with the objective of defining basic parameters and prevailing
theories of the environmental psychology of workspace. These will generate questions and directions for future research
Keywords: Ambient environmental conditions, Ergonomics, Functional comfort, Furniture, Health and safety, Office buildings, Office layouts,
Productivity, Satisfaction, Territoriality, User participation, Workspace

Introduction
Evidence from commercial leasing agents, office furniture jobs, work at all hours, make a social life at work, and sleep and
manufacturers the design professions and building contractors eat at work if necessary. What may now be called workspace1
indicates that some new knowledge is finding its way into the is diversifying, mobile work and non-territorial workspace is
real estate industry as commercial building owners and tenants increasing, and companies are applying quality as well as cost
demand better quality workspaces for their employees. Until criteria to workspace design (Becker & Kelley, 2004; Preiser &
recently, the design of office buildings adhered to a 19th Century Vischer, 2005).
model of work (Duffy, 1997). Workers who are asked to perform As part of these changes, conceptualization of the
rather than to think, who are brought together in space and environments for work is shifting from the notion of workspace
time so that they can be supervised, so that they have access to as a backdrop – that is, passive setting – for work, to the concept
necessary tools, and so that there is a clear barrier between work of workspace as an active support to – and tool for – getting
and their other activities, occupy standardized and often uniform work done (Newsham, 1997). One of the results of this shift
workspace. Formerly in the form of factories, contemporary is the growing interest in how building occupants behave as
workspace is more likely to be in the form of offices, and reducing a function of workspace features. As the research reviewed
occupancy costs is a key driver of design decision-making (Vischer, in this paper suggests, evidence is mounting that employees
2007a). With the changes in the 21st Century world of work, few may waste time and energy trying to cope in poorly designed
of these conditions are still valid. Tools for work have radically workspace and that employers are increasingly concerned that
changed, and advances in computers and tele-communications their employees invest their energy in work and relationships
mean that people no longer need to be fixed in space and time rather than in coping with adverse or uncomfortable workspace
to work together. Barriers between work and personal life are conditions. In reviewing some of the knowledge accrued to date
breaking down as people seek career opportunities rather than on how workers interact with and are affected by environmental

1
I have always tried to avoid using “office” or “offices” in titling any of my work, books or articles. I find the word limits the notion of the
diversity of work spaces and only inspires yawns. People think of boxes with windows or partitions. “Office” is in my view a dated concept. I
use workspace because the domain of study includes all types of space in which people do work. While much of the research has in fact been done
in office buildings, the broader concept of “workspace” includes places to meet, to use technology, public spaces where work occurs, amenities to
support work, and so on, as well as office-type workspace in places like hospitals, universities and numerous other contexts.
98 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

features, this paper groups findings from workspace research people need to be more than simply healthy and safe in the
according to, first, the aspect of workspace studied, and second, buildings they occupy, they need environmental support
to the type of outcome measure or research result identified. for the activities they are there to perform (Vischer, 1996).
Thus, the environmental aspects of workspace include ambient This notion of functional comfort goes beyond the more
environmental conditions (noise, lighting, air quality, thermal traditional concept of comfort based on measurements of
comfort), furniture layout and ergonomics (workstations, users’ responses to varying environmental conditions. The
offices and shared amenities), and process issues, such as user latter may focus, for example, on temperature and relative
participation in design, and meeting business and organizational humidity for thermal comfort, air speed and freshness for
objectives. Behavioral or outcome measures common in work ventilation comfort, and brightness, contrast conditions
environment research include employee satisfaction, employees’ and luminance for lighting comfort (Cheng & Ng, 2006;
feelings about their work environment as expressed in the Odemis, Yener & Camgoz, 2004; Ozturk, 2003; Rowe,
sense of territory, ownership and belonging, and employee 2004). The results of many comfort studies, using feedback
productivity. Most work environment studies can be organized from occupants as well as sensitive environmental measuring
into the typology identified in Table 1. devices, form the basis for environmental standards in public
Linking the satisfaction and productivity categories is the buildings. The concept of functional comfort, however, links
notion of comfort, specifically functional comfort. A three- the psychological aspects of workers’ environmental likes and
way definition of the concept of comfort has been applied dislikes with concrete outcome measures such as improved
to numerous field studies of office buildings; it posits that task performance and team effectiveness.

Table 1: Proposed Typology of Research on the Environmental Psychology of Workspace.

Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 99

How workspace is designed and occupied affects not influencing the performance of workers; and the qualities of a
only how people feel, but also their work performance, their place that cause users to consider it satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
commitment to their employer, and the creation of new Thus, surveys of occupant satisfaction in specific buildings
knowledge (human capital) in the organization. These are indicate which features are preferred and which are disliked by
the cornerstones of the domain known as the environmental occupants (Walden, 2005; Windsor, 2005).
psychology of workspace (Vischer, 2008). Moreover, measures One of the most consistent findings from user surveys
of user perceptions of environmental conditions can be used to is that office workers are dissatisfied with the ‘open plan’
diagnose building performance and the effectiveness of building office, whether this is due to noise levels, distractions, lack of
systems (Vischer & Fischer, 2005). The focus of this paper, privacy or the sameness of ‘cubicles’ (Churchman, Stokols,
then, is on the behaviour of building occupants, behaviour Scharf, Nishimoto & Wright, 1990; Hedge, 1986; Oldham,
in this context being a broad term covering not only people’s 1988; Sommer & Steiner, 1988; Sundstrom, Herbert &
actions and responses but also attitudes, feelings, expectations, Brown, 1982). However, the prevalence of this finding has
values and beliefs. In this context, it is useful to think of the not prevented employers from favouring the open plan - in
user-environment relation as dynamic and interactive: that is to part because it is cheaper to construct and more flexible to
say, that part of the user’s environmental experience includes the reconfigure than a conventional private or cellular office layout,
consequences of any user behaviour that may occur. The user and in part because workstations occupy less square feet than
is not a passive receptacle experiencing the built environment private offices. A more useful question to ask is to what degree
statically, as input; the user’s experience of the environment is are workers supported in the performance of their tasks in open
itself transformed by the activities she is performing in that workstations – in other words, to what degree is their ability to
environment: the relationship might better be characterised as work affected? Studies show that, on the positive side, open
transactional (Moore, 1980; Vischer, 2008). This paper will workstations facilitate communication and enable workers to
review research results clustered into three broad categories of exchange information rapidly and informally. On the negative
user satisfaction and functional comfort, territoriality or sense side, the open environment can generate distractions that
of belonging, and productivity, and will indicate how these prevent workers from concentrating on their tasks.
results have practical applications to design, construction and A large number of work environment studies have tested
management of buildings in which people work. users’ satisfaction in reference to specific workspace features
(Becker, 1981; Brennan, Chugh & Kline, 2002; Hedge, 1991;
Satisfaction and Functional Comfort Humphries, 2005; Veitch, Charles, Newsham, Marquardt &
How satisfied or not users are with the space they are Geerts, 2004). These studies show that people’s preferences are
occupying is a notion that has guided environmental evaluation affected by, among other things, indirect lighting, mechanical
since its earliest efforts (Craik, 1966; Friedman, Zimring & ventilation rates, access to natural light, new furniture, and
Zube, 1978; Little, 1968). It refers to the processes whereby aspects of the acoustic environment, as well as some degree of
users know and judge their physical environment. The basic participation in decision-making. According to this approach,
premises state that the processes of environmental knowing and environmental satisfaction is implicitly a measure not only of
assessing are linked not only to observable physical features, workspace effectiveness or success, but also of job satisfaction,
but also to the attitudes individuals have towards a particular in spite of the lack of proven connections between them. As
space. Evaluation research, such as post-occupancy evaluation, a result, occupant satisfaction has become the main yardstick
seeks to determine the extent to which certain environmental by which workspace features are evaluated, with many studies
characteristics affect users’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction; they falsely assuming a direct link between users’ level of job or
have been carried out in office environments since the 1980s workspace satisfaction and their effectiveness or productivity
(Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Ornstein, 1999; Stokols, (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
1978; Wineman, 1986). Some studies have gone beyond the simple ‘if-then’ logic of
The earliest post-occupancy evaluations of offices used how satisfaction is affected by physical features to developing an
extensive survey questionnaires of building users to identify what approach to environmental evaluation that is more responsive
what occupants ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ about their work environment, to the concept of place as an interactive system composed of
on the assumption that measuring users’ self-rated satisfaction both physical and social elements. This model posits space
with individual features helps to understand the effects of the as a resource in terms of its inherent potential to make any
built environment on users. Studies of occupant satisfaction imply social system function (Moos, 1973; Perin, 1970; Thiel, 1997).
that this concept is a de facto measure of building quality: users In applying this approach to work environment evaluation,
feel positive (satisfied) about good quality built space, whereas if researchers have examined links between workspace design and
they are ‘dissatisfied’ the place is not performing or has somehow the organization of work, and attempted to demonstrate ways
failed. Studies of users’ satisfaction levels in offices have generated in which space can be considered an organizational resource
extensive knowledge of workers’ preferences but relatively little (Fischer, 1983; Fischer & Vischer, 1998; Kampschroer &
additional understanding of building performance. Most post- Heerwagen, 2005; Seiler, 1984).
occupancy evaluations question occupants on their perceptions The concept of functional comfort links users’ environmental
and judgments of workspaces in terms of the “perceived assessments of their environment to the requirements of the
qualities” of the place. Evaluation in this sense includes two tasks they are performing; this goes beyond general findings
essential elements: the functional characteristics of the space on what people like and dislike, and towards assessing building
that lend themselves to measurement, and are considered factors performance (Vischer, 1989, 1996, 1999). It was developed
100 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

to respond to the limitations of measuring user satisfaction by adaptable and ‘negotiable’ to be most supportive to users. Users
applying feedback from users to the performance of building need the skills and opportunities to engage with and adjust
systems. While building users’ physical comfort refers to meeting their environment successfully, over time and with changing
the basic human needs, such as safety, hygiene and accessibility, task requirements, in order to optimize comfort and manage
without which a building is uninhabitable, functional comfort workspace stress successfully (Vischer, 2007b).
is defined as environmental support for users’ performance
of work-related tasks and activities. Appropriate lighting for Territoriality and Belonging
screen-based work, ergonomic furniture for computer users, Several studies identify a sense of belonging (appropriation),
and enclosed rooms available for meetings and collaborative along with loyalty or commitment to the organization and
work, for example, help ensure users functional comfort at a sense of territory, as outcome measures of environmental
work. studies because a sense of belonging or ownership is a better
The difference between a supportive and an unsupportive measure of environmental quality or success than either
workspace is the degree to which occupants can conserve their satisfaction or effective task performance (Fischer, 1983;
attention and energy for their tasks, as opposed to expending it Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986). Unlike user satisfaction,
to cope with adverse environmental conditions. For example, sense of belonging is linked to employee commitment to and
certain variables such as lighting, ventilation and noise can, retention in the organization – results that have a direct effect
under certain conditions, generate stress, which, in turn, has on company operations and costs. Territoriality at work goes
a negative effect on productivity (Evans & Cohen, 1987). beyond the physical attributes of spaces occupied by individual
This is further discussed, below. The obverse of this argument workers (Davis & Altman, 1976). The sense of ownership,
holds that an environment conducive to the performance of or occupying territory, is affected by how team and shared
work improves performance and morale (Dewulf & Van Meel, workspace is defined, as well as characteristics of individual
2003). workspace. It is also affected by participation in design
The functional comfort approach makes human judgements decisions and feeling ’empowered’ in regards to environmental
the focus of study, thereby avoiding the temporal and calibration decision-making. Users’ experience of territoriality, control
limitations of instrument-based data collection. However, and appropriation combine as ‘psychological comfort’: one of
researchers may take measurements of building systems three types of environmental comfort according to which the
performance as a follow-up procedure to help understand users’ experience of workspace can be organized (Vischer, 1996;
the meaning behind the feedback yielded by users on their Vischer, 2005). Physical comfort refers to basic human needs
perceptions of building conditions. Traditionally human such as safety, hygiene and accessibility, which must be assured -
comfort measurements have been linked to individual building usually through applying existing building codes and standards
systems (lighting, ventilation, temperature) in order to enable - so that users find their environment habitable. Functional
standards of comfort and health to be established, and thus to comfort, as mentioned previously, refers to the degree to which
guide the design of buildings. Functional comfort is defined by their environment supports users’ tasks. At a more abstract level
the degree to which workers can perform their tasks in the place but equally important to users at work is psychological comfort,
they occupy; it is derived from notions of comfort as defined including feelings of belonging, ownership and control over the
by environmental standards, with the added precision that users’ workspace (see Figure 1).
experience of comfort varies with the requirements of the tasks Psychological comfort links psychosocial aspects of the
they have to perform. Therefore, one of the outcome measures worker with the environmental design and management of
of diagnostic evaluation of functional comfort is whether people workspace through territoriality, privacy and environmental
can perform tasks easily, with difficulty, or not at all in the control (Vischer, McCuaig, Nadeau, Melillo & Castonguay-
workspace occupied. The diagnostic approach was designed to Vien, 2003). The primary component of psychological
learn more about how people work and how space affects work comfort is sense of territory, both individual territory (office,
performance, as well as to understand the impact of changing workstation, micro-workspace) and group territory (team,
office technologies on the performance of work and on space- group, midrange workspace). Human territory at work has
use. Data on users’ functional comfort provide a diagnostic psychological value that is represented both by space for one’s
yardstick for designers, planners and managers; systematic and work and by one’s place in the organization. Underlying these is
reliable feedback from occupants takes the form of a simple, a human behavioral schema that expresses itself in terms of the
accurate profile of user comfort in a given work environment. personalization and appropriation of space: marking territory
This approach yields a more precise definition of how workers are and constructing boundaries of social and environmental
affected by their space than users’ satisfaction ratings. control (Fischer, 1989; Sundstrom, Town, Brown, Forman
Balancing environmental demands with the skills and abilities & McGee, 1982). Territorial ownership affects employees’
of users to act on their environment is a way of defining optimal interaction with the environmental milieu (Steele, 1986).
workspace for creativity and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). The Workspace personalization and space appropriation behaviors
concepts of positive stress (Selye, 1979) and of environmental have become more noticeable in offices where denser and more
competence (Lawton, 1980; Sternberg, 2001) are both useful open office configurations have been installed (Wells & Thelen,
in this context, in that they recognize that some environmental 2002). The introduction and use of new technology and better
challenge is necessary to ensure active engagement. A workspace virtual communications tools have also affected workers’
cannot be designed to be a one-time, final, and permanent perceptions of and attitude towards their physical environment
ergonomic support for all office tasks, but rather needs to be and workspace (Cascio, 2000; Lai, Levas, Chou, Pinhanez &
Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 101

Occupant
satisfaction
and well-being

Psychological
comfort

Functional comfort

Physical comfort
Habitability threshold
Discomfort

Figure 1: Environmental comfort model of workspace quality.

Viveros, 2002). Territory is not simply made up of the walls and perceptions of having some control over their environment and
doors that enclose space; territoriality at work is also affected by is a constructive response to the need for psychological comfort.
sense of privacy, social status and perception of control. This helps people cope with environmental demands and
Studies have found that people moving out of private encourages workers to find new ways of solving environmental
enclosed offices into open workstations judge their environment problems, so that they also increase their learning and knowledge
more negatively, citing lack of privacy, acoustic conditions, about their building and workspace. Empowerment as a form
and confidentiality problems (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, of environmental control increases opportunities for employees
2002; Rishi, Sinha & Dubey, 2000). These reasons are given to both participate in and be listened to in workspace decision-
irrespective of whether or not their work is confidential, and making, and means they are better informed. Lack of control
whether or not they need to be alone to perform tasks effectively. over workspace has been described as demotivating and leading
Complaints about lack of privacy abound in before-and-after to ‘learned helplessness’ (McCoy & Evans, 2005). Several
studies of workspace change, independent of physical features studies demonstrate that psychosocial control by means of
of the workspace such as furniture configuration and partition user participation in the design process has a positive effect on
height (Wineman, 1986). On the other hand, data collected people’s response to and feelings about their workspace (Lee
from professionals in open workstations who were not faced & Brand, 2005; Veitch & Newsham, 2000). Environmental
with an imminent or recent move indicated that the demands empowerment is directly linked to psychological comfort.
of the job are more important than individual privacy (Kupritz, People who are informed about workspace-related decisions,
1998). The need for privacy seems to be only indirectly related and who participate in decisions about their own space, are
to workspace design and to depend on psychological factors, more likely to feel territorial about their workspace and to have
such as concerns about status and control. feelings of belonging and ownership (Vischer, 2005).
Environmental control – and users’ perception of control – Thus notions of appropriation and belonging are
affects workers on at least two levels: mechanical or instrumental psychosocial aspects expressed through territoriality at work.
control, and empowerment (Vischer, 2005). Experimental A sense of territory is associated with feelings of belonging
efforts to increase users’ control over environmental conditions and ownership, and privacy is best understood as the need
provide evidence of beneficial effects on workers, including to exercise control over one’s accessibility to others (Altman,
one experimental design that found a clear association between 1975). Finally, some studies have demonstrated a connection
participation in design decisions and degree of workplace between users’ psychological traits and their reactions to the built
satisfaction following a move to a new facility (Niemala, Rautio, environment at work. In focusing on cognitive processes, this
Hannula & Reijula, 2002). Environmental control can be research orientation links up with a well-established paradigm
mechanical, such as chairs and worktables that are raised and of social psychology, namely Lewin’s field theory (1951). It
lowered, shelving and tables on wheels to be moved around, addresses the effects of users’ individual differences and how
switchable lights, and a door to open and close. Evidence workers’ evaluation of their workspace affects their perception
indicates a positive psychological impact from this type of of themselves at work (Somat, Tarquinio & Dufresne, 1999).
control in situations where employees are informed and even Not only do employees’ cognitive and affective processes affect
trained to make use of the controls available (Newsham, Veitch, their perception and evaluation of their work environment, but
Arsenault & Duval, 2004; Tu & Loftness, 1998). Another their perception and assessment of their workspace also affect
form of environmental control is empowerment: increased their view of themselves as workers and of their professional
opportunities for employees to participate in workspace effectiveness (Fischer, Tarquinio & Vischer, 2004). A study
decision-making. Access to such opportunities increases users’ comparing open with enclosed office users showed that
102 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

extraverts respond more positively to more possibilities for environmental determinants of workgroup effectiveness include
communication, and therefore do better in open office settings the positioning of work areas and shared space, as well as access
than workers with more introvert personalities (McCusker, to shared tools and equipment (Heerwagen, Kampschroer,
2002). Powell & Loftness, 2004).
A third level of productivity corresponds to the company or
Productivity and the Performance of Work organization’s entire workspace or accommodation – the macro-
Many studies have sought to make direct links between the environment. There are many approaches to assessing the degree
environmental design of workspace and worker performance to which workspace helps (or fails to help) a company meet its
or organizational productivity.2 The concept of ‘workplace business objectives and/or increase its competitive advantage.
performance’ has come to mean workspace whose explicit Organisational effectiveness is affected by locational advantages
objective is to support the performance of work: a performing and ease of access, balancing consolidation under one roof
workplace is designed to optimise worker productivity (centralisation) with dispersion of different groups in different
(Clements-Croome, 2006). The concept of worker productivity facilities over manageable distances, and by building amenities
tends to be applied to a whole range of desired behavioural such as fast elevators, convenient bathrooms, adequate parking,
outcomes in the context of work. A recent review of studies and attractive eating areas (Vischer, 2006). Studies have shown
of the effects of environment on productivity concluded that that both worker performance and organisational success is
confusion about what productivity means has made it difficult compromised “when the physical environment interferes with
to identify how environmental conditions affect worker actions taken towards achievement [of objectives]” (McCoy &
performance (CABE, 2004). Many studies use respondents’ Evans, 2005).
own self-reports of ‘improved’ or ‘reduced’ productivity as the Tools exist to measure environmental impacts on productivity
dependent variable, and studies measuring ‘real’ or quantifiable in each of the three categories. Individual productivity is the
output per worker or team are few and far between (Oseland, most often measured, using various tools for ergonomic analysis
1999). as well as a wide variety of questionnaire surveys that focus on
There are at least three types of productivity that are the effects on building users of ambient conditions as lighting,
influenced by environmental design, each of them in different noise levels, furniture comfort, temperature, and indoor air
ways.3 These three categories are individual, group, and quality. Team effectiveness studies tend to be more dependent
organisational productivity: each category denotes a variation on anecdotal data, although indirect measures such as analysis
in scale of environmental influence (Vischer, 2006). Individual of social networks, ‘gaming’, and comparing outcomes among
productivity is typically evaluated at the scale of the individual comparable workgroups in different environments, have also
workspace (desk and office) and on how the micro-environment yielded valuable results (Horgen, Joroff, Porter & Schon,
influences individual task performance, that is to say, how fast 1999; Stephenson, 1998). A recent review of four of the most
and accurately a worker carries out his tasks at work. Individual popular methods for evaluating organisational effectiveness
task performance is affected by environmental conditions such concluded that none is entirely satisfactory, as this is an elusive
as lighting and visual conditions, variations in temperature and concept to define and measure (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen &
humidity, furniture ergonomics, and, to some degree, acoustics. Roos, 1999). However, some researchers have been successful
Positive individual productivity outcomes mean improved adapting the Balanced Scorecard to measure environmental
speed and accuracy of the tasks performed, whereas negative effects on organisational effectiveness (Kampschroer &
outcomes might include a higher error rate, slower time for task Heerwagen, 2005).
completion, or adverse health effects on workers, such as sore The BOSTI-Westinghouse study was an important advance,
eyes, fatigue or upper respiratory problems. which attempted to link environmental features not just with
The productivity of workgroups sharing workspace, such as levels of satisfaction, but also directly with functional support
a teamwork environment, is typically evaluated in terms of the to individual workers (Brill, Margulis & Konar, 1985). This
quality and quantity of group processes. Teamwork is affected longitudinal study examined employee behaviour before
by the mid-range environment, that of the work-group or team, and after an office move and attempted to measure the costs
and it is measured in tangible terms such as time to market of worker productivity lost through poorly-designed or
of a new product, or in terms of more qualitative outcomes, dysfunctional workspace; it used employee self-reports of
such as number of good new ideas or good (i.e. successful) productivity to measure the impact of features like open office
recommendations coming out of effective business processes. design on task performance. The results showed, among other
Group process is affected by workgroup size and the relative things, that employees, especially managers, working in open
proximity of team members (Leaman & Bordass, 1998). Other plan workstations felt they were more productive in enclosed

2
The editor has suggested that these relations might best be conceptualised as a model of workplace environmental design factors (eg, ambient
environmental conditions, furniture and office layouts) as independent variables, with productivity as the ultimate dependent outcome variable
and satisfaction, territoriality and belonging, as mediating variables. This is an interesting line of inquiry that deserves further consideration.
3
There are numerous studies of how age, gender, SES and job-rank affect workers attitudes, performance and effectiveness in the work
environment, but very few use the term ‘environment’ to refer to the physical setting. Consequently, most of this research is published in the
industrial and occupational psychology literature and is not included in this review. However, it would make an interesting addition to our
research to study this literature and develop some hypotheses of how these function as moderating variables in the user-space relationship at
work. See, for example, the review by Gifford (2007) and the role of moderating variables in a different architectural setting.
Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 103

offices. Subsequent studies have attempted to measure the in open plan workspace tend to judge noise to be a primary
economic value of workers’ productivity increases that are source of discomfort and reduced productivity (Stokols &
considered to result from environmental improvements, such Scharf, 1990; Mital, McGlothlin, Faard, 1992). Acoustic
that the return on investment of an environmental intervention comfort studies have focussed on correlating physical measures,
can be calculated (Brill & Weideman, 2001; Sullivan, 1990). such as signal-to-noise ratios at different densities, background
At about the same time, an overview of studies measuring noise levels and intensities, and speech intelligibility under
the impact of furniture and layout changes on teams working differing physical conditions, with occupant judgements of
on assembly line-like paper processing tasks in different distraction and annoyance (Ayr, Cirillo & Martellota, 2001;
organizations indicated extraordinary increases in process speed Chu & Warnock, 2002). Efforts to control office noise
and results (Springer, 1986). These findings are reminiscent through more absorbent surfaces, sound-masking systems and
of the changes in task performance found in the 1940’s in the behavioural controls have been weakened by increasing office
famous Hawthorne studies of lighting in factories, suggesting densities and collaborative work in modern workspace.
that any environmental change improves team performance Studies focussing on floor layouts and furniture suggest these
regardless of its actual effect (Adair, 1984). More judiciously, factors influence teamwork effectiveness as well as individual task
several studies conclude that workspace design can be supportive performance (Vischer, 2006). Studies focus on the height and
(have positive effects on work) or non-supportive (have negative density of workstation partitions, the amount and accessibility
effects on work) as well as affecting organizational performance of file and work storage, and furniture dimensions such as
(Davenport & Bruce, 2002; Ilozor, Love, & Treloar, 2002; work-surfaces. These elements of furniture and spatial layout
Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Stallworth & Kleiner, 1996). The have a powerful effect not only on the satisfaction of individual
domain of organizational ecology is a framework for analyzing workers but also on the performance of teams. One study
organizations according to different aspects of their structure indicated that the additional investment in ergonomic tables
and function, including features of the workspace they occupy and chairs for workers, as well as ergonomic training, yielded a
(Steele, 1973). The systems framework of organizational 5-month payback in terms of increased individual productivity
ecology strengthens the notion that the space it occupies is an (Miles, 2000). Several studies provide evidence that office
integral part of how an organization functions. Later work has workers are uncomfortable in open plan configurations and
built on this concept, producing such ideas as ‘workscape’ to prefer private enclosed workspace, which may work better for
indicate an inclusive approach to both the use and the planning individual tasks but are less successful for teamwork (Hatch,
and design of the work environment (Becker & Steele, 1994). 1987; Fried, Slowik, Ben-David & Tiegs, 2001; Ornstein,
An increasing number of ergonomically oriented studies Andrade, Coelho & Leite, 2005).
have looked at specific environmental conditions, such as Evidence is mounting that the design of their workspace
ventilation and indoor air quality, lighting and daylighting, does make workers more or less effective. However, finding
acoustics and noise control, as well as furniture placement out more about how this relationship works should not lead
and comfort. In these studies, environmental effects on to ‘social engineering’ solutions, where employers or building
task performance, rates of absenteeism and self-reported owners apply a recipe for environmental design with a view
productivity are measured rather than users’ satisfaction to guaranteeing maximum performance from their workers.
ratings. Lighting research, for example, has tended to It is preferable for employers and decision-makers to use
distinguish between the effects on building occupants of research evidence to consider environmental design decisions
artificial, interior lighting and of natural light or daylighting as investments in the work force. Workspace can and should
from windows. Daylighting research has linked increased be a tool for performing work, much as investing in computer
comfort and self-reported productivity with window size technology ensures better tools for employees.
and proximity, as well as with view out, control over blinds
and shielding from glare (Hedge, 2000; Leather, Pyrgas, Discussion
Beale & Lawrence, 1998; Mallory-Hill, Van der Voost & While much of the research on which norms and standards
Van Dortmont, 2005). More significantly, research on for user health and comfort at work are based has been carried
daylight and views from hospital rooms has been shown to out in laboratory settings, the most frequent approach to
affect medication requirements and recovery rates (Verderber studying how workspace affects users is questioning the latter
& Reuman, 1988; Ulrich, 1991). In their recent overview directly. This may take the form of experimental designs
of the effects of different kinds of artificial lighting on task in controlled laboratory settings, where an environmental
performance and occupant satisfaction in a simulated office condition is varied and subjects provide ratings, as well as in
environment where workers used controls to exercise their quasi-experimental settings, such as controlled field situations
lighting choices, (Boyce, Veitch, Newsham, Myer & Hunter, where building users’ assessments are compared before and
2003) concluded that current office lighting standards are after some environmental change. More commonly, survey
preferred by most people carrying out typical individual research is applied in uncontrolled field situations, either in
office tasks, Boyce et al. The study results made a distinction the form of eliciting satisfaction ratings as in a conventional
between visual comfort – lighting needed to perform well post-occupancy evaluation, or using a standardised survey
on office tasks – and satisfaction, or lighting judged to be questionnaire in order to compare the same data from subjects
aesthetic. across a number of buildings. A variety of field-tested tools and
Current studies of noise in offices have adapted techniques techniques to study workspace behaviour has been developed
for measuring noise levels in industrial environments. Workers in this latter category.
104 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

Figure: 2: Dimensions of functionally comfortable workspace design.

The structure and form of the way users are approached Building on this theoretical base, and in line with the
and the data they are required to yield needs to be precise and results of functional comfort studies, researcher attention is
standardised to link user feedback with building performance. being increasingly paid to the concept of workspace stress.
The results yielded by this approach provide a rich and diverse Functional comfort links psychosocial aspects, including
basis for understanding the user experience (Gann & Whyte, worker motivation, with workspace elements and thereby with
2003; Leaman & Bordass, 2001; Vischer, 1989, 2005; Zagreus, organisational productivity by measuring environmental support
Huizenga, Arens & Lehrer, 2004). Data yielded by assessment for task performance. The notion of support incorporates not
tools, whether in the context of post-occupancy evaluation, just receiving support from, but also being able to act on the
design and environmental quality indicators, or building-in- environment to achieve a desired, supportive result. The
use assessment, can be analysed both for what they tell us about inverse is also true: where workers’ have to struggle to perform
building use as well as about building performance. These field their tasks because the built environment is problematic, their
tools are a natural outgrowth of early studies on the sociology situation can be characterised as stressful. In situations where
of work, of which a few included the physical setting for workers do not feel supported, and indeed have to make an
work. Of these, the most important, and still salient today, is extra effort to ‘deal’ with environmental barriers or problems
Herzberg’s analysis of factors that influence worker motivation. in order to get their work done, they may lose motivation and
His research established that several key elements of the work experience stress. The definition of workspace stress is the
environment influence worker motivation, and they can be degree to which users have to compensate and expend their
negative, positive or neutral (Herzberg, 1966). Among these own energy performing activities in adverse environmental
elements is the physical environment, which can be either a conditions (Vischer, 2007b). All built environments for
neutral or a negative influence on worker motivation. This work can be placed somewhere on the continuum ranging
implies that if it is supportive of the performance of work, it from completely functionally comfortable to completely
is not noticed. The ‘threshold effect’ means that those work dysfunctional and stressful, using feedback from users at a
conditions that affect motivation can be measured in terms of given point in time.
their propensity to move from a neutral, ‘no effect’ category In their overview of stress related to the physical work
into ‘negative effect’; there is no ‘positive effect’ category. environment, McCoy and Evans (2005) go beyond ergonomics
Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 105

to characterise as stressful those situations where elements of occupants’ work and thereby affect the productivity of the
the physical environment interfere with the attainment of organisation. Structured feedback on ambient conditions can
work objectives. Stressors in the work environment affect also be applied to assessing building systems, and subsequently
employee performance adversely when they are high intensity used to diagnose building problems that are amenable to
or prolonged; they slow down the individual’s ability to process intervention and improvement. However, a clearer distinction
and understand the number and predictability of ‘signals’, which needs to be made between measuring user perceptions and
increase with task complexity. Potential stressors (i.e. elements judgements, and measuring actual behavioural effects that
that interfere with task performance, motivation and social are attributable to physical features. For example, workers’
relationships) include “spatial organisation, architectonic details, perceptions of team workspace (e.g. meeting-rooms and
ambient conditions and resources, and view or visual access worktables) may not be related to whether or not teamwork
from the workspace. As environmental stressors, [these] can behaviour occurs.
influence physiological processes, produce negative affect, limit Productivity has also been measured largely in terms of
motivation and performance, and impede social interaction”. occupants’ self-reports. These are subject to more subjective
These physical stressors in the workplace affect workers’ sense bias than satisfaction ratings, as respondents are being asked to
of control and effectiveness. Physical environmental stressors make an estimate based on their own feelings. However, there
also affect social relationships, as the negative effects of stressor are some studies where more objective productivity indicators
exposure reduce “cooperative behaviors, such as social support, such as reduced illness rates, increased speed and accuracy of
altruistic behaviors, and teamwork” (Evans & Cohen, 1987). task completion, and even rate of new ideas generation, have
Thus in addition to satisfaction, comfort and belonging, been used as measures of environmental effectiveness in terms
the environmental psychology of workspace also includes well of productivity outcomes. A new and little explored outcome
established concepts such as worker motivation and how it is measure concerns the effect of the work environment on the
influenced by the physical setting, and, more recently, the notion creation and transmission of knowledge in organisations (Von
that some measurable amount of stress at work can be attributed Krogh, Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2000). Many companies are
to the design of the physical environment. A comprehensive interested in understanding how knowledge accrues in their
environmental comfort model of workspace quality that organisations and how this process can be optimized. The
incorporates these and other factors is shown in Figure 3.  More concept termed ‘ba’ – an environment that supports and
research is needed to link these concepts together and provide a encourages knowledge creation, not only through the design
solid theoretical framework for advancing knowledge through of the space but also through the structure and operations
future research. of the social and cultural environment – is now a focus of
research. To date, human capital researchers have focused
Conclusions and Directions for Future on developing a better understanding of ba. This offers a
Research new and promising direction for analyzing how features of
While considerable knowledge has accrued from studying the work environment add value to an organisation’s human
various aspects of the environmental psychology of workspace, capital (Nenonen, 2004). Although the concept of ba is only
important gaps remain. The structure and content of this area partly definable in physical terms, it would be useful to learn
of research have given rise to some new and important questions more about how physical settings encourage and support it.
that are fruitful directions for future research. Before exploring In summary, a rich range of measures of worker productivity
these new directions, we will comment on the development of is available, and more diversity is needed to advance this line
this field of knowledge to date with a view to strengthening of inquiry. As these new directions for workspace research
the theoretical framework and lending greater coherence to indicate, worker productivity in the knowledge economy
knowledge already acquired. is less a matter of improving speed and accuracy of routine
By comparing research studies looking at different aspects tasks and increasingly a function of generating new ideas,
of the work environment, the lack of clarity about outcomes being creative, working effectively in teams, and generating
being measured shows that clarification is needed to guide knowledge that adds value to the organisation.
future research. Occupant satisfaction, while offering a broad Finally, the feeling of belonging, as might be measured
and comprehensive measure of environmental quality, is not through territoriality and appropriation of space, needs further
a practical outcome measure for workspace research. While study owing to the important link with employee retention and
occupants’ self-reports provide data on their needs and reducing costly turnover in organisations. More information
preferences, such studies generate little information about what about how and why certain environmental features affect
supports task completion, what adds value to the organisation, employees’ sense of belonging and support constructive
and why owners and managers should invest in workspace appropriation behaviours will help organisations determine
improvement. However, much has been learned about what how and to what degree investment in environmental quality
workers like and dislike in their work environment. will affect both recruitment and retention of their employees.
Functional comfort, as measured through systematic In recent years, as the real estate and construction industry
feedback from users, invites occupants to provide diagnostic shifts its attention to sustainability and the environment,
feedback on specific features of the work environment based researchers have started to look at the interaction between user
on what environmental supports they need to perform their comfort at work and the presence or absence of environmentally
tasks. Decisions to remove, replace or change workspace sustainable features (Heerwagen, 2000; Leaman & Bordass,
features can be based on how well or not they support 2007; Vischer & Prasow, 2008). This direction for future
106 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

study has two possible lines of exploration: the effects of Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open
sustainable building features, such as natural ventilation, office design: A longitudinal study. Environment and Behavior,
water recycling and passive cooling technology on occupants 34(3), 279-299.
and their work; and the behaviour and behavioural changes Brill, M. & Weideman, S. (2001). Disproving Widespread Myths about
needed and expected from occupants as a result of sustainable Workplace Design. Jasper, Ind: Kimball International.
design features in office and other buildings.4 These might Brill, M., Margulis, S.T., Konar, E. & BOSTI in association with
include turning off lights when out of the room, dropping Westinghouse Furniture Systems (1984).  Using Office Design to
blinds on sunny windows to reduce heat gain, and using Increase Productivity, Vols. 1-2. Buffalo, NY:  Workplace Design
public transportation to get to and from work. Anecdotal and Productivity, Inc.
evidence already exists of buildings supplied with innovative CABE (2004). Office Design and Business Performance: Technical
sustainable design features that occupants have either not Report. London, England: D.E.G.W.
wanted or not been able to use. There is also some evidence Cascio, W. (2000). Virtual workplaces: implications for organisational
that giving occupants a more active role and responsibility behavior. In C. Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational
for changing their behaviour in environmentally sustainable Behavior (Vol 6): The Virtual Organization. New York: Wiley.
buildings is a necessary condition for success. Cheng, V., & Ng, E. (2006). Comfort temperatures for naturally
The environmental psychology of workspace is a rich and ventilated buildings in Hong Kong. Architectural Science Review,
diverse field of study that is growing fast. As human beings 49(2), 179-182.
in all parts of the world spend increasing amounts of time Chu, W.T., & Warnock, A.C. (2002). Measurement of Sound
in offices in a wide variety of buildings, the effects of these Propagation in Open Plan Offices. Ottawa: Institute for Research
environments on occupants’ performance, health and morale in Construction, National Research Council of Canada.
urgently needs to be understood. The knowledge yielded by Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.) (2006). Creating the Productive Workplace
research in this field will inform employers’ decisions as well as (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Taylor and Francis.
corporate investments in the work settings they create, and will Craik, K.H. (1966). The Prospects for an Environmental Psychology.
assist and improve the building industry as designers, facilities Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
managers, leasing agents and construction professionals acquire Czikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the
it. Business managers also need to understand more about Making of Meaning. New York: Viking.
how workspace affects their personnel, as companies need Davenport, E. & Bruce, I. (2002). Innovation, knowledge
to become more ‘agile’ and by making ongoing changes to management and the use of space: Questioning assumptions
workspace (Joroff, Porter, Feinberg & Kukla, 2003). Finally, about non-traditional office work. Journal of Information Science,
all indications are that a better understanding of occupant 28(3), 225-230
comfort is a prerequisite for successful sustainability and an Davis, G., & Altman, I. (1976). Territories at the workplace: Theory
effective impact on global warming. and design guidelines. Man-Environment Systems, 6(1), 46-53
Dewulf, G., & Van Meel, J. (2003). Democracy in design? In R. Best,
References C. Langston & G De Valence (Eds), Workplace Strategies and Facilities
Adair, J.G. (1984). The Hawthorne Effect: A reconsideration of the Management: Building In Value. London: Butterworth Heinemann
methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 334-345. Duffy, F. (1997). The New Office. London: Conran Octopus.
Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey, Evans, G.W., & Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. In D.
Calif: Brooks-Cole. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology,
Ayr, U., Cirillo, E., & Martellota, F. (2001). An experimental study Vol. 1 (pp. 571-610). New York: Wiley.
on noise indices in air conditioned offices. Applied Acoustics, Fischer, G-N, Tarquinio, C., & Vischer, J.C. (2004). Effects of the self-
62(6), 633-643. schema on perception of space at work. Journal of Environmental
Becker, F.D. (1981). Workspace: Creating Environments in Psychology, 24(1), 131-140.
Organizations. New York: Praeger. Fischer, G.-N., (1983). Le Travail et son Espace [Work and its Space].
Becker, F., & Kelley, T. (2004). Offices at Work: Uncommon Workspace Paris: Dunod.
Strategies that add Value and Improve Performance. San Francisco: Fischer, G.-N. (1989). Psychologie des Espaces de Travail [The Psychology
Jossey-Bass. of Spaces for Work]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1994). Workplace by Design: Mapping the High Fischer, G.N., & Vischer, J.C. (1998). L’Évaluation des environnements
Performance Workscape. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. de travail: la méthode diagnostique (The evaluation of work
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N.C., Jacobsen, K. & Roos, G. (1999). The environments: Diagnostic method). Montréal: Les Presses de
knowledge toolbox: a review of the tools available to measure l’Université de Montréal and Brussels: De Boek.
and manage intangible resources European Management Journal, Fried Y., Slowik, L.H., Ben-David, H.A., & Tiegs, R.B. (2001).
17(4), 391 – 402. Exploring the relationship between workspace density and
Boyce, P., Veitch, J., Newsham, G., Myer, M., & Hunter, C. (2003). employee attitudinal reactions: An integrative model. Journal of
Lighting Quality and office Work: A Field Simulation Study. Ottawa: Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(3), 259-372.
U.S. Department of Energy and National Research Council of Friedman, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, E. (1978). Environmental Design
Canada. Evaluation. New York: Plenum Press.

4
I am indebted to Cédéanne Simard, masters student at the University of Montreal, for her insight into these two possible directions for
research in this area.
Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 107

Gann, D., & Whyte, J. (2003). Design quality: Its measurement Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.
and management in the built environment. Building Research & Little, B.R. (1968). Psychospecialization: Functions of differential
Information 31(5), 314-317. interests in persons and things. Bulletin of the British Psychological
Hatch, M. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction Society, 21, 113.
activity in research and development firms. Administrative Science Mallory-Hill, S., Van der Voost, T., & Van Dortmont, A. (2005).
Quarterly 32(3), 387-399. Evaluation of innovative workplace design in The Netherlands.
Hedge, A. (1986) Open versus enclosed workspace: the impact of design on In W.F.E. Preiser & J.C. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing Building
employee reactions to their offices. In J.D. Wineman (Ed.), Behavioural Performance. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Issues in Office Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981). Evaluating Built
Hedge, A. (1991). Design innovations in office environments. In W. Environments: A Behavioral Approach. Ann Arbor, MI: University
Preiser, J. Vischer & E. White (Eds), Design Intervention: Toward A of Michigan, Institute for Social Research and Architectural
More Humane Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Research Laboratory.
Hedge, A. (2000). Where are we in understanding the effects of where McCoy, J.M., & Evans, G.W. (2005). Physical work environment. In
we are? Ergonomics 43(7), 1019-1029. J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway & M.R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of Work
Heerwagen, J. (2000). Green buildings, organizational success and occupant Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
productivity Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), 353-367. McCusker, J.A. (2002). Individuals and open space office design: The
Heerwagen, J., Kampschroer, K. Powell, K., & Loftness, V. (2004). relationship between personality and satisfaction in an open space
Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research work environment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B:
and Information, 32(6), 510-528). The Sciences & Engineering, 63(2-B), August.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Miles, A.K. (2000) The Ergonomics and Organizational Stress
Publishing Co. Relationship PhD thesis, Florida State University School of
Horgen, T., Joroff, M., Porter, W., & Schon, D. (1999). Excellence by Business, micro. 9994574.
Design. New York: Wiley. Mital, A., McGlothlin, J.D., & Faard, H.F. (1992). Noise in multiple
Humphries, M. (2005). Quantifying occupant comfort: Are combined workstation open-plan computer rooms: Measurements and
indices of the indoor environment practicable? Building Research annoyance. Journal of Human Ergology, 21, 69-82.
and Information, 33(4), 317-325. Moore, G.T. (1980). Holism, environmentalism and the systems
Ilozor, B.D., Love, P.E.D., & Treloar, G. (2002). The impact of work approach. Man-Environment Systems 10(1), 11-21.
settings on organizational performance measures in built facilities. Moos, R.H. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environment.
Facilities, 20(1-2), 61-67 American Psychologist, 28, 652-655.
Joroff, M., Porter, W., Feinberg, B., & Kukla, C. (2003). The agile Nenonen, S. (2004). Analysing the intangible benefits of work space.
workplace. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 5(4), 293-311. Facilities, 22(9-10), 233-239.
Kampschroer, K., & Heerwagen, J. (2005). The strategic workplace: Newsham, G. (1997). Cost-effective open plan environments (COPE):
Development and evaluation. Building Research and Information, A new research initiative. Construction Innovation, 3(1), 32-34.
33(4), 326-337. Newsham, G., Veitch, J., Arsenault, C., & Duval, C. (2004). Effect
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity of dimming control on office worker satisfaction and performance
and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books. (NRCC-47069). Ottawa: National Research Council Canada.
Klitzman, S., & Stellman, J, (1989). The impact of the physical Niemala, R., Rautio, S., Hannula, M., & Reijula, K. (2002). Work
environment on the psychological well-being of office workers. environment effects on labor productivity: An intervention study
Social Science of Medicine, 29(6), 733-742. in a storage building. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
Kupritz, V.W. (1998). Privacy in the workplace: The impact of building 42(4), 328-335.
design. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 341-356. Odemis, K., Yener, C., & Camgoz, N. (2004). Effects of different
Lai, J., Levas, A., Chou, P., Pinhanez, C., & Viveros, M. (2002). lighting types on visual performance. Architectural Science Review,
Bluespace: Personalizing workspace through awareness and 47(3), 295-301.
adaptability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Oldham, G.R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions
57(5), 415-428. and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment.
Lawton, M.P. (1980). Environment and Aging. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 253-258.
Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2007). Are users more tolerant of green Ornstein, S.W. (1999). A post-occupancy evaluation of workplaces in
buildings? Building Research and Information, 35(6), 662-673. Sao Paolo, Brazil. Environment and Behavior, 31(4), 435-462
Leaman, A., & Bordass, W. (1998). Probe 15: Productivity in Ornstein, S.W., Andrade, C.M., & Coelho Leite, B.C. (2005). Assessing
buildings, the killer variables. Building Services, June, 41-43. Brazilian workplace performance. In W.F.E. Preiser & J.C. Vischer
Leaman, A., & Bordass, W. (2001) Assessing building performance in (Eds.), Assessing Building Performance. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
use: The Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Building Oseland, N. (1999). Environmental Factors Affecting Office Workers’
Research and Information, 29(2), 129-143. Performance: A Review of Evidence. CIBSE Technical Memorandum
Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., & Lawrence, C. (1998). Windows TM24. Paris: CIBSE.
in the workplace: Sunlight, view and occupational stress. Ozturk, L.D. (2003). The effect of luminance distribution on interior
Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 739-762. perception. Architectural Science Review, 46(3), 233-238.
Lee, S.Y., & Brand, J. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace Perin, C. (1970). With Man in Mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. Preiser, W.F.E., & Vischer, J.C. (Eds.) (2005). Assessing Building
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 323-333. Performance. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
108 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

Rishi, P. Sinha, S.P., & Dubey, R. (2000). A correlational study of Veitch, J.A., & Newsham, G.R. (2000). Exercised control, lighting
workplace characteristics and work satisfaction among Indian choices, and energy use: An office simulation experiment. Journal
bank employees. Psychologia, 43(3), 155-164. of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 219-237.
Rowe, D. (2004). Thermal comfort in a naturally ventilated Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Newsham, G.R., Marquardt, C.J.G., &
environment with supplementary cooling and heating. Geerts, J. (2004). Workstation characteristics and environmental
Architectural Science Review, 47(2), 131-140 satisfaction in open-plan offices: COPE field findings (NRCC-
Seiler, J. (1984). Architecture at work. Harvard Business Review, 62(5), 111-120. 47629). Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council.
Selye, H. (1979). The stress concept and some of its implications. In V. Verderber, S., & Reuman, D. (1988). Windows, views and health
Hamilton & D.M. Warburton (Eds.), Human Stress and Cognition: status in hospital therapeutic environments. Journal of Architectural
An Information-Processing Approach (pp. 11-32). London: Wiley, and Planning Research, 4(2), 120-133.
Somat, A., Tarquinio, C., & Dufresne, D. (1999). Chômeurs et Vischer, J.C. (1989). Environmental Quality in Offices. New York:
travailleurs: Même schémas [Jobless and working: Same self- Van Nostrand Reinhold.
schema?]. In E. Brangier, N. Dubois & C. Tarquinio. (Eds), Vischer, J.C. (1996). Workspace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for
Approche Psychosociale des Compétences (Psychosocial Approach to Work. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Competencies). Rennes : Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Vischer, J.C. (1999). Can this open space work? Harvard Business
Sommer, R., & Steiner, K. (1988). Office politics in a state legislature. Review, 77(3), 28-40.
Environment and Behavior, 20(5), 550-575. Vischer, J.C. (2005). Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace
Springer, T. (1986). Improving Productivity in the Workplace: Reports Performance. Oxford, England: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.
from the Field. St. Charles, Illinois; Springer Associates. Vischer, J.C. (2006). The concept of workplace performance and its
Stallworth, O.E., & Kleiner, B.H. (1996). Recent developments in value to managers. California Management Review, 49(2), 62-79
office design. Facilities, 14(12), 34-42. Vischer, J.C. (2007a). Revaluing construction: A building users’
Steele, F. (1973). Physical Settings and Organizational Development. perspective. In P. Barrett (Ed.), Revaluing Construction. Oxford,
Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. England: Blackwell.
Steele, F. (1986). Making and Managing High Quality Workplaces: An Vischer, J.C. (2007b). The effects of the physical environmental on
Organizational Ecology. New York: Teachers College Press. work performance: Towards a model of workspace stress. Stress
Stephenson, K. (1998). What knowledge tears apart, networks make and Health, 23(3), 175-184.
whole. Internal Communication Focus, 36 (available at www. Vischer, J.C. (2008). Towards a user-centred theory of the built
netform.com/html/icf.pdf, accessed 31 March 2008). environment. Building Research and Information, 36(3), 231-240
Sternberg, E.M. (2001). The Balance Within: The Science Connecting Vischer, J.C., & Fischer, G.N. (2005). User evaluation of the work
Health and Emotions. New York: Henry Holt. environment: A diagnostic approach. Le Travail Humain (Human
Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Work), 68(1), 73.
Psychology, 29, 253-295. Vischer, J.C., & Prasow, S. (2008 in press). Designing Performing
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy Workspace Now and for the Future. Toronto: Teknion Furniture
environments. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6-22. Systems.
Stokols, D., & Scharf, F. (1990). Developing standardized tools for Vischer, J.C., McCuaig, A., Nadeau, N., Melillo, M., & Castonguay-
measuring employees’ rating of facility performance. In G. Davis & Vien, S. (2003). Mission impossible ou mission accomplie?
F.T. Ventre (Eds.), Performance of Building and Serviceability of Facilities. Résultats d’une étude d’évaluation du mobilier universel
Philadelphia, PA American Society for Testing and Materials. dans les édifices à bureau [Mission impossible or mission
Sullivan, C. (1990). Employee comfort, satisfaction and productivity: accomplished? Results of an evaluation of universal planning in
Recent efforts at Aetna. In P. Souter, G.H. Durnoff & J.B. Smith offices]. Unpublished final report, Groupe de recherche sur les
(Eds.), Promoting Health and Productivity in the Computerized environnements de travail, Université de Montréal, Montreal.
Office. London: Taylor and Francis. Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (Eds.) (2000). Knowledge
Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M.G. (1986). Work Places: The Creation: A Source of Value. New York: St. Martins Press.
Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories. Walden, R. (2005). Assessing the performance of offices of the
New York: Cambridge University Press. future. In W.F.E. Preiser & J.C. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing Building
Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R.K., & Brown, D.W. (1982). Privacy and Performance. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
communication in an open plan office. Environment and Behavior, Wells, M., & Thelen, L. (2002). What does your workspace say
14(3), 379-392. about you? The influence of personality, status and workspace on
Sundstrom, E., Town, J., Brown, D., Forman, A., & McGee, C. personalization. Environment and Behavior 34(3), 300-321.
(1982). Physical enclosure, type of job, and privacy in the office. Windsor, A. (2005). User satisfaction surveys in Israel. In W.F.E.
Environment and Behavior, 14(5), 543-559. Preiser & J.C. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing Building Performance.
Thiel, P. (1997). People, Paths and Purposes. Seattle, WA: University Oxford, England: Elsevier.
of Washington Press. Wineman, J. (Ed.) (1986). Behavioral Issues in Office Design. New
Tu, K.J., & Loftness, V. (1998). The effects of organizational workplace York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
dynamics and building infrastructure flexibility on environmental and Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C., Arens, E., & Lehrer, D. (2004). Listening
technical quality in offices. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 1(1), 46-63. to the occupants: Web-based indoor environmental quality survey.
Ulrich, R. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and Indoor Air, 14(suppl.8), 65-74.
recent scientific research. Journal of Healthcare Design, 3, 87-
109.