1. Introduction
The built environment plays a significant role in shaping the health, well-being, and productivity of its occupants. In recent years, biophilic design, which emphasizes the connection between people and nature, has gained increasing attention as a promising approach to addressing Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) issues in built spaces. Key IEQ factors, such as air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, and visual connection, are known to directly impact occupant health and well-being [1]. Biophilic design offers solutions to these challenges by incorporating design strategies such as natural lighting, materials, ventilation, and views of nature. These elements help improve air quality, regulate temperature, reduce noise levels, and promote human health [2]. The integration of biophilic features has been shown to enhance occupant well-being and productivity. Research consistently shows that this design approach offers numerous benefits, including improved mental health, reduced stress levels, and increased job satisfaction [3]. Businesses and organizations are adopting biophilic design principles to boost employee satisfaction, creativity, and overall performance [4]. Strategies to achieve these benefits include the use of natural light, ventilation, and materials, as well as the incorporation of living plants, water features, and visual connections to the outdoors [5]. This shift towards biophilic design represents an evolution in architectural practice, emphasizing human-centric spaces that enhance both individual well-being and organizational outcomes. Biophilic design also aligns with sustainability principles, promoting resource efficiency, biodiversity conservation, and ecological resilience. Cities worldwide are integrating biophilic elements into their urban fabric, such as green roofs, urban parks, and green infrastructure, to create more livable and sustainable environments [6]. Terrapin Bright Green, a sustainability consulting firm founded by Bill Browning, Bob Fox, and Chris Garvin, has been at the forefront of promoting biophilic design principles. In their 2014 seminal work, “14 Patterns of Biophilic Design”, Browning, Ryan, and Clancy identify design patterns inspired by nature that can be integrated into built environments to enhance Indoor Environmental Quality and human well-being. These patterns include strategies such as incorporating natural light, views of nature, and natural materials, as well as creating spaces that evoke the feeling of being in nature and enhance human health.
The aim of this paper is to examine how biophilic design strategies, specifically Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, impact occupant satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors within a museum context. This research specifically investigates the integration of biophilic design frameworks at the James F. Bell Museum in St. Paul, Minnesota, with a focus on their effects on IEQ, occupant satisfaction, work performance, and health. The objectives of this study are to (1) investigate the integration of biophilic design strategies at the Bell Museum and (2) assess biophilic design strategies’ impact on IEQ, occupant satisfaction, work performance, and health. The Bell Museum was selected as a case study due to its innovative design, which incorporates several biophilic strategies, offering an ideal setting to explore how these elements can improve occupant experiences and enhance both environmental quality and human health in a public institution. This study aims to fill a gap in the literature by examining biophilic design in public buildings, particularly museums, which have not been extensively studied in this context. Furthermore, using the Sustainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey (SPOES), the study assesses employee perceptions of their health, well-being, and work performance in relation to the built environment.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Defining Biophilia and Biophilic Design
The term biophilia was first introduced by social psychologist Erich Fromm in the 1970s, defining it as a ‘passionate love of life and all that is alive’ [7]. Biologist Edward O. Wilson later expanded this concept in 1984, describing biophilia as an innate human tendency to connect with life and natural processes, rooted in evolution. Derived from the Greek words bios (life) and philia (love), biophilia reflects the psychological, emotional, and physiological benefits of interacting with nature. Wilson’s hypothesis suggests that the human–nature bond is biologically ingrained in human genetics. He emphasized that this connection is a fundamental human need and is essential for well-being, rather than a cultural or personal preference [8]. As urbanization intensified in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, a growing disconnect emerged between human-made environments and the biological need for connection with living systems [9]. This gap prompted the development of biophilic design, a concept aimed at integrating natural elements into architectural spaces to address this fundamental human requirement [10]. Several biophilic design frameworks have been proposed. Early frameworks, such as Heerwagen and Hase’s Characteristics of Biophilic Buildings (2001), identified essential features of biophilic environments, setting the foundation for later advancements. Stephen Kellert further refined these ideas in Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life (2008), where he formalized the definition of biophilic design theory and introduced two core dimensions: the naturalistic, rooted in the Paleolithic era, and the vernacular, emerging after the Neolithic era. Kellert also linked these dimensions to 72 characteristics, which have since been integrated into systems like the Living Building Challenge and building certification systems [11,12,13]. In Nature by Design (2018), Kellert categorized biophilic design into three distinct areas—Direct Experience of Nature, Indirect Experience of Nature, and Experience of Space and Place—offering a structured methodology for implementation. Building on this foundation, Terrapin Bright Green introduced 14 biophilic design patterns, providing a scientifically grounded and practical framework for architects and designers. Their approach emphasizes the application of evidence-based patterns rooted in environmental psychology to create restorative and health-promoting environments. Together, these frameworks underscore the evolution of biophilic design as a critical response to the challenges posed by urbanization and the need to reconnect people with nature.
2.2. Biophilia and Human Reactions
Over the past three decades, the concept of biophilia has been extensively studied, particularly within the field of environmental psychology [14]. Supporting this notion, Attention Restoration Theory (ART) [15] and Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) propose that natural environments offer aesthetic and restorative benefits [16,17]. This connection explains why natural landscapes are consistently preferred over urban environments [18]. Even in artificial or built environments, design elements referencing nature tend to elicit positive responses, reflecting an innate human affinity for natural characteristics [19]. While strong evidence supports these positive associations with certain natural features, some may also provoke negative reactions. The extent to which genetics influences these responses remains a subject of ongoing debate [20]. Despite these complexities, humans appear to have an innate emotional bond with specific natural elements [21]. Roger Ulrich’s 1984 study found that patients recovering from gallbladder surgery healed faster with a view of trees, requiring less care and experiencing lower stress compared to those with a view of a brick wall. Further research, including a study with cardiac patients in Sweden, showed that those exposed to nature images before or after heart surgery experienced lower blood pressure and reduced heart rate [22]. Bright daylight has been found to regulate circadian rhythms and support neurological health [23]. Additionally, human sensory systems respond positively to natural colors, which influence emotional processing in the brain. The hues of plants, animals, and geological features shape human perception and emotional experiences of the environment [24]. The health benefits of nature go beyond views of nature or images. Patterns and biomorphic forms play a key role in enhancing well-being [25]. Nikos Salingaros argues that human sensory systems are attuned to natural geometries, which contribute to cognitive restoration [26]. Neuroscientific evidence shows that natural elements such as organic shapes and fractal patterns affect brain activity [27,28]. These shapes, often found in nature (e.g., trees or mountain ranges), are linked to cognitive restoration and better information processing [29,30]. Specific fractal dimensions, especially between 1.3 and 1.5, help reduce stress and improve brain function [31,32]. Symmetry also plays a crucial role in human well-being by aiding spatial navigation and enhancing aesthetic enjoyment and comfort [33,34]. This principle is evident in historical architectural styles, such as Gothic architecture and the columns of ancient Greece, which feature intricate fractal patterns. Fundamentally, biophilic design elements positively impact human well-being by reducing stress, enhancing cognitive function, and contributing to a healthier environment.
2.3. Indoor Environmental Quality
Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) refers to the indoor environment within a building and its impact on the health, comfort, and productivity of its occupants. It encompasses factors such as air quality, ventilation, lighting, temperature, acoustics, and overall space design [35]. Early studies established the connection between the physical environment and human health and performance. Existing research demonstrates that the internal conditions of buildings influence occupants’ comfort, which in turn affects their health and well-being [36,37]. Poor IEQ has been linked to a range of health problems, including respiratory issues, headaches, fatigue, and heightened stress levels [38,39]. It can also lead to decreased cognitive function, diminished concentration, and lower productivity [40]. For instance, inadequate air quality can contribute to the buildup of harmful pollutants, which can have direct consequences for respiratory health and overall comfort [41,42]. Similarly, poor lighting and acoustics can affect mood, energy levels, and health, thus impeding the ability to perform tasks effectively [43,44]. On the other hand, research has consistently shown that optimal IEQ plays a key role in supporting the health and performance of building occupants [45]. Research specifically shows that thermal comfort, indoor air quality (IAQ), and visual comfort are critical factors impacting occupant productivity, health, and comfort in indoor environments [46]. Thermal comfort, influenced by both physiological and psychological factors, is linked to enhanced productivity and satisfaction, particularly in task-focused environments [47]. Proper IAQ, achieved through adequate ventilation, helps reduce symptoms of sick building syndrome and boosts performance [48]. Visual comfort, influenced by lighting quality, daylight access, and outdoor views, enhances mental health and occupant satisfaction [49]. Daylight, in particular, is especially beneficial, as it promotes positive moods, supports energy efficiency, and contributes to sustainability [50]. The integration of optimal IEQ factors is essential for fostering environments that enhance both the well-being and performance of building occupants.
The relationship between biophilic design and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) stems from their shared objective of enhancing occupant well-being, health and productivity. By integrating natural elements like greenery and daylight, biophilic design improves key IEQ factors, such as air quality and natural light, fostering environments that support both physical and mental health. These strategies provide a means to enhance IEQ through thoughtful architectural and interior interventions [51]. Indoor plants, for instance, not only improve indoor air quality by reducing indoor pollutants like volatile organic compounds (VOCs) but also help create a healthier work environment [52,53]. Furthermore, access to natural views, either through windows or within the space, has been linked to a reduction in stress and anxiety, which in turn enhances mood and overall satisfaction in workspaces [54,55,56]. Similarly, daylighting strategies—such as the use of skylights and large windows—have been shown to regulate circadian rhythms, leading to improved mood and productivity [57]. Strategies like using natural materials, incorporating plants, enhancing ventilation, and maximizing natural light are linked to specific biophilic patterns, including Visual and Non-Visual Connection with Nature, Thermal and Airflow Variability, and Dynamic and Diffused Light. The effectiveness of biophilic design in improving IEQ and occupant well-being is also reflected in recent workplace studies. Research shows that the use of natural materials like green walls and wooden surfaces has been linked to reduced noise pollution, improved acoustic comfort, and better thermal regulation [58,59]. These features have been shown to enhance focus, employee satisfaction and productivity. Given the benefits of biophilic design, other researchers have concluded that it is an affordable strategy to enhance various factors of Indoor Environmental Quality [60]. Therefore, biophilic design is recognized as a popular method for improving health and well-being in workplaces today. As public spaces and educational institutions increasingly recognize the importance of occupant well-being, biophilic design is often considered a promising approach for improving health and performance. The Bell Museum in St. Paul, Minnesota, provides a relevant case study to explore how biophilic design can influence Indoor Environmental Quality and occupant satisfaction in such environments.
2.4. Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design
Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design offer a structured approach to integrating natural elements into built environments, aiming to enhance well-being and environmental quality. These patterns serve as valuable tools, supported by relevant concepts and research, to guide designers in creating spaces that foster occupant health and satisfaction. The importance of this approach lies in its ability to connect research with practical implementation, providing a comprehensive view of biophilic design’s benefits, backed by evidence of its positive impact. The 14 patterns help designers address key variables that contribute to the successful integration of biophilia in built environments. Each of the 14 patterns emphasizes the health benefits associated with biophilic design, focusing on how they influence factors such as stress reduction, cognitive function, emotional well-being, and overall performance. These patterns are categorized into three main themes: Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the Space. Nature in the Space patterns focus on direct physical connections with nature, such as visual connections, water presence, and dynamic and diffuse light, known to improve mood and circadian rhythms. Natural Analogues involve the use of natural materials and biomorphic forms like wood and stone, creating a calming and aesthetically pleasing atmosphere [61]. Nature of the Space patterns address spatial configurations that mimic natural settings, including flowing spaces and areas of refuge and contemplation, supporting diverse interactions and environmental experiences (see Table 1, The 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design).
The positive impact of these biophilic design patterns in workspaces is well documented. For example, natural light and visual connections to nature have been shown to improve occupant satisfaction, reduce eyestrain, enhance mood, and boost cognitive function [62]. Researchers conducted experiments to assess how greenery and daylight influence employee well-being and performance [63]. Studies also show that natural light in workspaces increases productivity and reduces absenteeism [64]. Natural ventilation and plant integration contribute to improved indoor air quality and thermal comfort [65]. Collectively, these studies show that the integration of biophilic design patterns not only enhances the aesthetic and emotional appeal of spaces but also contributes to improving IEQ, fostering environments that support occupant health and overall well-being. Moreover, these specific biophilic design strategies align with sustainability principles by incorporating eco-friendly materials and promoting energy efficiency [66]. Research by the World Green Building Council (2019) emphasizes that integrating natural elements not only improves health outcomes but also leads to more sustainable building practices, reducing environmental impacts over time. The application of these patterns demonstrates how biophilic design can transform indoor spaces, enhancing both occupant well-being and efficiency while supporting sustainability goals.
2.5. Post-Occupancy Evaluation
Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a process used to assess the performance of a building after it has been occupied. It evaluates design features such as energy use, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), occupant satisfaction, and productivity under real-world conditions [67]. POE is an essential tool for improving building design, allowing architects to assess functional and behavioral aspects, while building services engineers focus on energy audits and technical evaluations. Organizations benefit from POE by ensuring their workspaces support employee well-being, which may lead to higher productivity [68]. The evaluation employs both qualitative and quantitative methods, including surveys, interviews, and performance data analysis, to assess factors such as thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, and indoor air quality. The feedback gathered helps refine design practices and ensures buildings meet user needs. POE also identifies design flaws and informs future improvements for enhanced occupant experiences [69].
Despite its wide application, few studies have used POE in museum settings. A recent investigation into design quality and visitor satisfaction at the Jordan Museum in 2023 utilized POE to assess how effectively the museum’s design supports the visitor experience. The findings indicated that the museum’s design was generally rated highly, with particular praise for the permanent galleries. Visitors were satisfied with both the interior and exterior finishes [70]. Another study applied POE to evaluate space utilization at cultural heritage sites in Wuhan’s historical districts, China. The research developed a comprehensive evaluation index system, focusing on elements such as historical context preservation, environmental quality improvement, infrastructure development, achievement of educational goals, participation in children’s activities, and sustainable development. The findings emphasized that rational utilization of cultural heritage spaces significantly enhances the educational experience and promotes the transmission of cultural heritage [71]. In Malaysia, a study of the National Museum and Perak Museum explored staff and visitor perceptions of Indoor Environmental Quality and symptoms of sick building syndrome (SBS). POE was used to assess thermal comfort, lighting, and air quality in these historical buildings, revealing noticeable SBS symptoms, such as discomfort in the nose, eyes, throat, skin, and breathing, highlighting the need for improvements in indoor environmental performance and energy efficiency to maintain comfort in historical museums [72]. In the case of the Bell Museum, the Sustainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey (SPOES) was used. SPOES was developed by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at the College of Design and the Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) at the University of Minnesota. The tool assesses occupant well-being in offices, residence halls, and classroom buildings that receive state funding in Minnesota. The SPOES questionnaire is designed to measure the relationship between Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) attributes and occupant satisfaction, performance, and comfort. The questionnaire has been tested since 2009 in over 60 offices, residence halls, and classroom buildings in Minnesota [73].
3. Materials and Methods
The methodology for this study focuses on examining the integration of Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design at the Bell Museum in St. Paul, Minnesota, and evaluating the impact of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) on occupant satisfaction, work performance, and health. The Bell Museum was selected as the study site due to its thoughtful incorporation of biophilic design elements, sustainable principles and its focus on promoting occupant well-being.
3.1. An Overview of the Bell Museum
The James F. Bell Museum of Natural History, founded in 1872 as the Minnesota State Museum of Natural History, originally housed its collections in a single room. Affiliated with the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences (CFANS) at the University of Minnesota, the museum has grown significantly over time. The original Art Deco building featured geometric forms, streamlined shapes, and minimal ornamentation, with an asymmetrical entrance and bas-relief detailing. Materials such as Buff Bedford Indiana Limestone, stainless steel, marble, and terrazzo reinforced its aesthetic [74]. As the collection grew, the museum moved to a larger, more accessible 12-acre site on the St. Paul campus. In 2018, the museum underwent a transformation with a new facility. The new modern 92,404 square-foot building features expansive glass façades, natural light, and ventilation, offering views of the surrounding landscape to connect occupants with nature. The design includes interactive exhibits, outdoor spaces, and a pollinator garden. The museum was honored with the AIA Minnesota Honor Award for its architectural and landscape design [75] (see Figure 1, the Bell Museum floor plan).
Bell Museum and the Application of Terrapin’s Biophilic Patterns
The Bell Museum’s design incorporates some key biophilic principles, aligning with the Terrapin 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design to foster a deeper connection between visitors and the natural world. Notable features include expansive windows and bird-safe glazing patterns, providing ample natural light and expansive views of the surrounding landscape. These elements can help to reduce stress, improve mood, and enhance cognitive function, while also promoting energy efficiency by minimizing solar heat gain. The museum’s open layout, use of sustainable materials such as local wood and stone, and incorporation of green roofs and outdoor learning spaces further support the design’s commitment to environmental stewardship (see Figure 2 and Figure 3, for an exterior view of the Bell Museum).
-
-. Dynamic & Diffuse Light (Terrapin Pattern 6)/Natural Light (Terrapin Pattern 7):
The Bell Museum employs extensive use of natural light through large windows, skylights, and glass walls, reducing the need for artificial lighting and providing visitors with a connection to the natural daylight cycle, which can enhance mood and circadian rhythms. The strategic placement of large windows and skylights ensures a mix of dynamic and diffuse natural lighting throughout the museum, creating a pleasant and engaging atmosphere. Additionally, the interior spaces utilize photovoltaic panels and LED lighting, ensuring that the new Bell Museum meets the Minnesota B3 Standards, equivalent to LEED Gold certification (see Figure 4, the Bell Museum lobby with maximum natural light and bird-safe glazing).
-
-. Visual Connection with Nature (Terrapin Pattern 1):
The Bell Museum incorporates large windows and extensive glass façades, allowing natural light to flood the interior while offering expansive views of the surrounding landscape and outdoor gardens. Interior spaces are meticulously designed to establish both physical and visual connections with the natural surroundings. This intentional blending of the building with its environment blurs the boundary between the built structure and nature, fostering a sense of openness and harmony. These architectural features not only facilitate direct engagement with nature but also improve air quality and provide educational opportunities about local flora and fauna (see Figure 5 and Figure 6, the Bell Museum with maximum visual and physical connection to nature).
-
-. Material Connection with Nature (Terrapin Pattern 9)/Sustainable Materials:
The use of local, natural materials in the museum’s interior and exterior spaces fosters a tangible connection to the natural environment. Wood, stone, and other natural elements are prominently featured, creating a tactile and visually pleasing atmosphere that reflects the natural world. Sustainability is a key theme throughout the museum’s design, encompassing the exterior, site, and integrated systems. Local materials, such as Eastern white cedar and thermally modified white pine, play a crucial role in conveying the Bell Museum’s commitment to environmental friendliness. This approach not only enhances the museum’s aesthetic appeal but also aligns with broader sustainability objectives, reinforcing the museum’s commitment to environmental responsibility (see Figure 7 and Figure 8, the Bell Museum featuring locally sourced natural materials).
-
-. Refuge (Terrapin Pattern 12)/Spatial Configuration:
The museum’s architectural design integrates open, flowing spaces that reflect natural landscapes, alongside secluded areas that offer refuge and opportunities for contemplation. This spatial variety enhances the visitor experience by supporting diverse interactions with the environment, facilitating both social engagement and personal introspection (see Figure 9, the Bell Museum’s spatial configuration).
Based on the examination, the Bell Museum integrates a few of the biophilic design patterns outlined in the Terrapin 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, including Visual Connection with Nature, Dynamic & Diffuse Light, Connection with Natural Systems, Material Connection with Nature, and Refuge. These patterns contribute to the integration of natural elements, enhancing the building’s sustainability and functionality, as well as the well-being of its occupants. However, certain biophilic patterns, such as Biomorphic Forms & Patterns, Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli, Thermal & Airflow Variability, and others, are not incorporated into the museum’s design (see Table 2, the Bell Museum’s application of Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design).
3.2. B3 IEQ Guidelines and Post-Occupancy Evaluation Data
Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), a critical aspect of healthy buildings. Studies show that a healthy building positively impacts the well-being and comfort of its occupants across its lifecycle, addressing social needs and enhancing productivity [76]. As a state-funded project, the museum complied with the B3 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Guidelines, as mandated for sustainability in Minnesota’s public buildings. The B3 (Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines) are a set of criteria developed to improve the sustainability of new and renovated buildings in Minnesota [77]. These guidelines aim to enhance the human, environmental, economic, and social performance of buildings throughout their lifecycle and are mandatory for all state-funded projects in Minnesota, ensuring that public buildings meet high standards for sustainability and energy efficiency. The guidelines emphasize factors such as air quality, thermal comfort, and lighting, all crucial for occupant well-being and productivity. The questionnaire used in this study was designed to gather comprehensive feedback from employees about various aspects of the Bell Museum’s workspaces and overall facility. Initially, participants rated their satisfaction with the facility, including the site, building, and interior, and the influence of their physical environment on their work performance and health. They also responded to questions related to their satisfaction with their primary workspaces concerning Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) criteria derived from the B3 Guidelines. Additionally, the questionnaire collected demographic, physical activity, and commuting practice data to contextualize the study (see Table 3, the B3 Indoor Environmental Quality Guidelines.
3.2.1. Participants and Design Interventions
A Sustainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey (SPOES) was conducted in May 2019 among Bell Museum employees to assess satisfaction levels with Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) within their workspaces. Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a method used to gather feedback on a building’s performance, covering aspects like energy efficiency, IEQ, and occupant satisfaction and performance. The Bell Museum’s design prioritized enhancing employee well-being through the integration of natural light, access to nature, and ergonomic features. Emphasis was placed on IEQ, ensuring optimal air quality, temperature control, acoustics, and lighting to create a healthy and productive workspace. The design also encouraged collaboration and supported individual work through adaptable spaces, while sustainability was central, reducing the building’s environmental impact. Aligned with B3 guidelines, the survey explored various aspects, including acoustic conditions, thermal comfort adjustability, and overall indoor air quality, providing insights into how these factors influence employee satisfaction, health, and work performance. The survey included 138 employees with workspaces in the facility and achieved a response rate exceeding 60%. Among the participants, 73% identified as female, 22% as male, and 5% chose “other” with a mean age of 27 years. Employees’ participation was voluntary, and responses are self-reported. The facility features diverse workspaces, including private offices, shared enclosed offices, open cubicles, and desks in public areas. Over 75% of employees indicated their primary workspace was located within 15 feet of an exterior window, emphasizing natural light accessibility as a key environmental factor. The diversity in workspace types and time spent within these environments provides robust data on employee exposure to IEQ conditions, contributing to actionable insights for improving workplace environments.
3.2.2. Overview of Questionnaire and Rating Scale
The Sustainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey (SPOES) is an internet-based, self-administered tool designed to assess employees’ perceptions of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in facilities [78]. It evaluates satisfaction levels across various criteria and the influence of the physical environment on employees’ work performance and health. Validated for accuracy and reliability, the survey allows employees to rate their satisfaction levels with various IEQ aspects of the facility and their primary workspaces using a Likert-type scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). For instance, workplace satisfaction is assessed through questions such as: “how satisfied are you with the amount of daylighting in your workspace?” and “how satisfied are you with the overall view conditions in your workspace?” Thermal comfort is evaluated using statements like: “how satisfied are you with the adjustability of the temperature in your workspace?” Similarly, air quality and task lighting quality are assessed through targeted questions designed to capture specific aspects of the workspace environment. Scores are interpreted as follows: 1.00–3.50 indicate dissatisfaction or hindered performance, 3.51–4.50 represent neutrality, and 4.51–7.00 signify satisfaction or enhanced performance. Additionally, participants assess how their physical environment influences their perception of work performance and health, using scale from 1 (hindered) to 7 (enhanced). Results are summarized descriptively with means, standard deviations, and response counts for each question, offering a comprehensive picture of employee perceptions. The survey also calculates an IEQ Satisfaction Score based on 12 category-level criteria, excluding attribute-level data to ensure consistent weighting. The questionnaire is structured to gather information on employee satisfaction with the facility’s site, building, and interior. It evaluates 26 IEQ criteria, categorized into 12 broad categories like overall acoustic quality and thermal conditions, and 14 specific attributes, such as adjustability of lighting or temperature. Open-ended were included to allow employees to offer more detailed feedback, raise specific concerns, and suggest improvements (see Table 4, Participants’ Demographic Information).
4. Results
4.1. Quantitative Data
Employees reported high satisfaction levels (M = 6.29) with the physical environment of the Bell Museum facility, including its (site, building, and interior), positive impact on work performance (M = 5.89) and improved overall health (M = 5.35). Similarly, employees reported high satisfaction with their primary workspaces (e.g., private offices, shared offices) (M = 5.38), enhanced work performance (M = 5.14), and improved health (M = 4.89). Employees expressed satisfaction with 24 out of 26 IEQ criteria in their primary workspaces, achieving mean scores of 4.50 or higher. Satisfaction varied, ranging from a high of 6.11 for overall cleaning and maintenance to a low of 4.60 for the ability to control undesired sounds. The highest satisfaction means were observed in categories including overall cleaning and maintenance, indoor air quality, vibration and movement, appearance (aesthetics), daylighting conditions, electric lighting conditions, and technology, all scoring 5.62 or higher, indicating a moderately high level of satisfaction. In contrast, lower satisfaction levels of around 4.41 and 4.32 were noted for overall privacy (sound and visual) and adjustability of thermal conditions, respectively, reflecting a neutral sentiment in these areas. Table 5 presents the mean ratings and standard deviations of these responses, sorted from highest to lowest, along with interpretations of these ratings.
4.2. Qualitative Data
The qualitative responses from the survey provide a deeper understanding of the daily experiences of the museum’s occupants, complementing the quantitative data. Several themes emerged from the open-ended responses, highlighting both positive and negative aspects of the workplace environment. Many employees appreciated the natural light and modern aesthetics of the building, which contributed to a generally pleasant and comfortable atmosphere. For instance, one respondent remarked, ‘I appreciate all the natural light that comes in’. However, concerns about acoustics and privacy were common, with several respondents noting that ‘conversations carry from across the office space which can be distracting at times even with headphones’. Issues with thermal comfort were also frequently mentioned, with one employee commenting, ‘The temperature along the workbench areas seems to trend cold. Many of us have blankets at our desk’. Comments on amenities and furnishings revealed a desire for more storage and workspace, as well as better task lighting and ergonomic furniture options. Another respondent highlighted, ‘As our spaces are already small, I am not sure that I will then have enough space for my desk items when we add lamps [too dark without task lighting]’. Additionally, while some employees praised the cleanliness and maintenance of the facility, others pointed out that certain areas, like the student staff room, were neglected and in need of improvement. These qualitative insights emphasize the complex nature of workplace satisfaction and highlight areas for potential improvement to further enhance the well-being and productivity of the museum’s staff.
5. Discussion
This study investigates the integration of biophilic design strategies at the Bell Museum and examines their impact on Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), focusing on occupant satisfaction, work performance, and health. The findings suggest that incorporating certain biophilic design strategies can contribute to the creation of healthier and more productive indoor environments. The Bell Museum incorporates several of Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, particularly emphasizing visual connections with nature, dynamic and diffuse lighting, and the use of natural materials. The museum’s design features large windows, glass walls, and skylights, enhancing the visual connection with nature and optimizing natural lighting, which reduces reliance on artificial lighting. The use of local, natural materials further strengthens the tactile and aesthetic connection to nature, fostering a calming atmosphere. These elements contribute to the building’s sustainability and functionality, as well as to the well-being of its occupants. These patterns are consistent with findings from other studies on biophilic design [79,80,81]. However, it is important to acknowledge that certain biophilic patterns, such as Biomorphic Forms & Patterns, Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli, and Thermal & Airflow Variability, are absent from the museum’s design. Their inclusion could have further enhanced the biophilic experience. Additionally, while the new Bell Museum reflects contemporary architectural trends and aims to balance sustainability with modernity—particularly through its emphasis on visual connections with nature and the use of natural materials—the design of the old building was more rooted in organic, tactile interactions with the environment. According to Salingaros, these traditional methods, often based on natural materials and energy-saving techniques, align with biophilic principles that promote human well-being. He stresses, however, that the key to biophilic design lies in a deeper understanding of how natural systems work, including complex geometries, patterns, and forms that resonate with human well-being, which is central to the biological foundation of biophilia.
The Bell Museum biophilic strategies align with the B3 IEQ guidelines, which emphasize factors like air quality, thermal comfort, and lighting, all crucial for the well-being and productivity of occupants. The high satisfaction ratings (average score of 6.29) regarding the physical environment, along with improvements in work performance (average score of 5.89) and overall health (average score of 5.35), demonstrate the positive impact of these design strategies on the museum’s staff. The Sustainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey (SPOES) revealed high satisfaction levels regarding the physical environment, work performance, and health. Notably, satisfaction with overall cleaning and maintenance, indoor air quality, and daylighting was particularly high, underscoring the importance of these factors in creating a conducive work environment. The findings from the Bell Museum report aligned with broader trends seen in occupant satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors, such as those observed in a study of higher education classrooms in Minnesota [82]. In both studies, elements like indoor air quality, cleaning, and maintenance were highly rated by occupants, suggesting their importance in overall satisfaction. However, while the Bell Museum staff reported high satisfaction with daylighting and visual connections, the Minnesota study found that students were less satisfied with daylighting, reflecting the different types of environments. Furthermore, the study highlighted significant gender differences in IEQ satisfaction, with female students reporting lower satisfaction with thermal conditions and male students expressing dissatisfaction with daylighting and lighting. While the Bell Museum study did not directly examine gender differences. Similar, in a study by Abbaszadeh (2006), found that occupants in green buildings with high IEQ were more satisfied with thermal comfort and air quality compared to those in non-green buildings [83].
Conversely, factors such as privacy (sound and visual) and adjustability of thermal conditions received lower satisfaction ratings, indicating potential areas for improvement. These elements are essential for creating a comfortable and adaptable workspace and addressing these issues could further enhance the overall occupant experience. Specifically, the dissatisfaction with privacy suggests that the current design may not adequately address the need for personal space, which is crucial for reducing distractions and promoting concentration. Sound privacy, in particular, could be a challenge in open-plan layouts, where noise levels can disrupt work performance. Additionally, the adjustability of thermal conditions appears to be an area where more flexibility could enhance occupant comfort. Research has shown that individual control over temperature can improve satisfaction, especially in shared spaces. Addressing these issues—such as incorporating more soundproofing elements and providing better control over heating and cooling systems—could not only improve occupant satisfaction but also enhance overall productivity and well-being. Further studies exploring these aspects in biophilic spaces may yield valuable insights into how these environmental factors can be optimized. Overall, this study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on biophilic design application, particularly in public institutions, which have been less studied in this context.
6. Study Limitations
While the results are promising, it is important to acknowledge the study’s limitations, particularly in relation to the exploration of the application of the 14 biophilic design patterns at the Bell Museum. First, the research was focused solely on the Bell Museum, and the findings may not be fully generalizable to other museums or public building contexts. The sample size was limited to the museum’s staff, which may not represent other groups, such as museum visitors or students. The needs and experiences of these groups could differ, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported data from the Sustainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey (SPOES) introduces potential bias, as respondents may base their evaluations on personal perceptions, which could be influenced by subjective factors such as mood or expectations. Furthermore, while the results provide valuable insights, they lack objective measures of health or performance, such as physiological stress markers or direct assessments of task performance. Another limitation is that the study was conducted in St. Paul, Minnesota, with its unique architectural design and climate. As such, the findings may not be directly applicable to regions with different environmental conditions or cultural attitudes toward design and well-being. Future research could expand the sample to include other institutions or compare the effects of IEQ enhanced with biophilic elements across diverse locations to assess the scalability of these findings. Future studies could also explore how biophilic design impacts specific groups, such as museum visitors or students in educational settings, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its effects on different occupant types. Additionally, longitudinal studies could track changes in occupant health and productivity over time to assess the long-term benefits of biophilic design. Lastly, incorporating objective data, such as physiological markers of stress or performance assessments, would help validate the findings and provide a more holistic understanding of how IEQ enhanced with biophilic elements affects occupant health and performance.
7. Conclusions
The Bell Museum integrates several biophilic design strategies that enhance Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), occupant well-being, and overall experience. Key features, such as natural lighting, views of greenery, and the use of local materials, foster a strong connection to nature and improve. However, some essential biophilic patterns, such as biomorphic forms, organic patterns, and multisensory elements, are less emphasized in the design. While the incorporation of glass curtain walls and cantilevered overhangs increases openness and enhances natural light and sustainability, these elements may not fully align with the broader, more complex principles of biophilic design. The findings from this study indicate that even some of the biophilic design strategies can positively impact occupant health and productivity. However, further exploration for other biophilic design patterns is needed to determine the full extent of these effects and refine the application of biophilic principles in architectural practice.
As urbanization continues to rise, the integration of biophilic design in public and institutional spaces becomes even more crucial. By balancing aesthetic, functional, and ecological aspects, future architectural designs can create spaces that are both sustainable and restorative for users. The Bell Museum’s outcomes suggest that biophilic design offers practical benefits and can enhance workplace and institutional environments. This study underscores the importance of incorporating biophilic principles into urban design. As cities grow and urbanization intensifies, the need for green spaces and biophilic environments becomes even more critical. Integrating nature into urban architecture can foster a more sustainable and resilient relationship between people and their built environments. Future research will continue to refine our understanding of how natural elements can be woven into diverse settings, ensuring that architectural projects evolve to prioritize occupant health, environmental sustainability, and long-term resilience.
A.A.: Writing—review and editing, Conceptualization, Supervision, Resources, Methodology. F.H.: Writing—review and editing, Original draft, Visualization, Resources, Methodology. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
University of Minnesota, Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and determined the study to be exempt from IRB review in one of the following categories 45 CFR 46.101(b): #1 Instructional Strategies in Educational Settings. #2 Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Educational Tests; Observation of Public Behavior. #3 Public Officials; Surveys/Interviews; Observation of Public Behavior. #4 Existing Data; Records Review; Pathological Specimens. #6 Taste Testing and Food Quality Evaluation.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are not available to maintain privacy of participants. Any questions about data can be addressed directly the corresponding author.
The authors would like to acknowledge Perkins + Will, the architects of the Bell Museum.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Bell Museum Lobby with maximum natural light and bird safe glazing (Source: Photograph by Pete Seigler).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Bell Museum showcasing maximum visual and physical connection to nature (Source: Perkins + Will).
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Bell Museum showcasing maximum visual and physical connection to nature (Source: Photograph by Pete Seigler).
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Bell Museum constructed using locally sourced materials (Source: Photograph by Pete Seigler).
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Bell Museum constructed using locally sourced materials (Source: Perkins + Will).
The 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (Adapted by Author 2 from Terrapin Bright Green, 2014).
| Theme | NO. | Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Nature in the Space Patterns | 1. | Visual Connection with Nature |
| 2. | Non-Visual Connection with Nature | |
| 3. | Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli | |
| 4. | Thermal & Airflow Variability | |
| 5. | Presence of Water | |
| 6. | Dynamic & Diffuse Light | |
| 7. | Connection with Natural Systems | |
| Natural Analogues Patterns | 8. | Biomorphic Forms & Patterns |
| 9. | Material Connection with Nature | |
| 10. | Complexity & Order | |
| Nature of the Space Patterns | 11. | Prospect |
| 12. | Refuge | |
| 13. | Mystery | |
| 14. | Risk/Peril |
Bell Museum Application of Terrapin’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (Adapted from Terrapin Bright Green, 2014).
| Theme | NO. | Pattern | Bell Museum’s Biophilic Design Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature in the Space Patterns | 1. | Visual Connection with Nature | ✓ |
| 2. | Non-Visual Connection with Nature | ||
| 3. | Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli | ||
| 4. | Thermal & Airflow Variability | ||
| 5. | Presence of Water | ||
| 6. | Dynamic & Diffuse Light | ✓ | |
| 7. | Connection with Natural Systems | ✓ | |
| Natural Analogues Patterns | 8. | Biomorphic Forms & Patterns | |
| 9. | Material Connection with Nature | ✓ | |
| 10. | Complexity & Order | ||
| Nature of the Space Patterns | 11. | Prospect | |
| 12. | Refuge | ✓ | |
| 13. | Mystery | ||
| 14. | Risk/Peril |
B3 Indoor Environmental Quality Guidelines. (Source: Center for Sustainable Building Research, University of Minnesota, 2017.).
| Indoor Environmental Quality Factor | New Buildings | Major Renovations |
|---|---|---|
| I.1 Low-Emitting Materials | Required | Required for Newly Installed Materials |
| I.2 Moisture Control | Required | Required if Exterior Envelope is in Scope |
| I.3 Ventilation Design | Required | Required |
| I.4 Thermal Comfort | Required | Required |
| I.5 Quality Lighting | Required | Required if Lighting Replacement is in Scope |
| I.6 Effective Acoustics | Required | Required |
| I.7 Vibration Reduction | Required | Recommended if Structural is in Scope |
| I.8 Daylight | Required | Required (Partial—See Guideline) |
| I.9 View Space and Window Access | Recommended | Recommended |
| I.10 Personal Control of IEQ Conditions & Impacts | Recommended | Recommended |
| I.11 Promotion of Healthful Physical Activity | Recommended | Recommended |
Participants’ Demographic Information (Source: Indoor Environmental Quality + Workplace Environment UMTC Bell Museum by Martin C.S and Asojo, A.O, 2019.).
| Gender Distribution | Response Rate over 60%/n = 138 |
|---|---|
| Female | 73% |
| Male | 22% |
| Other | 5% |
| Time Spent Working at the Facility | |
| 1–2 years | 34% |
| Less than 1 year | 66% |
| Weekly Hours Worked at the Facility | |
| 40+ h | 25% |
| 30–40 h | 10% |
| 20–29 h | 17% |
| Less than 20 h | 48% |
Bell Museum facility—overall satisfaction, work performance, and health. (Source: Indoor Environmental Quality + Workplace Environment UMTC Bell Museum by Martin C.S and Asojo, A.O, 2019.).
| Satisfaction | M | SD | N | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facility Satisfaction Work | 6.29 | 1.05 | 83 | Satisfied |
| Performance | 5.89 | 1.24 | 83 | Enhanced |
| Perceived Health | 5.38 | 1.15 | 83 | Enhanced |
| Primary workspace Satisfaction | 5.38 | 1.47 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Work Performance | 5.14 | 1.55 | 81 | Enhanced |
| Perceived Health | 4.89 | 1.23 | 81 | Enhanced |
| IEQ Criteria | ||||
| Overall cleaning and maintenance | 6.11 | 1.19 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall indoor air quality | 6.05 | 1.22 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Air velocity (drafty or stagnant) | 5.81 | 1.24 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Amount of daylighting | 5.80 | 1.59 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall vibration and movement | 5.79 | 1.30 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall appearance (aesthetics) | 5.78 | 1.46 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall daylighting conditions | 5.75 | 1.53 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Humidity (dry or moist) | 5.75 | 1.29 | 80 | Satisfied |
| Amount of electric light | 5.70 | 1.51 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall electric lighting conditions | 5.65 | 1.48 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall technology | 5.62 | 1.54 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Ability to hear desired sounds | 5.59 | 1.53 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Adjustability of daylighting | 5.48 | 1.81 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Function of furnishings | 5.48 | 1.53 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall acoustic quality | 5.46 | 1.61 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Adjustability of furnishings | 5.45 | 1.57 | 80 | Satisfied |
| Adjustability of task lighting | 5.42 | 1.62 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall furnishings | 5.38 | 1.45 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall view conditions | 5.36 | 1.87 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Access to electric outlets | 5.31 | 1.49 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Overall thermal conditions | 5.30 | 1.53 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Temperature (hot or cold) | 5.14 | 1.60 | 81 | Satisfied |
| Adjustability of task lighting | 5.09 | 1.85 | 80 | Satisfied |
| Ability to limit undesired sounds | 4.60 | 1.83 | 80 | Satisfied |
| Overall privacy (sound and visual privacy) | 4.41 | 2.04 | 81 | Neither S or D |
| Adjustability of thermal conditions | 4.32 | 1.94 | 81 | Neither S or D |
References
1. Fisk, W.J. How IEQ affects health, productivity. ASHRAE J.; 2002; 44, pp. 56-60.
2. Kellert, S.R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2018.
3. Ulrich, R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science; 1984; 224, pp. 420-421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402]
4. Browing, W.D.; Ryan, C.O.; Clancy, J.O. Patterns of Biophilic Design; Terrapin Bright Green, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 3-4.
5. Berman, M.G.; Jonides, J.; Kaplan, S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol. Sci.; 2008; 19, pp. 1207-1212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19121124]
6. Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
7. Gunderson, R. Erich Fromm’s ecological messianism: The first biophilia hypothesis as humanistic social theory. Humanit. Soc.; 2014; 38, pp. 182-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0160597614529112]
8. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986.
9. Van Den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Issues; 2007; 63, pp. 79-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.x]
10. Barbiero, G.; Berto, R. Biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: An onto-and phylogenetic framework for biophilic design. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 12, 700709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700709] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34367025]
11. Well Building Standard. Biophilia II: Quantitative. Available online: https://standard.wellcertified.com/v6/mind/biophilia-ii-quantitative (accessed on 27 January 2025).
12. U.S. Green Building Council. Biophilic Design. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/credits/innovationcatalog/biophilicdesign (accessed on 27 January 2025).
13. International WELL Building Institute. Biophilia I: Qualitative. WELL Standard. Available online: https://standard.wellcertified.com/mind/biophilia-i-qualitative (accessed on 30 January 2025).
14. Bolten, B.; Barbiero, G. Biophilic Design: How to Enhance Physical and Psychological Health and Wellbeing in Our Built Environments; University of Turin: Torino, Italy, 2020.
15. Kaplan, R. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989.
16. Gaekwad, J.S.; Moslehian, A.S.; Roös, P.B.; Walker, A. A meta-analysis of emotional evidence for the biophilia hypothesis and implications for biophilic design. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 750245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.750245] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693493]
17. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Beyond savanna: An evolutionary and environmental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2010; 30, pp. 119-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.001]
18. Thayer, R.L.; Atwood, B.G. Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environ. Psychol. Nonverbal Behav.; 1978; 3, pp. 67-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01135604]
19. Orians, G.H. Evolved responses to landscapes. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992.
20. Cummins, D.D.; Cummins, R. Biological preparedness and evolutionary explanation. Cognition; 1999; 73, pp. B37-B53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00062-1]
21. Brunswik, E. Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments; Univ of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2023.
22. Ulrich, R.S.; Lunden, O.; Eltinge, J.L. Effects of exposure to nature and abstract pictures on patients recovering from heart surgery. Psychophysiology; 1993; 30, 7.
23. Figueiro, M.G.; Rea, M.S.; Stevens, R.G.; Rea, A.C. Daylight and Productivity—A Possible Link to Circadian Regulation. 5th International LRO Lighting Research Symposium: Light and Human Health; Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy, MI, USA, 2002; pp. 185-193.
24. Salingaros, N.A.; Mehaffy, M.W. A Theory of Architecture; Preface by the Prince of Wales UMBAU-VERLAG Harald Püschel: Hamburg, Germany, 2006.
25. Taylor, R.P.; Spehar, B. Fractal Fluency: An Intimate Relationship Between the Brain and Processing of Fractal Stimuli. The Fractal Geometry of the Brain; Di Ieva, A. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 485-496.
26. Salingaros, N.A.; Xie, Y. Fractal Art and Architecture Reduce Physiological Stress; University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Mathematics: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 2-11.
27. Geisler, W.S.; Albrecht, D.G.; Crane, A.M. Responses of neurons in primary visual cortex to transient changes in local contrast and luminance. J. Neurosci.; 2007; 27, pp. 5063-5067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0835-07.2007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17494692]
28. Albright, T.D.; Stoner, G.R. Contextual influences on visual processing. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.; 2002; 25, pp. 339-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142900] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052913]
29. Hagerhall, C.M.; Laike, T.; Taylor, R.P.; Küller, M.; Küller, R.; Martin, T.P. Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception; 2008; 37, pp. 1488-1494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p5918] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19065853]
30. Coburn, A.; Vartanian, O.; Kenett, Y.N.; Nadal, M.; Hartung, F.; Hayn-Leichsenring, G.; Navarrete, G.; González-Mora, J.L.; Chatterjee, A. Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex; 2020; 126, pp. 217-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32092492]
31. Taylor, R.P. The potential of biophilic fractal designs to promote health and performance: A review of experiments and applications. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 823. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13020823]
32. Joye, Y. Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Rev. Gen. Psychol.; 2007; 11, pp. 305-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305]
33. Mehaffy, M.W. The Impacts of symmetry in architecture and urbanism: Toward a new research agenda. Buildings; 2020; 10, 249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120249]
34. Zeki, S.; Chén, O.Y.; Romaya, J.P. The biological basis of mathematical beauty. Front. Hum. Neurosci.; 2018; 12, 467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00467] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30555311]
35. Alan, H.; Parker, S.J. Indoor Air Quality, Health, and Productivity. Environmental Issues in Business: Pollution, Regulations, and Health; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1-20.
36. Bluyssen, P.M. The Healthy Indoor Environment: How to Assess Occupants’ Wellbeing in Buildings; 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2013; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315887296]
37. Salonen, H.; Lahtinen, M.; Lappalainen, S.; Nevala, N.; Knibbs, L.D.; Morawska, L.; Reijula, K. Physical characteristics of the indoor environment that affect health and wellbeing in healthcare facilities: A review. Intell. Build. Int.; 2013; 5, pp. 3-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.764838]
38. Godish, T. Indoor Environmental Quality; 1st ed. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420056747]
39. Thach, T.; Mahirah, D.; Sauter, C.; Roberts, A.C.; Dunleavy, G.; Nazeha, N.; Rykov, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Christopoulos, G.I.; Soh, C. et al. Associations of perceived indoor environmental quality with stress in the workplace. Indoor Air; 2020; 30, pp. 1166-1177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.12696] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32453912]
40. Allen, J.G.; MacNaughton, P.; Satish, U.; Santanam, S.; Vallarino, J.; Spengler, J.D. Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: A controlled exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environ. Health Perspect.; 2016; 124, pp. 805-812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502459]
41. Ganesh, G.A.; Sinha, S.L.; Verma, T.N.; Dewangan, S.K. Investigation of indoor environment quality and factors affecting human comfort: A critical review. Build. Environ.; 2021; 204, 108146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108146]
42. Tham, K.W. Indoor air quality and its effects on humans—A review of challenges and developments in the last 30 years. Energy Build.; 2016; 130, pp. 637-650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.071]
43. Vischer, J.C. Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Archit. Sci. Rev.; 2008; 51, pp. 97-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5114]
44. Juan, Y.-K.; Chen, Y. The influence of indoor environmental factors on learning: An experiment combining physiological and psychological measurements. Build. Environ.; 2022; 221, 109299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109299]
45. Mujan, I.; Anđelković, A.S.; Munćan, V.; Kljajić, M.; Ružić, D. Influence of indoor environmental quality on human health and productivity-A review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 217, pp. 646-657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.307]
46. Felgueiras, F.; Cunha, L.; Mourao, Z.; Moreira, A.; Gabriel, M.F. A systematic review of environmental intervention studies in offices with beneficial effects on workers’ health, well-being and productivity. Atmos. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 13, 101513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2022.101513]
47. Chauhan, H.; Jang, Y.; Pradhan, S.; Moon, H. Personalized optimal room temperature and illuminance for maximizing occupant’s mental task performance using physiological data. J. Build. Eng.; 2023; 78, 107757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107757]
48. Niza, I.L.; de Souza, M.P.; da Luz, I.M.; Broday, E.E. Sick building syndrome and its impacts on health, well-being and productivity: A systematic literature review. Indoor Built Environ.; 2024; 33, pp. 218-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X231191079]
49. Woo, M.; MacNaughton, P.; Lee, J.; Tinianov, B.; Satish, U.; Boubekri, M. Access to daylight and views improves physical and emotional wellbeing of office workers: A crossover study. Front. Sustain. Cities; 2021; 3, 690055. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.690055]
50. Kandasamy, N.K.; Karunagaran, G.; Spanos, C.; Tseng, K.J.; Soong, B.-H. Smart lighting system using ANN-IMC for personalized lighting control and daylight harvesting. Build. Environ.; 2018; 139, pp. 170-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.005]
51. Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Katafygiotou, M.; Mazroei, A.; Kaushik, A.; Elsarrag, E. Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.; 2016; 5, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.006]
52. Brilli, F.; Fares, S.; Ghirardo, A.; de Visser, P.; Calatayud, V.; Muñoz, A.; Annesi-Maesano, I.; Sebastiani, F.; Alivernini, A.; Varriale, V. et al. Plants for sustainable improvement of indoor air quality. Trends Plant Sci.; 2018; 23, pp. 507-512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.03.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29681504]
53. Diener, A.; Mudu, P. How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on green spaces’ mitigation abilities for air-borne particles from a public health perspective-with implications for urban planning. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 796, 148605. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148605] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34271387]
54. Veitch, J.A. Workplace design contributions to mental health and well-being. Healthc. Pap.; 2011; 11, pp. 38-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12927/hcpap.2011.22409] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24917255]
55. Gritzka, S.; MacIntyre, T.E.; Dörfel, D.; Baker-Blanc, J.L.; Calogiuri, G. The effects of workplace nature-based interventions on the mental health and well-being of employees: A systematic review. Front. Psychiatry; 2020; 11, 323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00323]
56. Grinde, B.; Patil, G.G. Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2009; 6, pp. 2332-2343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6092332] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826546]
57. Altomonte, S. Daylight for energy savings and psycho-physiological well-being in sustainable built environments. J. Sustain. Dev.; 2008; 1, pp. 3-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v1n3p3]
58. Cosola, V.O.-D.; Olivieri, F.; Ruiz-García, L. A systematic review of the impact of green walls on urban comfort: Temperature reduction and noise attenuation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2022; 162, 112463. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112463]
59. Cuce, E. Thermal regulation impact of green walls: An experimental and numerical investigation. Appl. Energy; 2017; 194, pp. 247-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.079]
60. lements-Croome, D.; Turner, B.; Pallaris, K. Flourishing workplaces: A multisensory approach to design and POE. Intell. Build. Int.; 2019; 11, pp. 131-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2019.1569491]
61. Kellert, S.R. Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
62. van der Voordt, T.; Jensen, P.A. The impact of healthy workplaces on employee satisfaction, productivity and costs. J. Corp. Real Estate; 2023; 25, pp. 29-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-03-2021-0012]
63. Sanchez, J.A.; Ikaga, T.; Sanchez, S.V. Quantitative improvement in workplace performance through biophilic design: A pilot experiment case study. Energy Build.; 2018; 177, pp. 316-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.065]
64. Harb, F.; Hidalgo, M.P.; Martau, B. Lack of exposure to natural light in the workspace is associated with physiological, sleep and depressive symptoms. Chronobiol. Int.; 2015; 32, pp. 368-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2014.982757] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25424517]
65. Liu, F.; Yan, L.; Meng, X.; Zhang, C. A review on indoor green plants employed to improve indoor environment. J. Build. Eng.; 2022; 53, 104542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104542]
66. Khoshnava, S.M.; Rostami, R.; Zin, R.M.; Štreimikienė, D.; Mardani, A.; Ismail, M. The role of green building materials in reducing environmental and human health impacts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 2589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072589] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32290074]
67. Li, P.; Froese, T.M.; Brager, G. Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Build. Environ.; 2018; 133, pp. 187-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.024]
68. Moloney, J.; Globa, A.; Wang, R.; Khoo, C. Principles for the application of mixed reality as pre-occupancy evaluation tools (P-OET) at the early design stages. Archit. Sci. Rev.; 2020; 63, pp. 441-450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1675138]
69. Oseland, N. A Practical Guide to Post-Occupancy Evaluation and Researching Building User Experience; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2023.
70. Khasawneh, F.A. Design quality assessment and investigation of visitors satisfaction of the Jordan Museum using Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng.; 2024; 15, pp. 221-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1556/1848.2023.00717]
71. Xiao, W.; Yoon, J.E. A Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Space Utilization of Cultural Heritage in Children’s Education: A Case Study of Wuhan’s Historical Districts, China. Buildings; 2024; 14, 2682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092682]
72. Shuang, G.W.; Kamaruzzaman, S.; Zulkifli, N. Occupant’s perception on indoor performance of historical museum: A case of study of National Museum and Perak Museum, Malaysia. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Dubai (UAE); Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 21–22 March 2014.
73. Asojo, A.; Vo, H.; Bae, S. The impact of design interventions on occupant satisfaction: A workplace pre-and post-occupancy evaluation analysis. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13571. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132413571]
74. Friendshuh, J.R. The Bell Museum: A Significant Modern Building. Master’s Thesis; University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2011.
75. Perkins&Will. University of Minnesota Bell Museum. Available online: https://perkinswill.com/project/bell-museum/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
76. Nimlyat, P.S.; Kandar, M.Z. Appraisal of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in healthcare facilities: A literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2015; 17, pp. 61-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.04.002]
77. Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Design, University of Minnesota. Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3+SB2030). University of Minnesota, 2010. Available online: https://design.umn.edu/center-sustainable-building-research (accessed on 20 February 2025).
78. Martin, C.S.; Asojo, A.O. Indoor Environmental Quality + Workplace Environment UMTC Bell Museum. 2019; Available online: https://www.b3mn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UMTC-Bell-Museum-WP-FINAL-Report-2019.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2025).
79. Lei, Q.; Yuan, C.; Lau, S.S.Y. A quantitative study for indoor workplace biophilic design to improve health and productivity performance. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 324, 129168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129168]
80. Lee, H.C.; Park, S.J. Assessment of importance and characteristics of biophilic design patterns in a children’s library. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10040987]
81. Akande, Q.; Aduwo, E.B. Assessment of biophilic design patterns on skill development, in Minna, Niger State. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.; 2019; 1378, 042078. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1378/4/042078]
82. Bae, S.; Martin, C.S.; Asojo, A.O. Higher education students’ indoor environmental quality satisfaction benchmark. Build. Res. Inf.; 2021; 49, pp. 679-694. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2020.1813012]
83. Abbaszadeh,; Sahar,; Zagreus, L.; Lehrer, D.; Huizenga, C. Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Buildings. Healthy Buildings: Creating a Healthy Indoor Environment for People, Proceedings; Center for the Built Environment, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006; Volume 3, 7p. pp. 365-370. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9rf7p4bs. (accessed on 20 February 2025).
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Hazazi, Fullah 2 1 School of Architecture & Planning, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA
2 College of Design and Architecture, Jazan University, Jazan 82817, Saudi Arabia;