Greening the Office_Final

8/12/2019 Greening the Office_Final

1/16

1

Greening the office and job satisfaction1

David Uzzell

Department of Psychology

University of Surrey

I just fancy being comfortable. Its got to be comfortable so if I can put things around to make me

feel more comfortable I will. And plants are one of them.(Jillian, office worker)

Greening Workspaces

It is an axiomatic position in environmental psychology that the physical features of the environment

interact with psychosocial affective elements, and this interaction not only gives meaning to place

and space, but is fundamental to our assessment of place (Moser and Uzzell, 2003). The

environmental context is a crucial aspect of psychological processes; change the context and thepsychological processes change. Individual psychology is not independent of the socio-spatial setting

in which it occurs, whether it is a social or and environmental setting. When it comes to

understanding human perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours in real-world settings then the

environment is a critical factor that needs to be taken into account. One such setting is the

workplace. We cannot assess job satisfaction, productivity and well-being independently of the

setting in which work occurs. The nature of the work we do in all its manifestations will influence our

perception, understanding and response to the environment in which it is taking place. Equally, the

socio-spatial setting will impact upon job satisfaction, productivity and well-being. If we are to

understand one or the other, we need to investigate both.

A considerable amount of research has been undertaken over the last three decades into therestorative effects of the environment, especially the natural environment (Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan and

Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). As Bringslimark, Hartig and Patil (2009, p422) conclude, Studies have

found that passive and active engagement with nature outdoors can, for example, increase positive

affect, reduce psycho-physiological arousal, and renew an ability to perform tasks that require

concentration. On the basisof these findings, the question has been raised as to whether the

presence of plants indoors or visual access to greenspaces outside (i.e., through a window) can have

corresponding benefits. In other words, to what extent does greening up the environment have

positive psychological and physiological effects? Does the presence of plants in offices lead people to

evaluate the office environment more effectively? Do plants help employees to feel better about

their employing organisation or their managers? Does it lead to a less stressful working

environment? Does it lead to more productive outputs individually and collectively? Of course, thereare significant differences between the outdoor and indoor environments. Experiencing nature in an

outdoor environment tends to be an immersive experienceone is surrounded by nature visually,

sonically, olfactorily. In the office environment one tends to experience plants passively. Although a

passive experience, for many simply being able to see plants - something living and growingis

important, rewarding and has behavioural consequences. This is the subject of this paper.

For office-based workers, up to 50% of their waking hours are spent in their office. Hence the

workplace environment is important to both individuals and organisations (Paul, 1994). Job

satisfaction can be measured in many ways but always combines person (e.g., levels of absenteeism,

lateness, sickness and productivity) and physical attributes (e.g. preferences for ventilation,

1Published in Uzzell, D. (2013) Greening the office and job satisfaction in L. Rubens and M. Pierrette (eds)

Psychology at Work, Qubec: Presses de l'Universit Laval.


2/16

2

temperature levels, humidity and noise). Job satisfaction is directly related to satisfaction with the

work environment (Anjum, 1998); for organisations it is vital as a good working environment means

maximum productivity and minimum employee absence (Lam, Baum and Pine, 2003; Dale and

Griliches, 1967; Ulrich, 2002). High staff turnover is costly to companies, both in terms of replacing

the lost staff and the negative consequences on those who remain (Hinkin and Tracey, 2000). Open

office design has been found to be negatively related to workers satisfaction with their physicalenvironment and perceived productivity, compared with traditional individual offices (Brennan,

Chugh and Kline, 2002; Anjum, 1998). Workplaces are essentially a hub for communication; hence

the ongoing trend towards open offices (Vischer, 1999). Thus it is important to create an

environment that is conducive to communication, whilst providing privacy or quiet when a job

requires (Kenreich, 2001). Research evidence suggests that there are certain environments which

improve interpersonal communication opportunities (Parkinson, 1980; Asaumi et al, 1995). There

are interpersonal differences in terms of needs for privacy relating to an employees age; older

workers prefer more private office arrangements to facilitate work and maintain their performance

efficiency (Kupritz, 2003). This may be due to lingering ideas around the need and preference for

traditional individual office spaces. Notwithstanding this, it is increasingly recognised, particularly

within high-tech industries that modern offices are centres for communication and the exchange ofideas rather than private spaces in which individuals carry out individual work. In order to overcome

a rigid demarcation of space, hard barriers (e.g., walls) are often replaced with soft barriers (e.g.,

screens) which allow some visual and audio communication across space while preserving a degree

of privacy and demarcating an individuals territory. These can be wooden/cloth screens but they

might equally be plants. To what degree do screens in general and plants in particular contribute to

a better working environment?

Trying to identify the correlates between the physical environment and human behaviour is always

difficult, precisely because many studies adopt a correlational framework and thus causality is

impossible to determine. The example of plants as screens is an example of such a cause-effect

relationship which is often asked for by designers and occasionally claimed by researchers. But suchrelationships are methodologically difficult to demonstrate. If an evaluation study discovers that

office workers are much happier after the space has been effectively demarcated with plants, would

this be due to the plants or simply demarcation? The suggestion is that plants provide a permeable

barrier and are thus not hard like a screen. Or would it be simply due to the fact that plants have

non-work associations? A painting or a piece of sculpture might have a similar effect. However, a

good office environment with greenery has been linked to decreases in staff turnover, possibly due

to decreased stress and higher job satisfaction. To know whether such barriers as plants have a

beneficial effect requires an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (Bringslimark,

Hartig and Patil, 2009).

Research on the Beneficial Effects of Plants

This paper continues by reviewing some of the research literature which makes claims concerning

the physical and psychological benefits of greening office environments. This review focuses on the

research evidence which has sought to assess the physiological and psychological impact of plants

on employees, in terms of their role in stress reduction, their impact on air quality, employees sense

of well being in a green environment, and finally the contribution that plans make to office

workerssense of place through the personalising of space and creating a sense of identity. The

paper concludes with a qualitative empirical study which sought to explore, these issues through a

number of focus group discussions.


3/16

3

Plants and stress

Stress is a major cause of absenteeism and staff turnover, e.g. in a Pennsylvania telephone company

25% of employees left with stress related illnesses (Kimeldorf and Kimeldorf, 1993). There is

evidence that an individuals perception of stress and their actual stress levels (measured using

physiological techniques) are lowered in the presence of nature and greenery. Visual exposure toplants and nature, even if it is only for a few minutes, is a valuable tool for both physiological and

psychological recovery from stress (Ulrich, 2002). In the work environment, the use of posters of

outdoor scenes were found to alleviate some of the stress of office workers, and help to make the

workplace more pleasant (Stone and English, 1998). Recovery from stress and mood improvement

has consistently been found to be improved with visual exposure to scenes of nature (by means of

video recordings), based on physiological measures taken in laboratory conditions (Ulrich, Simons et

al, 1991). In a hospital environment, staff patients and visitors all claimed beneficial effects, such as

restoration from stress and improved mood from simply being able to view the hospital gardens

from the window. Park and Mattson (2008, 2009) found that patients in rooms with plants required

a shorter period in hospital, had less pain intensity and analgesic requirements, less anxiety and their

environment was rated more highly. However, there have been other studies undertaken in hospitalenvironments where the findings are mixed. Stress reduction also occurred when people walked

through a nature reserve compared to an urban setting (Hartig, Evans et al, 2003). Car driving

commuters have been found to have a positive response to stress and mood when driving, even

over short distances, through settings dominated by nature and greenery (Parsons, Tassinary, et al,

1998).

Plants and air quality

Raised levels of indoor air pollution may reduce productivity (Wyon, 2004). Where a building is

considered sick, employees report many associated symptoms such as dry eyes and skin andbreathing complaints, which overall relate to a decrease in job satisfaction (Chao, Schwartz, Milton

and Burge, 2003). The overall intensity of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms has been found

to increase when indoor air was not humidified (Reinikainen and Jaakkola, 2001). Research has been

undertaken on the use of plants in offices and other indoor environments to counter the effects of

Sick Building Syndrome (SBS).

Predominantly focussing on air quality improvements, stemming from Wolverton, McDonald and

Watkins research (1984), it is suggested that the use of plants, greenery and foliage is beneficial to

air quality, especially in open plan office environments (Wood, 2003). This is somewhat of an

anomaly as the actual improvements in air quality in environments with free air exchange have

elsewhere been found negligible (e.g. Schmitz, Hilgers and Weidner, 2000) compared to the findingsfrom placing plants in sealed units (the method used by Wolverton). It was not until a living wall

was introduced to an office environment that any substantial difference was found in air quality

(Dixon, 2004). Dixon developed a 40 breathing wall incorporating hundreds of plants and aquatic

species which he believes will solve most indoor air quality problems; an active wall is also being

developed linked to the air circulation systems of the building to measure the effectiveness of the

plants in reducing atmospheric pollutants in a project called CLER (Canada Life Environment Room:

Ledger, 1999). Further research following Wolvertons methodologies suggests that certain plants

are very effective for reducing odours in the atmosphere, particularly ammonia (Oyabu, Sawada,

Onodera, Takenak and Wolverton, 2003).

A growing body of research suggests that office occupants do not respond to actualair quality.

Rather, when plants are present, there is aperceptionthat air quality is improved compared to when


4/16

4

they are not. Equally, perceived air quality is significantly affected by the type and amount of

ventilation (Seppanen, and Fisk, 2004). Office residents reports of symptoms relating to air

pollution and their rating of environmental acceptability is quite distinct from real indoor air

quality determined from empirical measurements of indoor pollutants (Sekhar, Tham, and Cheong,

2003). Employees whoperceivedtheir psychosocial work environment negatively had more

complaints than others regarding the indoor environment and more symptoms attributed to theindoor air (Lahtinen, Sundman-Diger and Reijula, 2004). It may be that underlying causes of SBS are

not actually related to the physical environmentper sebut are simply perceived to be so by

employees. Subjective responses to questions about causes of health problems of employees in an

office building showed that employees preferred a more natural environment, especially where

offices were fully air conditioned (Muhic, and Butala, 2004). These research cases support the

findings of Lahtinen, et al (2002) that psychosocial processes play a significant role in indoor air

problems, and that it is important to gather information on the organisation more generally when

considering SBS (Lahtinen et al, 2004).

A sense of place: control, personalising space and identity

The presence of plants has been found to improve employees sense of well-being compared to the

absence of plants (Manos and Traeger-Synodinos, 1998). In a healthcare environment, elderly

patients were found to respond positively to plants which staff attributed to the feelings of overall

well being that resulted from plants being present (Rappe and Linden, 2002). Maintaining general

subjective well-being is most reliant upon self-confidence, mood and ability (Sjorgren-Ronka, Ojanen

et al, 2002); mood and ability to concentrate are all enhanced by the presence of plants.

A sense of control over ones environment is an important issue which recurs repeatedly in the

environmental psychology research literature. Feelings of control and loss of perceived control is a

critical part of the behavioural constraint model (Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, 1970; Stokols, 1978,

Zlutnick and Altman, 1972). Feelings of not being able to master a situation produces psychologicalreactance (Brehm, 1966) and in some cases an attempt to recover his/her freedom of action (Strube

and Werner, 1984). Having freedom of action or controlling ones environment isan important

aspect of everyday life and an individuals well-being, and is considered crucial to an employees job

satisfaction and work life quality (Matthews, 1989). This could include a sense of control that an

office employee has, or believes they have, over their work environment such as bringing plants into

the office. When workers feel in control of their office environment, there is enhanced

environmental satisfaction and communication (Huang, Robers, and Chang, 2004). Vroon (1990)

found that where people have no ability to act on the environment and see the effects, office

workers are forced to adapt their behaviour to the environment resulting in increased stress (Anjum,

1998). Where office environment changes were made without the involvement of staff, productivity

was found to decrease (Vischer, 1999). What appears to be important in the perception of the workenvironment is an individuals self-belief of their success or failure (Fischer, Tarquinio and Vischer,

2004). In installing, maintaining and servicing plants in offices the desire for some form of control

over the environment can be accommodated, both to the benefit of employees (in terms of job

satisfaction) and employers (in improved productivity). People feel less threatened by change where

they have some choice.

Kenreich (2001) observed that once basic needs have been met, staff then began to personalise their

office spaces with higher order needs such as plants, posters and pictures. These were elements of

the office which related to pleasure and individuality. Bergs (1992) showed that some influence

over the arrangement of an office improved job satisfaction (e.g., location of furniture, choice of

posters or plants). Where staff had the freedom to move around and influence environmental

conditions to optimise them for their personal preference there was a positive response to job


5/16

5

satisfaction (Donald and Sui, 2001). The impact on health of having a role in decision making

relating to natural resources, the ambient environment and the work environment is considered

vitally important, especially considering the number of other decisions made at work over which

many employees have no influence (Baranski, 2002).

Research Study

In order to explore some of these issues further, a study was undertaken to explore office users

experience of plants, and their opinion of the benefits of plants. The principal methodology

employed was focus group discussions among office workers in the UK. In total, six focus groups

were recruited (three under 35s age groups and three over 35s age groups), at three locations in

England. A total of 65 people attended the six focus groups: South East: under 35s, 13 participants;

over 35s, 10 participants. North West: under 35s, 10 participants; over 35s, 12 participants.

Midlands: under 35s, 10 participants, over 35s 10 participants. Almost 86% of participants were

women. The initial discussion lasted for approximately one hour, during which time six areas of

interest were the main subjects.

All participants were recruited as office based employees from a range of small, medium and large

employers, some international businesses and some public sector employees. They worked in a

variety of shared, individual and open plan offices. Approximately 50% had plants in their office, and

of these about 66% had provided these plants themselves, whilst the remaining 33% worked in

buildings where maintained plants were supplied. In some cases, participants had brought their own

plants in addition to the plants that were supplied.

Results

In order to investigate underlying issues that would contribute to these wider aims, the main pointsfor discussion groups focussed on four main issues:

1. the workplace, job satisfaction and work performance

2. impact of plants on the working environment

3. perceptions of employers in relation to work spaces and plants

4.

the role of end users in decision making

The results are presented illustrating the principal responses to these three areas. Where there

were differences between ages, location, or gender, participants office type (individual, shared,

open plan) these are noted under each subject area. It is interesting to note that there were very

few differences between the groups relating to any socio-demographic differences. Where there

were some minor differences these were: male participants generally took a more pragmaticapproach to the workplace and accepted a no-frills working environment, but they were equally

likely to say that enjoyed the presence of plants. Younger participants were likely to personalise

their workspace with toys and pictures whilst older participants were more likely to bring plants.

Open-plan office workers reported noise problems more frequently than others.

1. The Workplace, Job Satisfaction and Work Performance

These questions focussed on the extent to which the working environment in generalimpacts on

both job satisfaction and work performance. All groups were asked to discuss only the physical

environment of their workplace, and not to dwell on people, or other social aspects.

Overwhelmingly, responses show that the working environment was crucial to participants belief

that they were able to work comfortably and successfully. All participants could verbalise the good


6/16


7/16

7

name, whilst the remaining third worked in buildings where maintained plants were supplied.

Generally, where plants had been provided by employees, it was clear that one person in the office

voluntarily took responsibility for supplying and caring for the plants.

We provide them ourselves. [Named person] is brilliant. We could have got little ones from

the company.When I worked for another company we actually hired a firm to come in and bring our

plantsit was a big office and it did look nice and I used to like my plants.

When you come in through the foyer which isa glass foyer, there are palms and things,

when you get out of the lift there arepalms and theyve just actually changed the

pots that theyre in. Looks nice.

The girls have made one of these little mini gardens, so that everyone just adds to it. Bit by

bit it is evolving.

Where participants worked in offices where there were no plants, a number of reasons were put

forward, but almost all specified that given the choice they would like to have plants around.

.....I like having them now theyre here in the office. I wouldnt want to get rid of them, but I

wouldnt think about getting them unless somebody else did really.

I think I would like to have them there but I wouldnt actually go and choose to buy them.

I mean theres no place to put a plant. I wouldnt dream of bringing a plant in. They would

die because of the light. Theres no natural light.

I would like them if there was somewhere to put them but the office is too cramped. Youve

got the shelving and what have you but theresnowhere to put them and you know,

no light.

Some participants had some ideas that plants were good for you in the office. Participants

reported that they believed the plants cleaned the air and helped to reduce the effects of computersand other equipment.

Its good for the air isnt it to have plants.

I like to have plants cause I think it actually helps counteract the emissions from the

computers and equipment.

I used to work on one of the psychiatric wards; they made a big issue a couple of years ago

about paying God knows how much for big plants on the ward. And the amount of

people that said they felt better in themselves just to see a bit of nature.

The first plant I bought, my ex-boss used to smoke and so I bought a plant that had the

water in the plant. It got rid of the smell basically. It was a definite improvement.

When participants had brought plants to the office themselves, their presence was equated with

homeliness and comfort. They were associated with welcoming and inviting environments. There

was the pragmatic acceptance that it was necessary to spend a good deal of time at the workplace

and the ability to bring plants from home was much appreciated. This was much more apparent for

older groups than younger. Younger people were more likely to personalise their workspace with

pictures or other personal ephemera.

Ive got my plants and something that obviously Ive fetched in from home. And I suppose

its about fetching a part of you into your office space isnt it. The same way that

people fetch pictures of their family. Thats something that is yours for your space

really.

It would be nice if you could bring your own plant.


8/16

8

I think some staff enjoy watering them and taking care of them. I think it gives them a

break from their work. They like caring for something.

Its very welcoming to see plants.

Green is a relaxing colour anyway, so its nice to focus on the green and its a bit more

homely isnt it

Favourable comments were also made about paintings and pictures in the office, although it was

generally suggested that plants would be preferable. Some focus group members wanted an office

pet! Choice was an important issue brought up by most focus groups, when participants were

discussing aesthetic trimmings in their offices.

If you choose your plants and if you choose your pictures, or whatever, I mean its your own

choice. So in that instance its an extension of myself.

Pictures are fine but they tend to be corporate pictures, not growing.

I like both [pictures and plants] but I think its important to choose the pictures so that you

have your own choice of pictures.

I think in the same way you choose your plants carefully to go in various positions aroundthe office, I think the same with pictures. Its nice to be able to choose your own, not

corporate ones.

Id like to have a dog but not allowed one.

Thought of having a fish before now, but apparently health and safety wont allow that.

There was something apparently ephemeral and difficult for participants to capture when talking

about plants and their impact on job satisfaction and improvements to the workplace. Some

regarded plants as lifting the spirits. While the desire for an office pet may sound strange, its value

was, like plants, to introduce something living into the office environment.

When I was there on my own I liked the fact that Ive got a plant to talk to.I think it has a calming effect.

Its like having the outside inside, that sort of you know greenery and when the weathers

not nice outside it gives you something to look at.

Its a bit like being trapped as well. If youre sat at your desk and having something green

about, its giving you a bit of freedom I suppose.

Its just a feel good.

Its important that theyre living. You do bond with plants.

3. Perceptions of Employers in Relation to Work Spaces and Plants

This third area of investigation addressed issues relating to whether employers were perceiveddifferently according to the office environment and to plants in workplaces. Key issues which would

change the perception of an employer for the better included being consulted about changes to the

office, consideration of employees, feeling that an employer considered employees to be people,

and employers providing offices which met the kind of criteria identified above for a good working

environment. Inclusion and consideration was a major discussion point for all focus groups:

participants argued that these two factors could either improve work performance or de-motivate

and end in poor performance.

Theres a feeling of being looked after you know, by doing that [planting entrance and

reception], by involving you. Theyre making an effort for the workers, being valued

where as we feel neglected.


9/16

9

Like [persons name] said about someone coming in to make sure your desk is okay and the

lighting is okay, itsthat feeling of being valued and respected as a worker.

You get more out of the workers if they feel valued.

I think I would like it if somebody could consider the demands of the job. Because thats not

considered at all. The fact that we do need space and quiet sometimes

I was working at a place before where I am now and they were actually banned, youwerent allowed plants, you werent allowed pictures, you werent allowed anything

personalised at all, he went and the whole office changed. Theyre much happier

people in there now.

The key issues which would change the perception of an employer for the worst included no control

over workplace or conditions, no consideration of employees as people, and employers providing

office space which in some way was associated with the poor aspects of the office environment

reported above. Again, the lack of consideration was equated with work performance. Focus group

participants clearly related their own performance to their concept of how they were treated by

their employer.

When you think how long youre actually at work, its a very big part of your life and

therefore if youre not, you know if you dont feel considered, then youre not gonna

perform well.

Youre just there to do the work. Never mind seeing you as a person. Youre an employee

and get on with it.

You just felt like a number yeah. You werent an individual. You know, you were just bums

on seats.

Participants did not believe that their attitudes to an employer would change whether or not plants

were provided, so long as other terms and conditions were good; the physical workplace was not

something that was considered until other important aspects of their work life were dealt withsatisfactorily. Furthermore, the earlier discussion about being consulted and having choice over

decisions also came to the fore.

I dont know if it would hugely change myopinion of my boss. Not a few plants, I dont

think. No.

I think they should just ask for your opinion as to where they [plants]can go or whatever.

I dont think you would view your employer being any different or what. Its just.....it

depends on your employer as well. Whether they give you decent holidays and pay

and things like that.

Id think he was up to something if he gave me a plant.

Decent terms and conditions. If they get those right then plants go a long way.It would show that there was some thought put into the environment, so yes. But only if I

could choose them.

It was considered important that the first impression of a business was good and that this could be

enhanced by plants. However, it was noted that this must be extended to employees office spaces

and other workplaces to avoid resentment.

I think itsso good for the image of a business if they all just looked good. Itslike people

who go around in dirty shoes and you think, ooh you cant look after yourself. Its

just like something like that.

I think it makes a great impression, you know. I love the sight of plants because it sort of, as

you said before, it softens things. It gives a personal touch and I think itslovely.


10/16

10

I think itsgiving your company a type of personality. We had these plants, not now but in

our old reception we had always lots of plants and flowers and everything. We had

fresh fruit which was always put out and everything was always shiny and looked

wonderful. Thats important again to the industry that you work in.

4.

The Role of End Users in Decision Making

It has already been noted that inclusion of employees in decisions over their office environment is

key to satisfaction with working conditions. However, most participants had little say over the total

design of their officeonly three out of the 65 participants had firsthand experience and control

over either re-designing an existing office or planning a new workspace: all these focus group

members were very positive towards the experience. Many others mentioned having input to a

redecorating phase, or refurbishment. Where there was some control over work space,

participants were more positive about their office environment and to their employer. Issues over

which they typically had some control included the layout of the office, with whom they sat,

pictures, posters and other personal affects. Aspects of the office over which participants had no

control reflected again their responses to questions at the beginning of the session about what weregood and bad features of their own workplace. These included a lack of natural light, no opening

windows to allow natural ventilation, dcor and air conditioning.

We had a budget to work with and we still had the confinedspace but there was some

discussion about where would we place the desks, anybody got any ideas. That was

good.

Recently ours was refitted, when we all went into this shared office and we were able to

choose our furniture, the colours and the colours of the carpet so that was good.

First time in 15 years that Ive been able to choose what colour carpet we got.

I think youd feel good about that[having a say in the office design]. Valued yeah. And I

think youd actually, you know youd be encouraged to actually work more. Yeahwork harder for them yeah. Go that extra bit, instead of saying no, Im sorry youre

paying for me to do so and so

We dont have any say whatsoever. You come in on a Monday morning, things have been

moved around, second hand furniture has been brought in from somewhere and its,

no, were not considered.

Many participants reported that though they had been asked about their opinions about the design

of their office, they believed their employer had not really acted upon this. This resulted not only in

frustration, but in some cases a more negative view of the employer.

In our situation they ask for our opinions and then they go and do what they want.If they said, were doing this for you because, I think that would make a difference to what

you felt. Itslike, itsmy office, why are you doing that but if they were making out

they were helping you, that would be completely different.

Its the powerlessness of being done towe had no say in the layout or anything else and it

was just that whole feeling of not having any choice.

Participants did believe that they had a say over plants that they had in their office, but this mostly

reflected the fact that they had provided the plants themselves. Those who had worked in buildings

where plants were provided had never been asked their personal preferences, but would have liked

to have been consulted.


11/16

11

Id want to choose otherwise wed all get a potted poinsettia or an orange chrysanthemum

or something like that which Id probably wilfully let die.

If you got a choice of ten or something, and you know it would be nice to choose.

Where plants were provided by someone else (i.e., the company or colleagues), participants

reported that they still enjoyed those plants being in the office and did not mind that they had nothad any say. When probed further however, there was still the opinion that having a say in what

would be provided in oneseveryday working environment would be preferred. Inclusion could

therefore overcome issues relating to businesses being seen to spend money on aesthetic frills.

I worked on this ward once where they went out and spent a lot of money and the staff that

didnt pick the plants [complained].... You know, itstoo big, and why have they

forked out all this money, you know, so yeah it is important that people have their

say.

Conclusions

It should be stressed that this study did not seek to prove that plants have a beneficial effect from a

psycho-physiological perspective. It was beyond the scope of the research to attempt that. This

research focussed on office workers attitudes and affective responses to the benefits of plants. The

focus groups provided support for a number of research findings identified in the literature review.

Plants in offices are associated with positive responses and associations. Respondents used words

such as homely, inviting, welcoming and calming when describing exactly what plants brought to

their office environment. Plants were associated with reduced stress by the office residents

participating. There was acknowledgement that the workplace was a place in which participants

spent significant proportions of their time and was therefore an environment in which it was

extremely important to feel comfortable.

Participants identified good and bad aspects of their workplace. Equally, they related good and bad

aspects of their workplace with job satisfaction and work performance. It is noteworthy that

reference to plants or greenery had not been made by the focus group facilitator at this stage in the

discussionthe comments and suggestions were voluntary and spontaneous. All participants

associated plants and views of outside greenspaces with satisfying aspects of their workplace and

having a positive impact on job satisfaction. It could therefore be concluded that the majority of

people viewed plants in offices as a desirable, relaxing and pleasing addition to their workplace.

In comparing plants with other aesthetic interventions, plants were favoured: they were living,

required interaction, and participants believed that they had other environmental benefits relating

to air quality, noise and humidity. An element of choice over plants and pictures was important tooffice workers: hence many participants had made the effort to bring their own plants to the office.

In some cases, even when the corporation had provided plants, some participants had also brought

their own to the office linking them to home and their own identity.

It became apparent that the inclusion of staff in decisions about office design was a key aspect of job

satisfaction. Though few participants had full involvement, many reported that they had been able

to express an opinion over colours, carpets and furnishing and this resulted in them feeling valued

and having a sense of involvement. This reflects the importance of control as a critical factor in

peoples working environment and conditions. Whilst employees accepted that there may be little

that they can do about their actual office premises, they do appreciate employers who both try to

do their best for their employees and involve them in decision making. Aesthetic embellishments

were appreciated in the workplace although it was recognised that they were not necessary. Where


12/16

12

basic needs are not met (especially salary but also working conditions) placatory actions such as

buying plants could build up resentment amongst employees. Moreover, in terms of enhancing the

perception of employers, however, the role of plants did not figure highly.

(Bringslimark, Hartig and Patil, 2009) in their critical review of experimental and quasi-experimental

research examining whether indoor plants offer some of the same benefits provided by experiencesof nature outdoors concluded that:

The reviewed studies suggest that indoor plants can provide psychological benefits such as

stress-reduction and increased pain tolerance. However, they also showed substantial

heterogeneity in methods and results. We therefore have strong reservations about general

claims that indoor plants cause beneficial psychological changes. It appears that benefits are

contingent on features of the context in which the indoor plants are encountered and on

characteristics of the people encountering them. (p.431)

This, as a conclusion, is what we might expect as environmental psychologists. We know that

context is important, but that the characteristics of the people who are interacting with thatenvironment are critical as well; there will be an interaction between the two thereby making

deterministic predictions extremely unreliable. The relationship between an organisations culture,

the physical planning of the office environment and the evaluation of the organisations facilities

becomes most apparent when there is a mismatch. A mismatch often occurs when an office space is

planned according to criteria such as: how many people should it accommodate? How many square

feet should it occupy? How much equipment should it have? How should it look to visitors?

Questions typically posed and addressed by environmental psychologists have a different emphasis:

will the designs and space layout enhance or detract from the desired corporate work styles? Is the

organisation prepared to accept that employees have different working styles and that these should

be catered for in the provision of space and facilities? How much control does the organisation

currently exert over its employees time and space use? What rights (and responsibilities) do theworkforce have for managing their space and making such that it enhances their feelings of well-

being, their productivity and their sense of occupational fulfilment? In what way, for whom and how

does the management and design permit, encourage or enhance personal and group recognition,

environmental control (e.g., heating; lighting; ventilation, presence of plants), social integration and

identity, communication within and between working groups, and appropriate levels of privacy?

How are issues such individual/group identity, individual capacities, needs and preferences and

working patterns reflected in space planning and the allocation of environmental resources?

There are many ways of looking at the relationship between the employee, corporate culture and

physical facilities. The effective use of an organisations resources lies not in fitting the staff to the

workplace, but recognising that there will be a transaction between staff, organisational culture andworkplace. As we saw above a sense of control is not only important in terms of overcoming feelings

of helplessness, but on a positive note, control also enhances ones sense of well-being. This brings

us back to the methodological issue raised earlier. It might well be that the provision of plants

enhances employees sense of well-being as was demonstrated in the focus group discussions. But

the focus group discussions also revealed that some office workers were dissatisfied with more than

just the working environment. There were other shortcomings in the working environment that

extended beyond the physical environment to the organisational culture and their own lives. The

provision of plants and greenery in the office may be an important and beneficial addition to the

office landscape, but they will not compensate for other aspects of everyday life in the office.


13/16

13

References

Anjum, N. (1998). An environmental assessment of office interiors from the consumers perspective.

PhD Thesis. Dundee.

Asaumi, H., Nshina, H., Namba, R., Masui, Y., and Hashimoto, Y. (1995). Evaluation of impression of

ornamental foliage plants and psychological rating of rooms with ornamental foliage plantsby means of semantic differential method. Journal of Shita, 7, 34-45.

Baranski, B. (2002). Policy requirements and performance indicators for good practice in health,

environment and social management in the enterprises. International archives of

occupational and environmental health. 75. 51-56.

Bergs, J. (2002). Effect of healthy workplaces on well-being and productivity of office workers,

Proceedings of International Plants for People Symposium, Floriade, Amsterdam, NL.

Brehm, J.W. (1966).A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal study.

Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279-299. Brownlee, S. 2004. Open Wide. FX. September

Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G.G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical

review of the experimental literature.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 422-433.Chao, H.J., Schwartz, J., Milton, D.K., Burge, H.A. (2003). The work environment and workers health

in four large office buildings. Environmental Health Perspectives. 111(9). 1242-1248

Dale, J., and Griliches, Z. (1967). The explanation of Productivity Change. Review of Economic

Studies34 (3). 249-283

Dixon, M (2004). Guelph-Humber Plant Wall a Breath of Fresh Air,At Guelph, November 10, 2004 -

Volume 48, No. 17 (Available athttp://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-

10/featuresair.shtmlaccessed 24 January 2011)

Donald, I., and Sui, O.L. 2001. Moderating the stress impact of environmental conditions: the effect

of organisational commitment in Hong Kong and China. Journal of Environmental

Psychology. 21(4). 353-368

Fischer, G.N., Tarquinio, C., and Vischer, J.C. 2004. Effects of the self-schema on perception of spaceat work. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24(1). 131-140

Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jammer, L.D., Davis, D.S.,and Garling, T. 2003. Tracking restoration in

natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(2). 109-123.

Hinkin, T.,and Tracey, J. 2000. The cost of turnover. The Cornell Quarterly. 41(3). 14-21

Huang, Y.H., Robers, M.M., Chang, K.I., 2004. The role of environmental control on environmental

satisfaction, communication and psychological stresseffects of office ergonomics training.

Environment and Behavior. 36(5). 617-637

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (1995).The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework.Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 15, 16218.Kenreich, M.E. (2001). Physical settings and organisational success. Library collections, acquisitions

and technical services. 25. 67-79

Kimeldorf, M., and Kimeldorf, H. (1993). Work, education and the quality of life: Reconsidering

some twentieth century myths. International Journal of Career Management. 4(4).

Kupritz, V. (2003). Accommodating privacy to facilitate new ways of working. Journal of

Architectural and Planning Research. 20(2). 122-135.

Lahtinen, M., Huuhtanen, P., Kahkonen, E., and Reijula, K. (2002). Psychosocial dimensions of

solving an indoor air problem. Indoor Air. 12(1). 33-46.

Lahtinen,M., Sundman-Diger, C., Reijula, K. (2004). Psychosocial work environment and indoor air

problems: a questionnaire as a means of problem diagnosis. Occupational and

Environmental Medicine. 61(2). 143-149
http://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtmlhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtmlhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtmlhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtmlhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtmlhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-10/featuresair.shtml


14/16

14

Lam, T., Pine, R., and Baum, T. (2003). Subjective Norms: effects on job satisfaction. Annals of

Tourism Research. 30(1). 169-177.

Ledger, B., (1999). "Canada Life environmental room", Canadian Consulting Engineer,

August/September 1999. Available at

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/reference/reference001418.html,accessed 24 January

2011)Manos, J. and Traeger-Synodions, J. 1998. Focus: Plants and the Indoor Environment. OSH World.

(Available athttp://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus/1998/199812.htmlaccessed 24

January 2011)

Moser, G. and Uzzell, DL (2003). Environmental Psychology, in Millon, T., & Lerner, M.J.(Eds.),

Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology, New

York: John Wiley & Sons. pp 419445.

Muhic, S., and Butala, V. (2004). The influence of indoor environment in office buildings on their

occupants: expected-unexpected. Building and Environment. 39(3). 289-296.

Oyabu, T., Sawada, A., Onodera, T., Takenaka, K., and Wolverton, B. (2003). Characteristics of

potted plants for removing offensive odours. Sensors and Actuators B. 89. 131-136

Park, S.-H., & Mattson, R. H. (2008). Effects of flowering and foliage plants in hospital rooms onpatients recovering from abdominal surgery. HortTechnology, 18, 563568.

Park, S.-H., & Mattson, R. H. (2009). Therapeutic influences of plants in hospital rooms on surgical

recovery. HortScience, 44, 14

Parkinson, R. (1980). Organisation space, employee perceptions and inter-personal behaviour. PhD

Theses. Bradford

Parsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R. and Grossman-Alexander, M., (1998). The view

from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization.Journal of Environmental

Psychology 18, pp. 113139.

Paul, O. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Industrial and Labor

Relations Review. 47 (2), 173-187.

Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H., and Rivlin, L.G. (1970). Environmental Psychology: Man and hisPhysical Setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rappe, E., and Linden, L. (2002). Plants in health care environment: experiences of the nursing

personnel in homes for people with dementia. ISHS Acta Horticulturae639: XXVI

International Horticultural Congress: expanding roles for horticulture in improving Human

Well-Being and Life Quality

Reinikainen, L, M., and Jaakkola, J,J, (2001). Effects of temperature and humidification in the office

environment. Archives of environmental Health. 56(4) 365-368.

Schmitz, Hilgers, U., and Weidner, M. (2000). Assimilation and metabolism of formaldehyde by

leaves appear unlikely to be of value for indoor air purification. New Phytology. 147. 307-

315

Sekhar, S.C., Tham, K.W., Cheong, K.W. (2003). Impact of airflow profile on indoor air qualityatropical study. Building and Environment. 39(3). 255-266

Seppanen, O.A., Fisk, W.J. (2004). Summary of human responses to ventilation. Indoor Air. 14.

102-118

Sjogren-Ronka, T., Ojanen, M.T., Leskinen, E.K., Mustalampi, S.T., and Malkia, E.A. (2002). Physical

and psychosocial prerequisites of functioning in relation to work ability and general

subjective well-being among office workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environment

and Health. 28(3). 184-190.

Stokols, D. (1978). A typology of crowding experiences. In A. Baum and Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human

response to crowding. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum, pp 219-255.

Stone, N.J. and English, A (1998). Task type, posters, and workspace color on mood, satisfaction, and

performance.Journal of Environmental Psychology18, pp. 175185.
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/reference/reference001418.htmlhttp://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/reference/reference001418.htmlhttp://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus/1998/199812.htmlhttp://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus/1998/199812.htmlhttp://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus/1998/199812.htmlhttp://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus/1998/199812.htmlhttp://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/reference/reference001418.html


15/16

15

Strube, M. J. and Werner, C. (1984). Psychological Reactance and the Relinquishment of Control,

Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 10, 2, 225-234

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In I. Altman, & J. F.

Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and the natural environment(pp. 85125). New York:

Plenum.

Ulrich, R., S., Simons, R., F., Losito, B., D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M., A., Zelson, M., (1991). Stress recoveryduring exposure to natural and urban environments,Journal of Environmental Psychology,

11, pp. 201230

Ulrich, R.S., 2002. Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. Paper presented at Plants for People

Conference. Florida, 2002.

Vischer, J. (1999). Will This Open Space Work? Harvard Business Review. 77 (3). 28-40

Vroon, P.A. (1990). Psychologische aspecten van ziekmakende gebouwen, Utrecht, Rijksuniversiteit

Utrecht (in Dutch).

Wolverton, B.C., McDonald, R.C., Watkins, E.A. (1984). Foliage plants for removing indoor air

pollutants from energy efficient homes. Economic Botany. 38. 224-228.

Wood, R.A. (2003). Improving the indoor environment for Health, Well-Being and Productivity.

Paper presented at Greening Cities: a new urban ecology. April. Australian TechnologyPark, Sydney.

Wyon, D.P, (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air.

14. 92-101.


16/16

16

Zlutnick S. and Altman, I. (1972). Crowding and human behavior. In J.F. Wohlwill and D.H. Carson

(Eds.),Environment and the social sciences(pp. 44-60). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Greening the Office_Final

Documents

Transcript of Greening the Office_Final