How Does Office Design Support Employees’ Health? A Case Study on the Relationships among Employees’ Perceptions of the Office Environment, Their Sense of Coherence and Office Design

Abstract

This study investigated the current design circumstances of an office as well as employees’ perceptions of the office environment in relation to their perceived health, drawing on sense of coherence theory (comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness). Previous studies have related the physical office environment to employee health. However, most studies have focused on alleviating negative effects, while health-promoting potential, including employee sense of coherence, has been overlooked. This study adopted a mixed method case study approach, combining semi-structured interviews with employees, structured observations, and analysis of architectural drawings. The results indicated that employees’ perceptions did not always align with the ideas behind the architectural design and that employees understood the environment differently. The study also highlighted the interrelations (and contradictions) among the different components of sense of coherence. The findings imply that organizations may need to prioritize which components of coherence should be supported most by the office environment. It also suggests that case-specific design aspects should play a more central role in studying and conceptualizing healthy office design and that design solutions should be continuously modified during the use phase, while ensuring employees’ participation. The study concluded that an ‘ideal’ office environment should not be the goal. Instead, office design should provide an environment in which employees are able to cope with challenges in comprehensible, manageable and meaningful ways.

Full text

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
How Does Office Design Support Employees’ Health? A Case
Study on the Relationships among Employees’ Perceptions of
the Office Environment, Their Sense of Coherence and
Office Design
Melina Forooraghi * , Elke Miedema , Nina Ryd and Holger Wallbaum


Citation: Forooraghi, M.; Miedema,
E.; Ryd, N.; Wallbaum, H. How Does
Office Design Support Employees’
Health? A Case Study on the
Relationships among Employees’
Perceptions of the Office
Environment, Their Sense of
Coherence and Office Design. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18,
12779. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph182312779
Academic Editors: Derek
Clements-Croome, Valerie Mace,
Youmna Dmour and Ankita Dwivedi
Received: 27 September 2021
Accepted: 23 November 2021
Published: 3 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 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/).
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg,
Sweden; elke.miedema@chalmers.se (E.M.); nina.ryd@chalmers.se (N.R.); holger.wallbaum@chalmers.se (H.W.)
*Correspondence: melinaf@chalmers.se
Abstract:
This study investigated the current design circumstances of an office as well as employees’
perceptions of the office environment in relation to their perceived health, drawing on sense of
coherence theory (comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness). Previous studies have
related the physical office environment to employee health. However, most studies have focused
on alleviating negative effects, while health-promoting potential, including employee sense of
coherence, has been overlooked. This study adopted a mixed method case study approach, combining
semi-structured interviews with employees, structured observations, and analysis of architectural
drawings. The results indicated that employees’ perceptions did not always align with the ideas
behind the architectural design and that employees understood the environment differently. The
study also highlighted the interrelations (and contradictions) among the different components of
sense of coherence. The findings imply that organizations may need to prioritize which components
of coherence should be supported most by the office environment. It also suggests that case-specific
design aspects should play a more central role in studying and conceptualizing healthy office design
and that design solutions should be continuously modified during the use phase, while ensuring
employees’ participation. The study concluded that an ‘ideal’ office environment should not be the
goal. Instead, office design should provide an environment in which employees are able to cope with
challenges in comprehensible, manageable and meaningful ways.
Keywords:
office design; flexible office; health; salutogenic; sense of coherence; well-being; work-
place design; case study
1. Introduction
How can we plan, design, and manage healthy office environments? Studies show
that the physical office environment influences employees’ health. However, most studies
have focused on identifying risk factors for health (pathogenic aspects) [1–4]. Meanwhile,
the health-promoting potential (salutogenic aspects) of office environments, such as nature
references as a means of recovering from stress or space personalization as a means of
enhancing well-being, have often been overlooked [
1
]. The salutogenic concept ‘sense of
coherence’ (SOC) explains how people manage to stay healthy in stressful situations. SOC
is the ability of a person, a community or a society to overcome challenges by (i) under-
standing the character of the problems (comprehensibility), (ii) identifying and deploying
relevant resources (manageability), and (iii) viewing the perceived problems as meaningful
challenges and worthy of engagement (meaningfulness) [
5
]. The components of SOC are
resources that may protect individuals from stress and reduce health risks [
6
,
7
]. Examples
of such resources are education, material resources, coping strategies and social support [
8
].
People with a higher SOC adopt healthier behavior and are more motivated to cope with
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312779 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 2 of 26
stressors and thereby become more resilient with better perceived health and quality of
life [
7
,
9
–
11
]. While organizations are increasingly implementing flexible office concepts,
we know little about which architectural design features in such environments improve
employees’ SOC. Hence, understanding SOC in the context of flexible office environments
will contribute to beneficial health outcomes.
Flexible office concepts, such as activity-based and combi offices, are intended to
support flexible ways of working. In these office concepts, workstations are combined
with back-up spaces, such as quiet rooms for concentrated work, phone booths for calls,
meeting spaces for collaborations, to support work activities [
12
]. The main difference
between the two abovementioned office concepts is desk ownership. In combi offices, a
desk is assigned to each employee, while in activity-based offices, desks are shared among
employees [
13
]. Having assigned workstations in addition to access to back-up spaces
results in a different office experience in combi offices than in activity-based offices, as well
as in added floor area per employee and eventually higher costs. Hence, there is great
value in addressing combi offices more in depth to understand the ways in which they
influence employee SOC.
Studies suggest that architectural design features such as lighting, layout, furniture,
acoustics, privacy and the process of relocation/modifications have an impact on how
employees experience their new offices [
14
–
18
]. However, these case-specific features
have rarely been addressed in the literature from a design perspective [
19
,
20
]. Brunia
et al. [
14
] suggested that the main differences between the best and worst flexible offices
concern employee satisfaction with the interior design, level of openness, subdivision
of space, number and diversity of workspaces and accessibility of the building, as well
as the implementation process. Hence, if these features are essential in understanding
employees’ experience of office environments, then this gap in the literature points to
whether research findings from different cases are comparable, especially when these
aspects are not considered in the studies. In addition, studies have indicated that flexible
offices are often used differently than intended. For instance, employees do not switch
places as often as intended in activity-based offices [
14
,
21
,
22
]. Canter, a human geographer,
argued in the book The Psychology of Place that people’s behavior in different places
may derive from their previous experiences and their conception of the place. Thus, to
fully understand people’s responses to places and their reactions within them, we need
to understand what and how they think [
23
]. This points to a need for a more in-depth
understanding of how employees appropriate their office environment.
Given that the case-specific design aspects play a key role in how employees experi-
ence office environments, qualitative and in-depth research approaches appear particularly
relevant to (i) further understanding of architectural design features that are important
to employee SOC; (ii) creating a more accurate evidence base for comparison; and (iii)
planning, designing and maintaining healthy office environments. In addition, qualitative
studies on the effects of office use on employee health are scarce [
24
]. Based on these
identified gaps in the literature, we see a need to integrate a design perspective into office
studies. The overall goal of the study is to contribute to the understanding of interrelations
between the employees’ perceptions of office environment, their SOC and office design.
The research questions are as follows:
RQ1: What are the current office design circumstances?
RQ2: In what way(s) do employees’ perceptions of the office environment relate to
their SOC?
2. Theoretical Framework
This paper adopts the conceptualization of health proposed by Huber et al. [
25
]: ‘the
ability to adapt and to self-manage in the face of social, physical and emotional challenges’.
This conceptualization fits with the salutogenic approach in which health is viewed as a
dynamic concept on a health-ease and dis-ease spectrum. Salutogenesis was introduced by
Antonovsky [
26
], who argued that conventional health approaches focused on the treatment

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 3 of 26
of disease (pathogenic) while neglecting the factors that create health (i.e., salutogenic
approach) [
26
]. Later, he argued that health ultimately depends on the individual’s ability
to create and maintain the SOC [5].
A resourceful (physical) working environment helps employees build up a SOC which
leads to greater work engagement [
27
]. However, SOC in the built environment is mostly
addressed in relation to healthcare building design. For instance, the design of the waiting
room influences the number of people who can be seen in one space at the same time, influ-
encing a sense of crowding and thereby decreasing manageability [
28
]. In the office context,
few studies have applied salutogenesis. For instance, Ruohomäki et al. [
29
] adopted a salu-
togenic approach toward office relocation at a conceptual level, but no explicit relation was
made to SOC. Roskams and Haynes [
30
] proposed a conceptual framework that identified
environmental demands and resources influencing SOC, such as a clear set of behavioral
rules, biophilic design solutions, and design that supports social cohesion, physical activity,
and personal identity expression. Similarly, a recent longitudinal case study investigated
indicators of SOC during relocation to an activity-based office with a questionnaire and
focus group interviews [
31
]. The study showed that all SOC indicators were positively
associated with overall health, well-being, and work satisfaction. Meaningfulness, man-
ageability and comprehensibility significantly increased from baseline to nine months
post-relocation; the implementation process facilitated SOC with support, tools on how to
work in an activity-based office, communication and preparatory activities pre-relocation.
This paper builds upon Forooraghi et al. [
32
], who applied SOC theory in a longitudinal
study and proposed several architectural features per component of SOC (Figure 1).
Crowding, disorientation, sick building syndrome
(fatigue, allergic reactions, respiratory problems)
Salutogenic forces
Dis-ease Health-ease
Comprehensibility
Meaningfulness
Manageability
Pathogenic forces
Sense of coherence
Ease of wayfinding
Clear behavioral rules
Understanding function of space
Information sharing
Control over environment
Access to resources
Participation & empowerment
Life management amentities
Nature references
Social connections and support
Personalization & sense of ownership
Figure 1
Figure 1. Sense of coherence in an office environment, adapted from Forooraghi et al. [32].
Comprehensibility in the office context relates to the features that make the environment
structured, predictable, and explicable.
Wayfinding
refers to attributes of the environment facilitating or hindering easy orientation.
Understanding the function of the space
refers to attributes of the environment that
communicate the function of a space.
Behavioral rules
refer to attributes of the environment and/or agreements between em-
ployees and organizations indicating expected behavior in the physical environment.
Information sharing
refers to attributes of the environment as well as organizational
procedures in which practical information about relocation and/or office maintenance is
clearly communicated.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 4 of 26
Manageability in the office environment relates to the features that enable access and control
over resources needed to cope with the challenges of the environment.
Control over the environment
refers to attributes of the office facilitating or hindering
control over perceived stimuli.
Access to resources
refers to attributes of the environment facilitating or hindering access
to preferred/needed technical equipment, furniture, and storage space.
Participation and involvemen
t refer to change processes facilitating or hindering building
user involvement.
Life management
refers to amenities that facilitate or hinder employees in balancing the
pressure of work life.
Meaningfulness in the office environment relates to features that evoke meanings in
the environment.
Nature references
refer to attributes that enable access to the elements of the natu-
ral environment.
Social connections and support
refer to attributes of the environment facilitating or hin-
dering social interactions and feelings of community.
Personalization and sense of ownership
refer to attributes of the environment facilitating
or hindering building users asserting meaning to space through identity expression.
3. Method
A mixed-method case study approach was adopted to investigate the current office
design circumstances as well as employees’ perceptions of the office environment in
relation to their SOC. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with employees,
structured observations, architectural drawings, and secondary documentations. This
methodology followed a convergent-parallel design; i.e., data were collected by different
methods in parallel, were analyzed separately, and then the findings were compared,
contrasted and integrated [33], as displayed in Figure 2.
Insight on
perceptions of
office environment
Insight on
use of office
environment
Analysis of
secondary documents
Analysis of
architectural drawings
Integration of
all data
sources
Observations at
the office
(18 rounds)
Interviews with
employees
(n=41)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Research design.
The qualitative research approach was chosen for an in-depth study of the subjective
nature of individuals’ SOC [
33
]. The qualitative data from the interviews were used to gain
a deeper understanding of employees’ insights and experiences on how comprehensible,
manageable, and meaningful their office environment was.
3.1. Case Context
The case concerns a university department that relocated from cell offices into a
renovated combi office in August 2017. The relocation was combined with an organizational
merger bringing together 10 different divisions of employees into one department. Three

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 5 of 26
out of ten divisions had their offices in the same building prior to renovation, and the rest
came from other buildings on the campus.
The study focuses on the staff areas on the third, fourth (offices and back-up spaces)
and fifth (only staff lunchrooms and meeting spaces) floors (Figure 3). The building was
situated around an atrium, with a central corridor system. The spaces adjacent to the
atrium were back-up spaces, including meeting rooms, phone booths, quiet rooms, flexible
room/offices, breakout areas and balconies. The spaces on the outer façade included
mainly offices (two, six or eight employees) and a reception area. The employees were
assigned to an office room or specified desk group per division. All staff areas, including
all offices, were accessible to all staff with keycards. Students did not have access to these
staff areas, except for a few meeting rooms on the fifth floor.
The office interior was modified two years post-relocation by the facility management:
(i) A quiet room with couches was turned into a shared office room due to a lack of
workstations, (ii) a windowless meeting room was turned into a printing room, following
complaints about lack of printers, (iii) translucent curtains were added to office rooms
facing the staircases to enhance visual seclusion, and (iv) couches in the lunchroom were
moved to other breakout areas on fourth floor and replaced with dining tables and chairs.
3.2. Study Population
All university employees of the department were invited via email and posters on site
to participate in the study. Forty-one employees volunteered to participate in the interviews
(Table 1). The participants had different roles and responsibilities as well as durations of
time working at the university. They were considered good informants, meaning they were
able and willing to contribute to the study.
3.3. Data Collection Procedure
Data were collected in September 2019, two years post-relocation, through individual
semi-structured interviews, structured observations, and review of architectural drawings
and secondary documents, such as a building guidebook.
The interviews averaged an hour, and they were audio recorded. The questions were
designed to enable the interviewees to share their insights on how they experienced the
office environment, their activities and preferences (Table 2). A card-sorting exercise as
well as floorplan drawings, markers and notes were used as mediation tools during the
interviews [
34
,
35
]. The card sorting exercise consisted of a biaxial chart visualizing levels
of satisfaction and importance and a set of cards relating to predefined themes to be sorted
on the chart. The themes covered office environment features, such as behavioral rules,
personal storage, acoustic and visual privacy. The participants were asked to sort the cards
one by one while describing the motivation for their choice. At the end of the exercise, blank
cards were also given, in case the participants wanted to raise new topics for discussion.
The drawings, markers and notes aided interviewees to elaborate on their explanations,
describe their routines and space use, or signal relevant aspects of these spaces.
The observations in the office were structured observations; i.e., a systematic plan
with a predefined route was used, and employees were aware of the observer. A total of
18 rounds were conducted by the first author. Each predefined route included walking
around all the workstations, back-up spaces and breakout areas, with the observer taking
structured field notes and drawing annotations as well as pictures. The field notes indicated,
for example, the workstations and back-up spaces in use, the number of employees per
space, the available facilities and equipment, flows of people between spaces, and whether
different spaces were organized and orderly. The rounds were scheduled according to
the availability of the observer, avoiding events that were not part of the daily routine of
employees and caused abnormal occupancy rates, such as a monthly department meeting.
The observations were conducted over two weeks and across four intervals (8:00–10:00,
10:00–12:00, 13:00–15:00, and 15:00–17:00), with the aim to cover the equivalent of a regular
Monday to Friday working week.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 6 of 26
3
Meeting room/area
Quiet room
Flex room
Breakout area
Office room
4
Telephone booth
Printer room
Reception area
Resting room
010
5
Meeting room/area
Quiet room
Flex room
Breakout area
O ce room
Telephone booth
Printer room
Reception area
Resting room
Figure 3
Figure 3. Floor plans of the studied office.
Secondary documentation included an office in-house guide with plans and behavioral
guidelines. Such documentation was collected from the university’s internal website, which
is accessible to all employees. The architectural drawings, i.e., floor plans, were provided

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 7 of 26
by the facility management and were updated by the first author to be used for observation
rounds and further analysis.
Table 1. The participants’ demographics and professions.
Demographics Total Invited (n= 238) Participants (n= 41)
Female = 109
Male = 129
Female = 19
Male = 22
Researcher, professor, lecturer 192 29
Project assistant/guest researcher 13 4
Other categories (e.g., project manager, admin) 33 8
Interviewee’s time working in the organization
0–1 yrs. = 21.9%
2–5 yrs. = 41.4%
>6 yrs. = 36.5%
Interviewee’s age range
24–30 = 29.2%
31–40 = 29.2%
41–50 = 19.5%
50 ≥21.9%
Table 2. Sample questions from the interviews in relation to SOC.
Sense of Coherence Interview Questions
Comprehensibility
Are there any rules or agreements between
colleagues on how to use the different office zones
depending on your activity?
(If yes) Are those rules respected?
(If no) Do you wish to have them?
Manageability
What do you do when your work demands high
concentration? Where do you concentrate? How?
Why?
How do you approach people when you need to
ask/tell something to someone?
Meaningfulness How do you socialize with your colleagues at the
office?
3.4. Data Analysis Procedure
The data analysis consisted of multiple iterative stages, including content analysis of
the interviews, descriptive analysis of the observation rounds, and floor plan analysis of
the building material.
The interviews were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12. An abductive approach
was adopted to analyze the content; combing an inductive and deductive approach, defined
as ‘creative inferential process’. That is using empirical data and theoretical prepositions in
a dialogical process for analyzing qualitative data [
36
]. The first step involved analyzing
the interview transcripts to identify recurring themes related to perceptions of the office
environment (see examples in Table 3). This allowed to identify positive and negative
perceptions of office environment features. For instance, 25 interviewees referred to ‘exposure
to visual stimuli’, which in step 2 was coded under ‘control over the environment’. In a
further deductive round of coding (step 3), the office environment features were related to
the components of SOC: comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness. The first
two authors coded the transcribed interviews separately. Whilst consistency was high, any
differences were discussed, and resolved by discussion. Furthermore, the four authors
regularly discussed the analysis, data triangulation and reporting strategy during the process.
Furthermore, data from the observations were analyzed to support and complement
the findings from the interviews. This involved reviewing and summarizing observation
field notes and occupancy data. Occupancy was calculated for office rooms based on the
percentage of workstations occupied with respect to the maximum number of workstations.
Utilization was calculated for back-up spaces based on the percentage of the total number
of 18 observation rounds that the spaces were observed in use.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 8 of 26
Table 3. Interview coding strategy.
Excerpt
Step 1
Perceptions of Office
the Environment
Step 2
Office Environment
Features
Step 3
Sense of Coherence
Components
‘It’s supposed to be a quiet
room, but it isn’t. So, people
tend to sit here and discuss
matters and prepare’ (I-15).
Use of quiet rooms for
spontaneous/informal
discussions and
phone calls
Understanding the
function of space Comprehensibility
‘I’m a very anxious person,
so it takes me out of my zone
to feel observed’ (I-14).
Exposure to
visual stimuli
Control over
the environment Manageability
‘Now that we have shared
rooms, it feels easier to
communicate’ (I-34).
Increased access and
proximity to colleagues
Social connections
and support Meaningfulness
The architectural drawings and secondary documents were analyzed from a design
perspective to support and complement the findings. That is, the employees’ perceptions
were contrasted with observation data, architectural drawings, secondary data, and pictures
of the office to understand the underlying reasons for these perceptions. For instance,
exposure to visual stimuli was mentioned as a negative feature by the majority. The level
of transparency observed in drawings and observations confirmed that the extensive use
of glass partitions led to a high level of exposure to visual stimuli. Another example is
that when interviewees referred to behavioral rules, the in-house book was analyzed to
determine what type of information the organization had communicated about expected
behavior in shared office rooms and back-up spaces.
The triangulation of multiple data sources followed a parallel convergent design, in
which the data from different data sources were analyzed independently and brought
together during the interpretation [33].
Approval was obtained from the head of the department to carry out the study. Prior to
being interviewed, all participants were informed verbally and in writing about the purpose
of the study, that their participation was voluntary, that they could end their participation
at any time, and that they could choose not to answer any questions. They were also
informed that the personal information would be known only by the research team and
would be protected according to the General Data Protection Regulation. Informed consent
was obtained when the participants agreed to complete the survey.
4. Findings
The findings are presented in three sections that reflect the SOC components (com-
prehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness) and their subthemes, according to the
SOC framework by Forooraghi et al. [
32
]. All sections describe the current office design
setting based upon on-site observations and analysis of architectural drawings as well as
secondary documentation. Then, employees’ perceptions of the respective features are
described. Each colored bar illustrates one to seven interviewees who reported the (positive
or negative) office environment perceptions.
4.1. Comprehensibility
The perceptions of the office environment show that comprehensibility was associ-
ated with wayfinding, understanding the function of the space, and behavioral rules, as
presented in (Figure 4).
4.1.1. Wayfinding
As mentioned, wayfinding refers to attributes of the environment facilitating or
hindering easy orientation.
Design setting: The observation and floor plans show the symmetrical layout, and the
deficiency of distinct design features, i.e., landmarks, in addition to the use of identical

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 9 of 26
and repetitive furniture and colors in all corridors and corners, could lead to navigation
challenges, especially for those who were not familiar with the building (Figure 5). That
said, building users could find their way after making a few laps due to the square layout
of the building.
4.1.2. Understanding the Function of the Space
Understanding the function of the environment refers to the attributes of the environ-
ment that communicate the function of the space.
Comprehensibility
Perceptions
Interview excerpts
Wayfinding
Clear and convenient wayfinding
‘It was quite confusing in the beginning, but
now I have gotten used to it’ (I-29).
Difficulties in orienting in the
building
‘It’s a symmetrical building; I mean it makes it
even harder to find the shortest way, and then
it affects me. Sometimes, I really go the other
way, which is longer, and I feel like, “Oh I
chose the wrong way’ (I-32).
Understanding the
function of space
Use of quiet rooms for
spontaneous/informal
discussions and phone calls
‘It's supposed to be a quiet room, but it isn't.
So, people tend to sit here and discuss matters
and prepare’ (I-15).
Use of phone booths for
concentrated work
‘Most often I go to the phone room. I read a
lot there. And that's because it's very little
stimulation, both with sound but also visually’
(I-14).
Use of meeting rooms for
individual, and concentrative
work
‘I often book a meeting room for myself,
usually one of the smaller ones, then I just sit
there, take a bunch of materials, maybe use
the whiteboard’ (I-11).
Perception of reception area as
an undefined space
‘It's a nice space, but probably, I wouldn't
know what I would do there’ (I-13).
Perception of meeting rooms
with 4-person capacity perceived
too small for 4 persons
‘Even if I'm just with three people, I prefer to
book room A, which is I guess officially [for]
ten people, but at least there is some space’ (I-
22).
Behavioral rules
Reliance on common sense
‘People leave the room when they are talking
or when guests are coming for meetings, and
you always ask if it is okay to talk’ (I-24).
Exposure to stimuli and noise
‘Sometimes it’s just hard to focus and then
there are just a lot of people who come and
go, a lot of talking there’ (I-20).
Mess and visual clutter
‘We have colleagues who don’t put things in
the dishwasher, and that’s a problem’ (I-18).
Information sharing
Ambiguous maintenance
‘Sometimes I think it's very difficult to
understand who takes care of what’ (I-16).
The colored bars illustrate the proportion of interviewees who reported the office environment perceptions.
Positive perceptions, Negative perceptions.
Figure 4. Perceptions of comprehensibility in the office environment as reported in interviews.
Perceptions: The interviews indicated that wayfinding had varied influences on how
employees comprehended the layout of the office. One-third of the interviewees (13/41)
reported that the orientation in the building became intuitive after becoming used to the
labeling system and the layout. Nevertheless, others (12/41) found wayfinding difficult
due to the monotonous look and the square layout (Figure 4).
Design setting: Most spaces had signs outside and inside of the door indicating the room
number and its intended use. Exceptions were the phone booths, which had signage/labels
on the window (Figure 6). The ability to understand the function of the environment could be
influenced by the furniture setup and spatial characteristics of the spaces. For instance, phone
booths were spatially secluded and thus had minimum visual and acoustic distractions. The
quiet rooms could not be reserved, and they had soft seating (i.e., two armchairs, a sofa, and a
pouf) that faced each other and a whiteboard; they thus resembled spaces that are typically
used for face-to-face informal meetings. See more examples in Figure 6.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 10 of 26
Example of repeated design features on  oor 3 and 4.
34
Repetitive features
Non-repetitive features
Figure 5
Figure 5. Wayfinding in the office space.
Example of a phone booth which have the lowest
level of visual transparency among backup spaces.
Example of a quiet room with sofas. The facing
furniture as well as the whiteboard can resemble an
informal meeting space.
Example of a 4p meeting room equiped with
a small table and chairs, a whiteboard, and a
screen.
Example of a small meeting room equiped
with high chairs, a table, a whiteboard, and
a screen.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Pictures illustrating interviewees’ understandings of the function of spaces.
Perceptions: The different functions mentioned by the interviewees included offices,
meeting rooms, phone booths, and quiet rooms. The interviewees expressed alternative ac-
tivities in these spaces. For instance, spaces labeled phone booths were found to be suitable
for engaging in concentrated work with minimal distraction and signaling unavailability

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 11 of 26
to colleagues (Figure 4). Quiet rooms with sofas were perceived as suitable spaces for
informal discussions. These rooms were however the least often occupied rooms among
back-up spaces (Table 4). More examples of alternative uses are presented in F.
Table 4. Occupancy during a working week.
Avg. Occupancy * (%)
Office rooms, 2 persons 25.9
Office rooms, 6–8 persons 28.29
Avg. Utilization **
Meeting rooms, 4–6 persons 27.4
Meeting rooms, 6+ persons 28.2
Quiet room with sofa 11.1
Quiet rooms, 2 persons 30.5
Quiet rooms, 6 persons 44.4
Flex rooms 69.4
Phone booths 14.5
Breakout areas 22.2
Lunchroom-5th floor 88.8
* Percentage of workstations occupied with respect to maximum number of workstations. ** Percentage of the
total number of 18 observations that the spaces were observed in use.
4.1.3. Behavioral Rules
Behavioral rules refer to attributes of the environment and/or agreements between
employees and organizations indicating expected behavior in the physical environment.
Design setting: An in-house guidebook was given to employees upon their relocation to
the new office in August 2017. The guidebook provided information about the new premises
and office etiquette. However, the book was not updated after the office modifications
were implemented in August 2019. The book was mentioned only once in the interviews.
According to the guidebook, employees should comply with the following guidelines:
show consideration and respect
be clean and tidy—leave common areas as you would want to find them
enjoy the shared space but please leave private furniture, textiles and plants at home
maintain peace and quiet—it is important to keep your voice down and avoid talking
across the room
when necessary, use a meeting room or other suitable space for lengthy discussions
use headphones when listening to music, the radio and so on
show consideration in the use of perfumes or other scents
if somebody’s behavior disturbs you, do say so—but try to give constructive feedback.
Nevertheless, the expected level of cleanliness and individual responsibilities were
not clearly communicated. Instead, employees were asked to keep the common areas ‘as
you would want to find them’.
Perceptions: Almost all interviewees reported that they did not have any agreements
on how to behave in the office rooms, regardless of the type of office (Figure 4). More
than half of the interviewees (22/41) had a positive view of relying on common sense, but
others (12/41) felt disturbed by the ambiguity about expected behavior and individual
responsibilities concerning cleanliness and order. One-third of the interviewees (14/41)
perceived that a lack of behavioral rules made the office environment less comprehensible.
4.1.4. Information Sharing and Transparency
Information sharing refers to attributes of the environment as well as organizational
procedures in which practical information about relocation and/or office maintenance is
clearly communicated.
Design setting: The phone numbers of maintenance service were provided at the
door of every room, providing access to information. However, it was not communicated
whether a problem report was already being processed.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 12 of 26
Perceptions: The office was perceived as less comprehensible by a minority of in-
terviewees (8/41) due to ambiguous facility management strategies/processes. Some
interviewees reported that the maintenance service was unresponsive to problem reports,
especially concerning the automated shades.
4.2. Manageability
The findings show that the office environment influenced manageability through
control over the environment, participation and involvement, access to resources and life
management amenities, as presented in Figure 7.
Manageability
Perceptions
Interview excerpts
Control over the
environment
Disturbance due to low
temperature
‘In general, the building is quite cold, I think.
And it doesn't feel that there is so much control
over the climate’ (I-11).
Disturbance due to automated
shades
‘Sometimes it’s perfect daylight in here; you
don’t even have to turn the lights on, and then
the shades go down, and then this is a cave,
and you have to turn the light on’ (I-20).
Exposure to visual stimuli
‘I'm a very anxious person, so it takes me out of
my zone to feel observed’ (I-14).
Increased visibility
‘I like working in an [office] landscape and
seeing what other people are doing, and you
can get inspired by other people’ (I-08).
Increased visual privacy
‘From my spot, it´s fine because I’m sitting in a
place that I kind of have visual privacy’ (I-29).
Exposure to acoustic stimuli
‘Sound comes from the corridors, and it comes
into the office, a lot’ (I-07).
Poor soundproofing
‘The phone rooms are not soundproof at all’ (I-
03).
Facilitated coping
‘The combination of a closed door and
headphones means that I'm happy with my
silence almost all the time’ (I-22).
Access to resources
Increased access to technical
equipment
‘You have access to very nice technology that
works quite well’ (I-05).
Increased access to high-quality
and adjustable furniture
‘I appreciate that those tables can go up and
down’ (I-02).
Adequate storage space
‘I'm satisfied with my box. I can lock it’ (I-30).
Difficulties working with
equipment; lack of training
‘We have never been introduced to all the
technology in the building. We just moved in,
and there were laying some paper’ (I-36).
Limited storage space
‘It's [the storage space is] quite small if you
have done a lot of interviews or something and
want to put them [the transcripts] in a safe
place’ (I-39).
Participation and
involvement
Facilitated opportunities to
become involved in pre- and/or
post-relocation processes
‘The fika [break] area we discussed a lot in
division meetings. I felt informed and consulted’
(I-33).
Limited possibilities for
involvement in pre- and/or post-
relocation processes
‘There was involvement, but we believe that it
was already set. So, whatever you said it was
not taken care of’ (I-26).
Life management
amenities
High decision latitude for choosing
where and when to work
(autonomy)
‘The flexibility is quite high, and for me, it´s also
important’ (I-29).
Possibility for resting and recovery
‘If I've had a full day and then I'm supposed to
go somewhere, then I use the nap room’ (I-06).
Lack of bike facilities
‘I have stopped bicycling to work as I cannot
put my sweaty clothes anywhere without
disturbing people’ (I-12).
Sufficient bike parking
‘There is plenty of parking space for my bike.
I'm happy’ (I-04).
The colored bars illustrate the proportion of interviewees who reported the office environment perceptions.
Positive perceptions, Negative perceptions.
Figure 7. Perceptions of manageability in the office environment as reported in interviews.
Figure 7. Perceptions of manageability in the office environment as reported in interviews.
4.2.1. Control over the Environment
Control over the environment refers to attributes of the office facilitating or hindering
one’s control over perceiving visual and acoustic stimuli.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 13 of 26
Design setting: The office offered limited personal control over the environment. The
climate system was centrally regulated. Additionally, the shades were entirely automated
with a sensor that reacted to the amount of daylight outside, at one floor at the same
time, with the consequence that the rooms with less daylight became even darker. The
extensive use of glass partitions in all office and back-up spaces increased the level of
transparency (Figure 8). That said, some rooms or workstations had a more protected
position. For instance, some two-person office rooms were located behind an internal
staircase that functioned as a separating shield from the main corridor; in addition, the
corner workstations in the eight-person office rooms had a more visually protected position.
The noise coming from the corridor could be explained by the spatial arrangement of the
meeting rooms opposite the office rooms, where the corridors or printer rooms would
function as a meeting point.
4
Low visual tranparency (0-10%)
Medium visual tranparency (20-30%)
High visual transparency (> 40%)
Figure 8
Low visual tranparency (0-10%)
Medium visual tranparency (20-30%)
High visual transparency (> 40%)
Figure 8
Figure 8.
Example of visual transparency on floor 4, calculated as the ratio of the glass/open area to
solid wall area.
Perceptions: In general, most interviewees perceived limited possibilities to control
their environment, i.e., temperature, automated shades, and visual and acoustic stimuli,
which reduced office manageability. Temperature was regarded as too low, with no possibil-
ity of influence by two-thirds of interviewees (28/41). Over half of the interviewees (22/41)
were dissatisfied with the automated shades due to them malfunctioning and offering
limited access to daylight. A lack of control over visual stimuli was experienced by 25/41
interviewees, and only four interviewees appreciated the increased spatial transparency.
One-third of interviewees (14/41) were satisfied with visual privacy, all of whom had
almost secluded workstations. A similar pattern was observed for half of the interviewees
(20/41) perceiving a lack of control over acoustic stimuli, and thus the office environment
was perceived less manageable.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 14 of 26
4.2.2. Access to Resources
Access to resources refers to attributes of the environment facilitating or hindering
access to preferred/needed technical equipment, furniture, and storage space.
Design setting: All employees had access to resources, including a uniformly sized
personal storage cupboard, shelves, a height-adjustable desk, an adjustable office chair and
a docking station in the office rooms. Meeting rooms were equipped either with or without
a whiteboard, display screen, video projector and webcam. Flex rooms had cupboards with
one screen per desk (Figure 9).
Top: example of a workstation
equiped with a height-adjustable desk,
an adjustable oce chair, a desk lamp
and a docking station.
Down: example of a personal storage
cupboard.
Examples of two meeting rooms of different sizes
equiped with whiteboard, display screen and
camera.
Figure 9
Figure 9. Access to resources.
Perceptions: The majority of interviewees (31/41) found their needed resources to be
available and accessible. High-quality and adjustable furniture, adequate storage space
and good IT equipment were found to be important to manage one’s work. An appreciable
minority (10/41) experienced a lack of storage space, difficulties working with equipment
and a lack of IT support and training.
4.2.3. Participation and Involvement
Participation and involvement refer to change processes facilitating or hindering
building user involvement.
Design setting: In an interview, the change coordinator confirmed that staff partici-
pation in the design process was limited to choosing between some predefined solutions
provided by the architects. The change process was communicated through a newsletter
and organization internal platform.
Perceptions: While only a few interviewees (7/41) perceived the opportunity for
participation in pre- and/or post-relocation change processes, 16/41 interviewees did

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 15 of 26
not perceive the possibility. The interviewees found the opportunities more formal than
practical in that the final solutions were predetermined and that employees’ input was not
considered. Overall, the perceived limited involvement in the change processes reduced the
sense of empowerment and manageability. This also reduced meaningfulness by creating a
sense that the employees’ opinions were underappreciated.
4.2.4. Life Management
Life management refers to amenities that facilitate or hinder employees in balancing
the pressure of work life.
Design setting: The observations and floor plans showed that facilities such as a
resting room, changing rooms and bicycle storage were provided. Accessible changing
rooms with cupboards and showers were located in the basement, one for female staff and
one for male staff, and the bicycle storage was located in the basement of the building next
door. However, no bicycle rack was provided in the storage, decreasing the security of the
room. The resting room was located on the 3rd floor with a solid curtain on both sides,
being the only room in the building that offered complete isolation.
Perceptions: The majority of the interviewees (35/41) perceived high decision latitude
for choosing where and when to work due to the organization’s trust-based culture. The
freedom to be in control of one’s own work schedule helped manage work-life balance.
Nearly a quarter of interviewees reported a lack of access to proper biking facilities such as
showers, changing rooms, and enclosed bicycle storage. Only a minority of interviewees
(5/41) reported using the resting room on the third floor for relaxation and stress recovery.
4.3. Meaningfulness
Meaningfulness in the office environment was associated with nature references, the
social environment, personalization, and a sense of ownership (Figure 10).
4.3.1. Nature References
Nature references refer to attributes that enable visual or physical access to the ele-
ments of the natural environment.
Design setting: All office rooms had windows with outdoor views. However, the
northern and western façades faced the campus area and a hill, while the eastern façade
faced a concrete wall, and parts of the northern façade faced a brick wall. The central atrium
with a glass roof provided daylight and sky views, in addition to the interior balconies
simulating an outdoor space (Figure 11). The southern exterior balcony in the lunchroom
offered daylight and views onto the hill and trees. In terms of greenery, the same type of
plants was placed in every breakout area. Another natural reference was wooden material
used in the internal staircase and benches in meeting rooms.
Perceptions: Half of the interviewees (20/41) found the views from office windows and
balconies inspiring and meaningful, while nearly the other half reported unpleasant views
on a concrete and brick wall. Nature references such as greenery and plants in the office
interior were perceived as insufficient by 26/41 interviewees. One-third of interviewees
(13/41) appreciated the amount of daylight. However, the automated shades limited access
to daylight for another third, making the office less meaningful.
4.3.2. Social Connections and Support
Social connections and support refer to attributes facilitating or hindering social
interactions and a sense of community in the office.
Design setting: The shared office rooms (2, 6 or 8 persons), as well as a high level
of transparency between the office, back-up spaces and the corridor, increased visibility
due to the use of glass partitions and thus increased access to colleagues. The two large
breakout areas on the third floor accommodated larger groups of people than those on the
fourth floor, which had a maximum of six persons (Figure 12). The lunchroom on the fifth
floor had the largest capacity which was also the most often occupied room among back-up

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 16 of 26
spaces. That said, none of the breakout areas were observed in use at their maximum
capacity (Table 4). As students did not have access to staff areas (for security reasons), they
could meet with teachers either in classrooms or in meeting rooms facing the staircases.
The meeting rooms were furnished with chairs and tables. Soft furniture was provided
only in breakout areas as well as two of the quiet rooms.
Meaningfulness
Perceptions
Interview excerpts
Nature references
Access to inspiring and soothing
views
‘[The views] help with inspiration sometimes,
and I do feel that this building is quite
inspirational in that sense’ (I-37).
Unpleasant/lacking views
‘I find it [views] very important […] a better
view would be nice for inspiration or a kind of
recharging’ (I-17).
Insufficient indoor nature
‘We need more plants in different spaces,
because then something is happening also
like a positive distraction when you're
working’ (I-39).
Increased access to daylight
‘For me [daylight is] really good. I have
southern window toward the south’ (I-01).
Compromised daylight
‘The sun shading usually blocks [the daylight],
and often, we are forced to use artificial
lighting’ (I-07).
Social connections
and support
Increased access and proximity to
colleagues
‘Now that we have shared rooms, it feels
easier to communicate’ (I-34).
Feelings of isolation; lack of sense of
community
‘You're left there [in the office] and somehow
forgotten […] it's just a general feeling of
isolation. That maybe in the long term can't
be so good)’ (I-03).
Facilitated meetings and breaks due
to diverse and spacious meeting
rooms and breakout areas
‘I like the variety, different sizes, different
furniture, and different equipment, we can
choose. [I am] very satisfied because I have
many meetings’ (I-21).
Increased hierarchy between staff
and students
‘[The students] don’t have access to come in
[to the staff areas] which is both good and
bad. It blocks out a lot of issues, but it also
creates an “us” and “them” feeling’ (I-40).
Increased privacy for staff
‘The students don’t have access to the [staff]
floors now, which I think is good. Before there
were a lot of people in the corridors’ (I-18).
Personalization, and
a sense of
ownership
Minimal and neutral feel
‘I like it very much actually. It's very modern,
[…] minimal style. Very clean’ (I-08).
Sterile and impersonal feel
‘It [aesthetic design] looks like a kind of
standard IKEA space, everything. And for an
architecture school, that's not exactly good’
(I-27).
Freedom to personalize workspaces
‘They did say that we weren't allowed to
bring our own plants, but I think you can just
ignore that’ (I-01).
Limited possibilities for
personalization
‘I can’t paint, I can’t move my desk
somewhere else […] it is decided how it
should be’ (I-24).
Implicit ownership at the
interdivision level
‘Coming here was a little uncomfortable, not
because of the distance, but because this is
not the people who know me’ (I-19).
The colored bars illustrate the proportion of interviewees who reported the office environment perceptions.
Positive perceptions, Negative perceptions.
Figure 10. Perceptions of meaningfulness in the office environment as reported in interviews.
Perceptions: Over half of the interviewees (23/41) perceived increased access to
colleagues and preferred face-to-face interactions for quick exchange of information. The
majority of interviewees (36/41) also appreciated the diverse, proximate meeting rooms
and breakout areas, which facilitated meetings and breaks with colleagues and hence
improved meaningfulness. In particular, the balconies were among the most popular
spaces in the breakout areas, offering a bright, relaxing environment for the majority of
the interviewees (31/41). Conversely, 12/41 interviewees experienced a lack of sense
of community due to difficulties in locating colleagues. This eventually led to feelings

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 17 of 26
of isolation and thereby office environment was perceived less meaningfulness. Some
interviewees (5/41) found limited student access to staff areas beneficial to managing one’s
privacy. However, others (9/41) perceived a subsequent increase in the hierarchy between
students and teachers.
Picture of the atrium offering daylight and views.
Example of indoor plants in breakout areas.
The outdoor balcony offering views onto
nature.
Example of use of wood.
Figure 11
Figure 11. Nature references.
Social environment
Example of a breakout area on oor 3. Example of a breakout area on oor 4.
Example of a meeting room. Example of a meeting room.
Figure 12
Figure 12. Social connections and support.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 18 of 26
4.3.3. Personalization and Sense of Ownership
Personalization and aesthetics refer to attributes of the environment facilitating or hin-
dering building users from adding personal/professional items to their work environments.
Design setting: The colors used in the office interior were mostly neutral (white,
gray, black) and earthy (wood, beige). Some parts of the office floors were cluttered with
books, folders, models and moving boxes (Figure 13), often without clear indication of
who ‘owned’ these items. The guidebook stated, ‘Enjoy the shared space, but please
leave private furniture, textiles and plants at home’, thus discouraging employees from
personalizing their workspace. Nevertheless, traces of identity expressions were found
in office rooms, workstations, corridors, and back-up spaces, such as art, plants, photos,
personal and professional items (Figure 14).
Visual clutter/lack of behavioral rules
Example of visual clutter in corridors. Example of a ex room used for storing
teaching material.
Example of visual clutter in a breakout area. Example of visual clutter in an oce room.
Figure 13
Figure 13. Visual clutter.
Perceptions: Almost half of the interviewees (20/41) appreciated the minimalistic
and neutral look. Nevertheless, 16/41 found the aesthetic design of the office too ‘sterile’
and ‘impersonal’, which reduced office meaningfulness (Figure 10). Over one-third of
interviewees (14/41) perceived the possibility of personalizing their office space, despite
being aware of the discouragement by the organization. However, a few found the rules
about personalization ambiguous and preferred to not add any personal items. Implicit
ownership was signaled by groups of employees frequenting certain back-up spaces or
breakout spaces and personalizing those spaces (e.g., with books, magazines, posters, mod-
els). The implied ownership was also reflected by 16/41 interviewees (16/41), indicating
that they would feel uncomfortable using spaces on other ‘floors’ or ‘sides’ of the building
to which they did not belong.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 19 of 26
Example of a personalization with personal
items.
Example of personalization with arts in quiet
room.
Example of personalization with plants. Example of personalization with work
material.
Figure 14
Figure 14. Examples of personalization.
5. Discussion
This study investigated the current office design circumstances and employees’ percep-
tions of the office environment in relation to their SOC. The overall goal was to contribute to
the understanding of interrelations between the office design, the perceived office environ-
ment andemployees’ SOC. The findings about the office environment are discussed in relation
to SOC. Additionally, methodological concerns and practical implications are addressed.
5.1. Office Environment in Relation to Sense of Coherence
The findings indicate that employees had a different conception of place than in-
tended by the designer. That is, the potential of the office environment, such as biking
facilities, was not perceived by the employees, reflecting low office comprehensibility.
This could be due to a lack of communication with employees concerning the facilities
provided. In contrast, the employees found potential in the office environment, which
led to deviation from intended use. These acts have been conceptualized as the ‘misuse’
of architecture and as one of the reasons why flexible office concepts do not work as in-
tended [
22
]. Babapour et al. [
37
] suggested that misuse may partly be a result of insufficient
employee involvement in the design and planning processes as well as the use phase. From
a design perspective, Søiland [
19
] argued that by attempting to repurpose workspaces to
adapt them to their needs and preferences, employees negotiate their office design during
use. In other words, users participate in design outside of organized user participation
processes [
19
]. If the (use of the) office environment is seen as a product of users’ ongoing
experience and understandings [
38
], there seems to be a disconnect between the expe-
rience and understandings of users and designers. This is in line with Canter’s theory
on the psychology of place, in which he argued that our understanding of a place comes
from our previous experiences that subsequently affect our behavior in it [
23
]. That is,
through interactions with the office environment, employees develop and attach patterns
of associations, expectations, and use [
23
]. Hence, employees’ spatial comprehension may

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 20 of 26
influence the variety of meanings they assign to places and the ways in which they utilize
workspaces (manageability).
The study shows that the components of SOC are interrelated. For instance, trans-
parency and openness increased opportunities for interaction and were associated with
positive meanings. However, this also led to difficulties in managing acoustic and visual
distractions. This finding aligns with previous associations between open office environ-
ments and increased noise and lack of privacy [
39
]. Hence, more communication does not
always improve employees’ SOC. Furthermore, feelings of isolation and a lack of sense
of community among employees may have been due to the abundance of breakout areas,
leading to a less meaningful office environment. A similar effect was found in activity-
based offices where employees had difficulties locating colleagues at the office, which
eventually had a negative impact on the sense of community and team cohesion in the long
term [
40
,
41
]. Relatively few connections have been made between the office environment
and social well-being [
24
,
42
]. This calls for a more detailed analysis of interrelations be-
tween inter/intrateam communications and architectural design features of social areas to
be able to support employees in managing their meaningful social relations and exposure
to stimuli.
Another interrelation is exemplified by personalization and subsequent feelings of
confusion for employees. While employees were discouraged from adding personal items
to the environment to assert meaning, some found the rules ambiguous (comprehensi-
bility). Nevertheless, personalization of space is used as a means of making sense of the
environment and giving meaning to the workspace [43,44].
The study highlights the relation between the (use of the) office environment and
facility management in terms of behavioral rules, lack of training, and a maintenance
system experienced as inconsistent with the follow-ups. The importance of clear behav-
ioral rules for successful implementations [
22
,
45
] as well as employee involvement in
the change process have been emphasized by previous research [
16
,
46
–
48
]. Research has
highlighted the importance of incorporating ergonomic training when introducing new
office design to optimize the experience of flexible offices [
49
]. Furthermore, the frustration
caused by the maintenance system is consistent with other studies showing that a sense
of resignation occurs when management does not address issues that disrupt employees’
work [
50
]. The study thus underlines the crucial role of facility management in creating
comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful office environments through engaging in
recurring communication and dialog with employees.
5.2. Methodological Concerns
The adopted qualitative case study approach fits the contextual nature of architectural
design and health [
33
] and is considered useful for studying individuals or groups within
their specific context [
51
]. Although the case study approach is criticized for its dependency
on a single case exploration, it has been argued that the parameter and goal setting of the
research–in this case the SOC framework– are more important than a large sample size [
51
].
This study highlighted the interrelations between the office environment and employees’
SOC using the specificity of the studied office design rather than establishing cause-effect
relationships between variables. The findings cannot therefore be generalized to other
cases. Our study findings are instead transferable, as the study concerns experiences of
SOC in an office environment, which are diverse for different employees and expectedly
so for different cases. According to the criteria for ensuring the quality of qualitative
studies [
52
], reliability was ensured through a thorough and transparent description of
the case, triangulation of multiple data sources, and ongoing discussions between the
researchers to ensure a consistent analysis strategy. Future research may benefit from our
findings in developing survey instruments to assess SOC in the office environment and
provide more generalizable insights.
A key strength of the study approach was its objective design perspective in combina-
tion with the perceptions of employees. Given the variety of layouts, sizes, implementation

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 21 of 26
processes, etc., flexible offices should be studied with attention to their design differences
in order to capture diverse experiences. The study provided insight on the case-specific
design aspect which contributes to the development of a sound evidence base. This enables
more accurate comparisons between different cases and helps to map positive and negative
design aspects in flexible office environments. The study also provides in-depth insights
regarding a range of aspects, from risk factors for health (pathogenic aspects) to health-
promoting potential of office environments (salutogenic aspects), in response to previous
calls for positive approaches toward health) [
1
–
4
]. Investigations on what makes an office
design healthy or about the interrelations between office environments and employees’
health may benefit from adopting such case study approaches.
Notably, the involvement of design professionals as participants may have resulted in
negative bias since design professionals might be more critical about space [
53
]. However,
they may also be more conscious of their office environment and therefore may be able to
provide more detailed insights.
5.3. Practical Implications
From a salutogenic perspective, previous research has shown that when people are
healthy, they demonstrate a theoretical surplus of coping resources [
54
]. Nevertheless,
when people are ill, they struggle in the balance between deterioration and recovery [
54
].
So, for people who have poorer health conditions, it becomes even more important to
provide a healthy office wherein the features of the environment help individuals cope
with work and everyday life.
This study focused on the salutogenic factors of the office environment outlined in the
SOC framework. The findings showed that when these factors fit employees’ needs and
preferences, they become resources to cope with challenging conditions. Nevertheless, the
same factors can become deficits, when they are suboptimal, hindering employees’ SOC.
The negative perceptions regarding various aspects of the office environment highlight
suboptimal design features with regard to employees’ SOC. The following modifications
are based on authors’ interpretations and concern continual enhancements in the office
environment that may improve SOC through, for instance, the introduction and communi-
cation of expected behaviors, the addition of meaningful items to the office environment,
and increased control by adding space-level control over stimuli (Table 5).
Table 5. Proposed modifications.
Suboptimal Comprehensibility Features Design Setting Proposed Modifications
Wayfinding
•Difficulties orienting in the building •Symmetrical layout
•Repetitive furniture; lack of
visual clues
•Square layout
•Add a distinct labeling system; add
visual clues, e.g., assign a color per
staircase, add distinct furniture
particular to a corner, provide ‘you
are here’ maps.
Understanding the functions
•Quiet rooms used for
spontaneous/informal discussions
•Not reservable
•Soft and facing furniture
•Allocate meeting rooms with soft
furniture for informal meetings.
•Implement a booking system.
•Take out large couches from quiet
rooms and replace with armchairs
that offer visual seclusion.
•Phone booths for concentrated work •Low transparency level;
minimal distractions
•Signaling of unavailability
•Dedicate enclosed spaces with
visual protection for
concentrated work.
•Use signage to communicate
behavioral rules.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 22 of 26
Table 5. Cont.
Suboptimal Comprehensibility Features Design Setting Proposed Modifications
•Meeting rooms for individual, and
concentrated work
•Availability
•Whiteboard and large table
•Introduce multipurpose rooms for
individuals and project teams.
•Provide large meeting tables that
allow for laptop use, note taking or
discussing large drawings
•Reception area perceived as an
undefined space
•No receptionist
•Lack of information for visitors
•
Clearly communicate the function of
the reception area with physical and
digital information boards.
•Showcase the research and
education carried out by the
department to those from outside
the department.
•
Meeting rooms with 4-person capacity
perceived too small for 4 persons
•Small table for four laptops
•Small area per employee (2.5
m2/person)
•Reduce the room capacity to 2
persons.
•Include large meeting tables that
allow for laptop use, note taking or
discussing large drawings.
Behavioral rules
•Exposure to conversations and noise •Ambiguous office etiquette •Use signs on workstations to
communicate availability, e.g., ‘Do
not disturb’ or ‘I am available’.
•Mess and visual clutter •Provided in-house guidebook •Increase enclosed storage space for
teaching, research, and
administrative materials, e.g., by
implementing a modular
storage cabinet.
•Communicate a clear protocol and
office etiquette regarding extra
equipment, work materials,
cleaning, and hygiene of
common spaces.
•Follow up to ensure the office
etiquettes are complied with.
•
Formally dedicate breakout areas to
groups and direct responsibilities
for maintenance and cleanliness.
Information sharing and transparency
•Ambiguous maintenance procedure •Provided phone numbers for
maintenance at doors
•No follow-up system
•Implement a responsive
maintenance system e.g., by
assigning a follow up number to
each problem report.
Suboptimal manageability features Design setting Proposed modifications
Control over the environment
•Disturbance due to low temperature •Centralized climate system and
lack of control
•Raise the temperature.
•Provide extra heaters.
•Disturbance by automated shades •Malfunction of automated shades
and lack of control
•Enable manual control over
daylight e.g., with opaque curtains.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 23 of 26
Table 5. Cont.
Suboptimal Comprehensibility Features Design Setting Proposed Modifications
•Exposure to visual stimuli
•Exposure to acoustic stimuli •Glass partition and high level
of transparency
•Shared office rooms
•Lack of behavioral rules
•Provide opaque curtains and
dividing panels
between workstations.
•Use signs on workstations to
communicate availability, e.g.,
‘Do not disturb’ or ‘I am available’.
•Provide a range of solutions from
noise-cancelling headphones to
sound-absorbing panels and
quiet rooms.
•Poor soundproofing •No sound insulation provided in
meeting rooms or phone rooms
•Improve Soundproofing of meeting
rooms e.g., by adding
sound-absorbing panels.
Access to resources
•Difficulties working with equipment
and ergonomics
•No training provided •Provide digital and physical
training and instructions on how to
set up and use technical equipment.
•Limited storage space •All employees with assigned
desks have access to a
storage cupboard
•Increase enclosed storage space
for teaching, research, and
administrative materials, e.g.,
by implementing a modular
storage cabinet.
Participation and involvement
•Limited possibilities for involvement
in pre- and/or
post-relocation processes
•Limited employee involvement in
change processes
•Implement yearly workshops to
discuss the physical work
environment and ensure employee
involvement in the
change processes.
Life management
•Lack of bike facilities •Changing room, bicycle storage,
and bicycle parking are provided.
•Introduce and communicate about
the facilities with the employees,
make them accessible, and provide
secluded bike storage with locks.
Suboptimal meaningfulness features Design setting Proposed modifications
Nature references
•Unpleasant/lacking views •Views onto brick and concrete
walls (east-facing and part of
north-facing façades)
•
Investigate the possibility to allocate
unpleasant façade sides to short
term activities such as phone rooms,
or video recording rooms.
•Insufficient indoor plants
and greenery
•Similar plants in breakout areas •Add more plants and allow
employees to choose the type
of plants.
•Encourage employees to bring their
own plants.
•Compromised daylight •
Automated shades limiting access
to direct daylight
•
Enable manual control over daylight
e.g., through opaque curtains
Social connections and support

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 24 of 26
Table 5. Cont.
Suboptimal Comprehensibility Features Design Setting Proposed Modifications
•Isolation and lack of sense
of community
•Low capacity and/or abundance
of breakout areas; lack of allocated
breakout area for divisions
•Allocate breakout areas to
different groups.
•Organize collective activities for
personalization of breakout areas.
•Implement a break schedule in
allocated breakout areas.
•Increased hierarchy between teachers
and students
•Lack of student access to
teachers’ area
•
Furnish the reception area as a break
area where staff and students can
informally meet.
Personalization and sense of ownership
•Sterile and impersonal feel •Use of neutral and earthy colors;
discouragement from
personalizing workspaces
•Add art and posters (e.g., nature,
design/engineering related photos)
to the meeting rooms to underline
the type of university building.
•Limited possibilities for
personalization
•Discouragement from
personalizing workspaces
•Allow personalization in offices
with some guidelines in terms
of clutter.
•Implicit ownership at the
intradivision level
•Proximity to workstations
•Signaling of ownership through
personalization and frequenting of
specific spaces
•
Formally dedicate breakout areas to
groups and direct responsibilities
for maintenance and cleanliness.
6. Conclusions
The findings showed that not all potential of the office environment was perceived by
the employees. Additionally, the ways that employees appropriated the office environment
were not planned by the designers. The study also highlighted interrelations between
the SOC components. Low levels of office comprehensibility caused by a lack of behav-
ioral rules, information about existing facilities, and facility management/maintenance
subsequently led to reduced manageability and meaningfulness. Discouragement of per-
sonalization and a subsequent feeling of confusion for employees limited comprehensibility
and meaningfulness. Moreover, the facilitated access to colleagues, which was perceived
as meaningful, led to more distractions and reduced manageability. The study noted
that spatial transparency and openness did not prevent feelings of isolation among some
employees and that more interaction is not always better for SOC. This finding implies that
organizations may need to prioritize which components of SOC should be supported most
by the office environment. Furthermore, it suggests that case-specific design aspects should
play a more central role in studying and conceptualizing healthy office design and that
design solutions should be continuously modified during the use phase, while ensuring
employees’ participation.
As outlined in the introduction, a question of interest to organizations and practitioners
is how office environments should be planned, designed, and managed to support or
enhance health. This question cannot be suitably addressed when the specificity of design
is overlooked. Furthermore, the study notes that an ‘ideal’ office environment should not
be the goal. Instead, office design should provide an environment in which employees are
able to cope with challenges in comprehensible, manageable and meaningful ways.
Author Contributions:
M.F. carried out the data collection. Analyses were carried out in collab-
oration between M.F. and E.M., where M.F. did the main work. M.F. wrote the manuscript with
feedback from E.M., N.R. and H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the Chalmers University of Technology.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 25 of 26
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The authors have taken note of the Act (2003: 460) on ethical
approval of research involving humans (see www.epn.se, accessed on 27 September 2021) and have
conducted the study in accordance with the principles set out therein.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement:
The full data are not publicly available due to ethical/privacy reasons.
Acknowledgments:
The authors thank Elisabeth Meyer and Ulrike Rahe for coordinating this study,
as well as the participants for making time and sharing their insights.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding body had no role in or
influence upon the study design, interpretation of the data or manuscript writing or on the decision
to publish the results.
References
1.
Colenberg, S.; Jylhä, T.; Arkesteijn, M. The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being—A
literature review. Build. Res. Inf. 2020,49, 352–366. [CrossRef]
2.
Forooraghi, M.; Miedema, E.; Ryd, N.; Wallbaum, H. Scoping review of health in office design approaches. J. Corp. Real Estate
2020,22, 155–180. [CrossRef]
3.
Groen, B.H.; Jylha, T.; Van Sprang, H. Healthy Offices: An Evidence-Based Trend in Facility Management? In Proceedings of the
Transdiciplinary Workspace Research Conference, Tampere, Finland, 19–21 September 2018.
4.
Jensen, P.A.; van der Voordt, T. Healthy workplaces: What we know and what else we need to know. J. Corp. Real Estate
2019
,22,
95–112. [CrossRef]
5. Antonovsky, A. Unraveling the Mystery of Health; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987.
6.
Eriksson, M.; Lindström, B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with health: A systematic review. J. Epidemiol.
Community Health 2006,60, 376–381. [CrossRef]
7.
Eriksson, M.; Lindström, B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: A systematic review.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007,61, 938–944. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Idan, O.; Eriksson, M.; Al-Yagon, M. The Salutogenic Model: The Role of Generalized Resistance Resources. In The Handbook of
Salutogenesis; Springer: Berlin, German, 2016; pp. 57–69.
9.
Braun-Lewensohn, O.; Idan, O.; Lindström, B.; Margalit, M. Salutogenesis: Sense of Coherence in Adolescence. In The Handbook of
Salutogenesis; Springer: Berlin, German, 2016; pp. 123–136.
10.
Idan, O.; Braun-Lewensohn, O.; Lindström, B.; Margalit, M. Salutogenesis: Sense of Coherence in Childhood and in Families. In
The Handbook of Salutogenesis; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 107–121.
11.
Koelen, M.; Eriksson, M.; Cattan, M. Older People, Sense of Coherence and Community. In The Handbook of Salutogenesis; Springer:
New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 137–147.
12.
Bodin Danielsson, C.; Bodin, L. Office Type in Relation to Health, Well-Being, and Job Satisfaction among Employees. Environ.
Behav. 2008,40, 636–668. [CrossRef]
13.
De Been, I.; Beijer, M. The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. J. Facil. Manag.
2014
,12,
142–157. [CrossRef]
14.
Brunia, S.; De Been, I.; van der Voordt, T.J.M. Accommodating new ways of working: Lessons from best practices and worst cases.
J. Corp. Real Estate 2016,18, 30–47. [CrossRef]
15.
Haapakangas, A.; Hongisto, V.; Eerola, M.; Kuusisto, T. Distraction distance and perceived disturbance by noise—An analysis of
21 open-plan offices. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017,141, 127–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Lahtinen, M.; Ruohomäki, V.; Haapakangas, A.; Reijula, K. Developmental needs of workplace design practices. Intell. Build. Int.
2015,7, 198–214. [CrossRef]
17.
Lamb, S.; Kwok, K.C.S. A longitudinal investigation of work environment stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office
workers. Appl. Ergon. 2016,52, 104–111. [CrossRef]
18.
Rolfö, L.; Jahncke, H.; Järvholm, L.S.; Öhrn, M.; Babapour, M. Predictors of Preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office. Adv.
Intell. Syst. Comput. 2019,876, 547–553.
19. Søiland, E. De-scripting office design: Exploring design intentions in use. J. Corp. Real Estate 2020,23, 263–277. [CrossRef]
20. Gjerland, A.; Søiland, E.; Thuen, F. Office concepts: A scoping review. Build. Environ. 2019,163, 106294. [CrossRef]
21.
Hoendervanger, J.G.; De Been, I.; Van Yperen, N.W.; Mobach, M.P.; Albers, C.J. Flexibility in use: Switching behaviour and
satisfaction in activity-based work environments. J. Corp. Real Estate 2016,18, 48–62. [CrossRef]
22.
Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Groenen, P.; Janssen, I. An end-users perspective on activity-based office concepts. J. Corp. Real Estate
2011,13, 122–135. [CrossRef]
23. Canter, D. The Psychology of Place; St Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
24.
Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Clippard, M.; Pfnur, A. The effectiveness of physical office environments for employee outcomes:
An interdisciplinary perspective of research efforts. J. Corp. Real Estate 2018,20, 56–80. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 12779 26 of 26
25. Huber, M.; AndréKnottnerus, J.; Green, L.; Van Der Horst, H.; Jadad, A.R.; Kromhout, D.; Leonard, B.; Lorig, K.; Loureiro, M.I.;
Van Der Meer, J.W.M.; et al. How should we define health? Br. Med. J. 2011,343, d4163. [CrossRef]
26. Antonovsky, A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health. Health Promot. Int. 1996,11, 11–18. [CrossRef]
27.
Vogt, K.; Hakanen, J.J.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. Sense of coherence and the motivational process of the job-demands-resources
model. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2016,21, 194–207. [CrossRef]
28.
Golembiewski, J.A. Start making sense: Applying a salutogenic model to architectural design for psychiatric care. Facilities
2010
,
28, 100–117. [CrossRef]
29.
Ruohomäki, V.; Lahtinen, M.; Reijula, K. Salutogenic and user-centred approach for workplace design. Intell. Build. Int.
2015
,7,
184–197. [CrossRef]
30.
Roskams, M.; Haynes, B. Salutogenic workplace design: A conceptual framework for supporting sense of coherence through
environmental resources. J. Corp. Real Estate 2019,22, 139–153. [CrossRef]
31.
Wijk, K.; Bergsten, E.L.; Hallman, D.M. Sense of coherence, health, well-being, and work satisfaction before and after implementing
activity-based workplaces. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5250. [CrossRef]
32.
Forooraghi, M.; Cobaleda-cordero, A.; Babapour Chafi, M. A healthy office and healthy employees: A longitudinal case study
with a salutogenic perspective in the context of the physical office environment salutogenic perspective in the context of the
physical office environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2021, 1–18. [CrossRef]
33.
Creswell, J. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
34.
Babapour, M.; Cobaleda-cordero, A. Contextual user research methods for eliciting user experience insights in workplace studies.
In Proceedings of the Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, Hessen-Thüringen, Germany, 16–19 September 2020;
pp. 265–275.
35.
Cobaleda-Cordero, A.; Babapour, M.; Karlsson, M.A. Feel well and do well at work: A post-relocation study on the relationships
between employee wellbeing and office landscape. J. Corp. Real Estate 2019,22, 113–137. [CrossRef]
36.
Timmermans, S.; Tavory, I. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol.
Theory 2012,30, 167–186. [CrossRef]
37.
Babapour Chafi, M.; Karlsson, M.A.; Osvalder, A.L. Appropriation of an activity-based flexible office in daily work. Nord. J. Work.
Life Stud. 2018,8, 71–94. [CrossRef]
38.
Taylor, S.; Spicer, A. Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. Int. J. Manag. Rev.
2007
,9, 325–346.
[CrossRef]
39.
Bodin Danielsson, C.; Bodin, L. Difference in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types.
J. Archit. Plann. Res. 2009,26, 241–257.
40.
Haapakangas, A.; Hallman, D.M.; Mathiassen, S.E.; Jahncke, H. The effects of moving into an activity-based office on communica-
tion, social relations and work demands—A controlled intervention with repeated follow-up. J. Environ. Psychol.
2019
,66, 101341.
[CrossRef]
41.
Wohlers, C.; Hertel, G. Longitudinal effects of activity-based flexible office design on teamwork. Front. Psychol.
2018
,9, 2016.
[CrossRef]
42.
Colenberg, S.; Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Romero Herrera, N.; Keyson, D. Conceptualizing social well-being in activity-based
offices. J. Manag. Psychol. 2020,36, 327–343. [CrossRef]
43.
Brunia, S.; Hartjes-Gosselink, A. Personalization in non-territorial offices: A study of a human need. J. Corp. Real Estate
2009
,11,
169–182. [CrossRef]
44.
Heerwagen, J.H.; Heubach, J.G.; Montgomery, J.; Weimer, W.C. Environmental Design, Work, and Well Being. AAOHN J.
1995
,43,
458–468. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Rolfö, L.; Eklund, J.; Jahncke, H. Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics
2018,61, 644–657. [CrossRef]
46.
Vischer, J.C. Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Archit.
Sci. Rev. 2008,51, 97–108. [CrossRef]
47.
Hongisto, V.; Haapakangas, A.; Varjo, J.; Helenius, R.; Koskela, H. Refurbishment of an open-plan office—Environmental and job
satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016,45, 176–191. [CrossRef]
48.
Rolfö, L. Relocation to an activity-based flexible office—Design processes and outcomes. Appl. Ergon.
2018
,73, 141–150. [CrossRef]
49.
Robertson, M.M.; Huang, Y.-H.; O’Neill, M.J.; Schleifer, L.M. Flexible workspace design and ergonomics training: Impacts on the
psychosocial work environment, musculoskeletal health, and work effectiveness among knowledge workers. Appl. Ergon.
2008
,
39, 482–494. [CrossRef]
50.
Babapour Chafi, M. From fading novelty effects to emergent appreciation of Activity-based Flexible Offices: Comparing the
individual, organisational and spatial adaptations in two case organisations. Appl. Ergon.
2019
,81, 102877. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Yin, R.K. Applications of Case Study Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 3–20.
52.
Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An. Expanded Sourcebook; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 1994.
53. Gou, Z. Green building for office interiors: Challenges and opportunities. Facilities 2016,34, 614–629. [CrossRef]
54.
Golembiewski, J.A.; Mittelmark, M.B.; Sagy, S.; Eriksson, M.; Bauer, G.F.; Pelikan, J.M.; Lindström, B.; Espnes, G.A. Salutogenic
Architecture in Healthcare Settings. In The Handbook of Salutogenesis; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 267–276.