Content uploaded by Ulrika K. Stigsdotter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrika K. Stigsdotter on Mar 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Workplace Window View: A
Determinant of Office Workers’Work
Ability and Job Satisfaction
LENE LOTTRUP*, ULRIKA K. STIGSDOTTER*, HENRIK MEILBY* &
ANNE GRETE CLAUDI**
*
Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
**
Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
ABSTRACT Office workers’job satisfaction and ability to work are two important factors for the
viability and competitiveness of most companies, and existing studies in contexts other than
workplaces show relationships between a view of natural elements and, for example, student
performance and neighbourhood satisfaction. This study investigates whether relationships
between window view, and work ability and job satisfaction also exist in the context of the
workplace by focusing on office workers’view satisfaction. The results showed that a view of
natural elements was related to high view satisfaction, and that high view satisfaction was
related to high work ability and high job satisfaction. Furthermore, the results indicated that job
satisfaction mediated the effect of view satisfaction on work ability. These findings show that a
view of a green outdoor environment at the workplace can be an important asset in workforce
work ability and job satisfaction.
KEY WORDS: Green outdoor environment, perception, view characteristics, view satisfaction
Introduction
Office workers’ability to work is extremely important for the viability and
competitiveness of most companies. During recent decades, a wide range of activities
aimed at improving office workers’performance have been initiated. These activities have
focused on, for example, knowledge work processes and available new technologies
(Davenport, Jarvenpaa, & Beers, 1996; Pan, Hawryszkiewycz, & Xue, 2007); the
employees’network (Burton, Wu, & Prybutok, 2010; Ditton, 2009), and the improvement
of employees’individual skills (e.g. Allen, 2001). Organisational psychology is the
scientific study of workplace behaviour and attitudes, and in this context, one of the
relationships that have been long debated is the potential relationship between job
performance and job satisfaction (for meta-analyses, see Bowling, 2007; Ng, Sorensen, &
Yim, 2009; Whitman, Van Rooy, & Viswesvaran, 2010). The findings from studies which
address these relationships are very heterogeneous, and there remains disagreement about
whether job satisfaction has an impact on work performance. Still, whatever the
relationship between job satisfaction and work performance, there is no doubt that job
Correspondence Address: Lene Lottrup, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23,
Frederiksberg C 1958, Denmark. Email: llo@arkitema.dk
Landscape Research, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.829806
2013 Landscape Research Group Ltd
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
satisfaction is essential for the quality of office workers’everyday life. Relationships
between individuals’job satisfaction, and happiness and life satisfaction are documented
by a vast body of research (for a meta-analysis; see Bowling, Eschleman, & Wang, 2010).
Further, job satisfaction is an important factor which influences the health of workers (for
a meta-analysis, see Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005).
During the last decade, many attempts to increase both work ability and job
satisfaction have addressed the physical environment at the workplace. In a study on
how to improve knowledge workers’performance, 41 companies, which had some
performance-improving initiative under way, were investigated, and the most frequently
mentioned topic was the physical working environment (Davenport, 2005). Studies show
that the design of the office plays an important role in office workers’collaboration,
communication, concentration (Erlich & Bichard, 2008; Roper & Juneja, 2008),
performance (Goins, Jellema, & Zhang, 2010; Peponis et al., 2007), job satisfaction and
commitment to the organisation (Rashid, Wineman, & Zimring, 2009a, 2009b) and
opportunity for rest and recuperation (Erlich & Bichard, 2008). Development of social
networks is highly dependent on the structure of the environment at the workplace
(Wineman, Kabo, & Davis, 2009). Also, the degree to which workers are able to
influence the office decoration (e.g. plants and art) is important with regard to
organisational identification, well-being and productivity (Knight & Haslam, 2010).
Some studies focus on the role of indoor plants, and have found that employees, who
work in an environment with plants, are more productive and have higher levels of
perception of job satisfaction than employees in a plantless environment (Dravigne,
Waliczek, Lineberger, & Zajicek, 2008; Lohr, Pearson-Mims, & Goodwin, 1996). For a
review of the psychological benefits of indoor plants, see Bringslimark, Hartig, & Patil
(2009).
The workplace outdoor environment and the window view of this environment, as
part of the physical environment at the workplace, is a remarkably overlooked asset
regarding employees’job satisfaction and work performance. The research on this
topic, even though it is limited, indicates that access to a green outdoor environment at
work can play an important role in improving employees’general job satisfaction,
general performance, such as better functioning, feeling more organised and less worn
out (Kaplan, Bardwell, Ford, & Kaplan, 1996), and decreasing the likelihood that
employees intend to quit (Kaplan, 1993; Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, & Lawrence, 1998;
Shin, 2007). The majority of studies, which address the impact of workplace outdoor
environments focus on the view from the workplace window. A view of the outdoor
environment from one’s work station may be the most uncomplicated way of accessing
a green outdoor environment during the working day. The view is a part of the
immediate working environment that meets the employee continuously, in contrast to
physical access, such as a walk, which is usually limited to breaks during the workday.
Recent studies have shown that the majority of office workers do not spend time
outside during the work day, which is mainly due to a perception of being too busy to
go outdoors and a working culture that rarely includes outdoor activities (Hitchings,
2010; Lottrup, Stigsdotter, Meilby, & Corazon, 2012). The window view can be
understood as a micro-restorative setting (Kaplan, 2001) as it provides opportunities for
micro-breaks whenever one’s attention is drawn by the view. Also, in other contexts,
studies report beneficial effects of a view of a green outdoor environment, for example,
in residential settings (Kaplan, 2001; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002), and different
2L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
kinds of institutional settings, such as schools and universities (Matsuoka, 2010;
Tennessen and Cimprich, 1995); hospitals (McCuskey Shepley, 2006; Ulrich, 1984) and
prisons (Moore, 1981). For a review on the effects of a view of nature from the
window, see Abkar, Kamal, Maulan, & Mariapan (2010).
Theoretical explanations for the beneficial effects of the natural environment are
based on cognitive or evolutionary perspectives. One theory, the Attention Restoration
Theory (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), describes two types of attention based
on different brain functions: ‘directed attention’, which is used for dealing with
distracting environmental factors or demanding tasks, and ‘soft fascination’, which is an
effortless type of attention based on processes in the oldest parts of the brain. If
‘directed attention’is used without the possibility for recuperation, it may lead to
mental fatigue. Environments that provide the possibility for ‘soft fascination’, such as
natural environments, offer opportunities for mental restoration. The Aesthetic Affective
Theory (Ulrich, 1983, 1993) addresses people’s most primitive emotions, called affects,
and argues that people today unconsciously read the special information in nature that
tells them whether their surroundings are safe, just like our ancient ancestors did to
survive, and that individuals in surroundings which they perceive to be safe
automatically relax and recuperate from stress. A related evolutionary theory which
focuses on environmental preference is the Savannah Theory (Orians, 1980, 1986),
which claims that, in order to find suitable habitats, our ancestors preferred savannah-
like environments with long vistas, large solitary trees, cliffs and caves, and that
preferences for these are still present in modern humans.
Existing literature indicates the importance of the viewer’s perception of the quality of
view from the window. Kaplan (1993) reports significant relationships between high
employee view satisfaction, and higher task enthusiasm, less frustration, higher life
satisfaction and better general health. Aries, Veitch, & Newsham (2010) found that a
view of nature was related to increased discomfort, which is in contrast to the majority
of studies on the topic, but that a view which was rated as good was related to decreased
discomfort. This is in line with Verderber & Reuman’s (1987) findings that a view rated
as good is related to higher wellbeing for hospital staff therapists. These results indicate
the important role of the employees’perception of the view. Perception is described as
the process of organising and interpreting sensory information in order to attain
awareness or understanding of the environment (Pomerantz, 2003), and it has
been studied from a range of different perspectives through history, for example,
cognitive (e.g. Best, 1999), ecological (e.g. Gibson, 1997), and evolutionary (e.g. Gaulin
& McBurney, 2003). Furthermore, the relationship between perception and satisfaction
has been investigated, especially by the consumer literature, and there remains
disagreement about whether satisfaction is based on a comparison between an
individual’s expectations and perceived performance (Oliver, 1980; Spreng et al., 1996),
between factors other than expectations and perceived performance (for a review, see
Halstead, 1999), or on an evaluation of performance alone (Hansen, 2008; Sitzia &
Wood, 1997).
The point of departure for this study is the above described theories addressing
humans’preference for and benefits from green natural environments, and the existing
studies showing relationships between a positive perception of the window view at the
workplace, and increased well-being and satisfaction (Aries et al., 2010; Kaplan, 1993;
Verderber & Reuman, 1987). On this background, we hypothesised that natural
The Workplace Window View 3
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
elements in the window view at the workplace leads to higher satisfaction with the
view, and that the degree to which employees are satisfied with the view is related to
their job satisfaction.
Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between view
satisfaction and the content of the view, and the relationship between view satisfaction
and employees’job satisfaction. Because employees’work ability is crucial for both
employees and employers, the study also aims to investigate any relationship between
view satisfaction and work ability. This leads to the following questions:
(1) Is there a relationship between the content of the window view and the knowledge
worker’s view satisfaction?
(2) Is there a relationship between the knowledge worker’s view satisfaction and his/
her work ability and job satisfaction?
Methods
Case Selection
The intention of this study was to perform an exploratory case study on a number of
knowledge based companies in Denmark. The study addresses both visual and physical
access to the outdoor environment at the workplaces. In order to generate the largest
possible amount of information on the potential use of green outdoor environments in
workplace settings, two selection criteria were that the employees at the companies had
to have physical and/or visual access to rich green natural outdoor environments, and
the outdoor environment had to be used by the employees. Furthermore, the companies
had to vary with respect to degrees and ways of being green (for findings on outdoor
environment use, see Lottrup et al., 2012). Other selection criteria were that the
companies had to be similar with respect to number of employees, production and
organisation. All business councils in Denmark were contacted to identify companies
which met the selection criteria. It was not easy to find companies where the employees
actually used the outdoor environment, but finally 15 knowledge-producing companies,
which met all the criteria, were identified. Six of the 15 companies agreed to participate
in the study. The details of each of these are shown in Table 1.
Collection of Data
A questionnaire, consisting of primary pre-coded questions and the opportunity to add
personal comments, was prepared and a pilot test was carried out with a group of
respondents, who were not part of the sample. Experience from the pilot test was
incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was approved
by the Danish Data Protection Agency.
The questionnaire consisted of five parts that addressed the respondents’: background
data; health status; working life situation; physical working environment; and
psychological working environment.
The first part of the questionnaire asked questions about the respondents’personal
data, such as gender, age and educational level. In part 2, the respondents estimated
their own health status. In this study, four questions from part 2, which addressed the
respondents’well-being, were used in the analysis. Three of these questions were
4L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Table 1. Description of the six cases in terms of field of work, employees, and content of the window view
Company Field of work
Number of employees
contacted (numbers of
responses) and response rate
Outdoor
environment
Building footprints and green natural
outdoor environment. Scales are
relative to each other
Characteristics of
typical window views
C1 Competency
development
96 (66) Forest-like
68.8%
C2 Consultancy &
Reseach
26 (16) Forest-like
61.5%
C3 Pension advisers 454 (122) Park-like
23.1%
C4 Telecommunication 71 (54) Green courtyards
76.1%
(Continued)
The Workplace Window View 5
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Table 1. (Continued).
Company Field of work
Number of employees
contacted (numbers of
responses) and response rate
Outdoor
environment
Building footprints and green natural
outdoor environment. Scales are
relative to each other
Characteristics of
typical window views
C5 Media company 302 (106) Green courtyards
35.1%
C6 Architect office 86 (38) Roof terrace
with view to
forest and sea
44.2%
6L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
identical to those used in a validated questionnaire which addressed health, life
situation and ability to work (Tuomi et al., 1997; Tuomi, Ilmarinen, Jahkola,
Katajarinne, & Tulkki, 1998). The questions were: ‘have you recently felt yourself to
be full of hope for the future?’,‘have you recently been active and alert?’,‘and ‘have
you recently been able to enjoy your regular daily activities?’. The possible response
categories were ‘always’,‘often’,‘sometimes’,‘seldom’and ‘never’. The last question
which addressed the respondents’well-being was previously used in validated
international questionnaire SF36 (Bjørne, Damsgaard, & Watt, 1997). The question
was: ‘have you recently felt yourself to be calm and peaceful?’for which the response
categories were identical to those described above. A factor analysis, which included
these four questions, was carried out (coefficients of correlation: 0.618–0.726, p<
0.001, eigenvalue: 75.40%), and the four questions were aggregated into one
continuous variable called ‘general well-being’with values from 0 to 5. This variable
was transformed to a binary variable with values P2.5 coded as ‘high general well-
being’, and values < 2.5 coded as ‘low/medium job general well-being’.
Part 3 of the questionnaire asked questions about the respondents’working life. In
this study, the following two questions were used in the analysis: ‘do you have a
managerial position in the company?’for which the possible response categories were:
‘yes’and ‘no’, and ‘how do you rate your current work capacity compared to when it
was best?’, for which the response categories were numbers from 0 (meaning that the
respondent is unable to work) to 10 (meaning the highest working capacity possible).
Like the question which addressed the respondents’well-being, the question about
work capacity has previously been used in a validated questionnaire on work ability
(Tuomi et al., 1997, 1998), and the question is used as a single item in previous studies
(de Vries, Reneman, Groothoff, Geertzen, & Brouwer, 2012; Munch-Hansen, Wieclaw,
Agerbo, Westergaard-Nielsen, & Bonde, 2008; Thorsen, Burr, Diderichsen, & Bjorner,
2012). Responses to this question were transformed into a binary variable with response
categories 8–10 coded as ‘high work ability’(n= 316) and response categories 0–7
coded as ‘low/medium work ability’(n= 86).
Part 4 of the questionnaire focused on the physical working environment and asked
the following question: ‘what dominates the view of the outdoor environment from
your work station?’The possible response categories were: ‘buildings/signs’,‘cars/
traffic’,‘sky’,‘trees’,‘mowed lawn’,‘flowers’,‘park-like environment’,‘wild self-
seeded natural environment’,‘other’, and ‘I have no view of the outdoor environment
from my work station’. Furthermore, the respondents were asked, ‘how satisfied are
you with the window view?’with the response categories being ‘very satisfied’,
‘satisfied’,‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’,‘dissatisfied’and ‘very dissatisfied’.
Responses to this question were transformed into a binary variable with response
categories being ‘very satisfied’and ‘satisfied’coded as ‘high view satisfaction’(n=
232) and the rest of the response categories coded as ‘low/medium view satisfaction’(n
= 170). Part 4 also asked the question: ‘how would you describe your immediate
working environment?’for which the possible response categories were ‘office for 1–2
people’,‘office for 3–6 people’,‘office for 7 or more people’,‘workshop’, or ‘other
kind of working environment’, and the following question: ‘to what extent is the
company’s indoor environment dominated by plants?’for which the possible response
categories were ‘not at all’,‘to some extent’,‘to a large extent’, and ‘to a very large
extent’.
The Workplace Window View 7
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
The fifth part of the questionnaire addressed the psychological working environment.
The only question from part 5 which was used in this study was ‘how would you rate
your overall job satisfaction?’for which the possible response categories were ‘very
satisfied’,‘satisfied’,‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’,‘dissatisfied’,‘very dissatisfied’
and ‘I don’t know’. The responses to this question were transformed into a binary
variable and the response categories ‘very satisfied’and ‘satisfied’were coded as ‘high
job satisfaction’(n= 354), ‘I don’t know’was coded as missing data (n= 1), while
the remainder of the response categories were coded as ‘low/medium job satisfaction’
(n= 47).
In November 2008, the questionnaire was distributed in two different ways to
employees at the six companies. At five companies, the questionnaire was sent by
email to 581 workers, while at the last company, 454 workers were able to access the
questionnaire through a link on the company’s intranet. After one reminder, a total of
402 responses were received. For the companies amongst which the questionnaire was
distributed by email, the average response rate was 48.2%, but it varied from 35.1% to
76.1% between the companies. The lowest response rate (35.1%) may be explained by
the fact that many of the employees at Company 5 work freelance and therefore do not
necessarily work in the buildings of the company. The second lowest response rate
(44.2%) may be due to the fact that Company 6 fired approximately 10% of the
workforce three hours after distribution of the questionnaire. The response rate at
Company 3 where the employees had access to the questionnaire through a link on the
intranet was 23.1%. A possible explanation for this very low response rate is that the
questionnaire was not personally addressed to each employee as it was at the other
companies.
Statistical Analysis
Binary logit models and chi-square tests of homogeneity were used to analyse the data
from the questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using PASW statistics,
Version 18, and the significance level 0.05 was used.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Table 2 shows significant differences (p< 0.001) between the six companies with
respect to the background variables gender, age, educational level and management
position. A combined analysis of the data from all six companies shows that there were
more female (59.7%) than male (40.3%) respondents, and that the age of the
respondents varied from 21 to 64 years (mean 43 years). The level of education varied
widely between the companies with 6.3% to 63.0% of the respondents having an
education of less than three years measured from high school level, and from 15.6% to
81.3% of the respondents having an education of more than four years. Also, the
percentage of respondents with a managerial position varied from 9.0% to 44.7% at the
companies.
8L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Is There a Relationship between the Content of the Window View and the Office
Worker’s View Satisfaction?
The respondents were asked to describe what dominates the view of the outdoor
environment from their work station, and how satisfied they were with the view. A
binary logit model was used to investigate whether specific view characteristics were
related to view satisfaction.
As shown in Table 3, the model showed that respondents who had a view which was
dominated by ‘sky’,‘trees’,‘flowers’and ‘park-like environment’had increased odds
for being satisfied with the view compared to respondents, who did not report a view
of such elements. Respondents who had a view of ‘buildings/signs’, or respondents
who reported ‘no view of the outdoor environment’had decreased odds for being
satisfied with the view. ‘Cars/traffic’,‘mowed lawns’and ‘wild self-seeded natural
environment’showed no significant relationship with view satisfaction. The results were
adjusted for company, gender, age, educational level, and because general well-being
Table 2. Characteristics of the respondents in terms of age, gender, managerial position, and
educational level. Test of homogeneity: Pearson chi-square (N= 402)
Company C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
AverageCharacteristics of respondents % % % % % %
Age (p< 0.001)
630 years 6.1 0.0 24.6 1.9 16.0 10.5 13.9
31–40 years 27.3 43.8 30.3 27.8 28.3 42.1 30.6
41–50 years 39.4 6.3 32.0 27.8 29.2 31.6 30.8
> 50 years 27.3 50.0 13.1 42.6 26.4 15.8 24.6
Gender: females (males) (p< 0.001) 77.3 43.0 68.9 63.0 42.5 50.0 59.7
(22.7) (56.3) (31.1) (37.0) (57.5) (50.0) (40.3)
Management position (p< 0.001) 15.2 18.8 9.0 11.1 17.9 44.7 16.4
Educational levels (p< 0.001)
< 3 years 40.9 6.3 60.7 68.5 31.1 7.9 43.5
3–4 years 28.8 12.5 23.8 14.8 48.1 21.1 29.1
>4 years 30.3 81.3 15.8 16.7 20.8 71.1 27.4
Table 3. Results from a multiple logistic regression analysis showing the significant associations
between content of the window view and high view satisfaction (omnibus test of model
coefficients (χ
2
): p< 0.001). The result for each view element is compared to not having a view
of the element (N= 402)
Contents of the window view OR 95% CI Sign. n
Buildings/sign 0.28 (0.16–0.50) p< 0.001 170
Sky 2.35 (1.33–4.16) p= 0.003 153
Trees 3.50 (1.88–6.49) p< 0.001 203
Flowers 4.42 (1.06–18.34) p= 0.041 20
Park-like environment 8.08 (3.94–16.57) p< 0.001 102
No window view 0.29 (0.10–0.83) p= 0.022 36
Adjusted for company,
a
gender, age, educational level and management position.
a
Significantly related to high view satisfaction.
The Workplace Window View 9
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
and indoor plants were found to be related to view satisfaction in a subsequent analysis
(see Table 4), these variables were added to the model. The overall pattern remained
the same, but the impact of ‘flowers’and ‘no window view’became less significant
(respectively, p= 0.060 and p= 0.043, data not shown). When no adjustments were
made to the results, ‘wild self-seeded natural environment’turned out to be significantly
related to view satisfaction (Odds Ratio: 3.50, p= 0.023), while the impact of ‘flowers’
became insignificant (Odds Ratio: 3.69, p= 0.065). The pattern for the other variables
remained unchanged (data not shown).
Is There a Relationship between an Office Worker’s View Satisfaction and His/Her Work
Ability and Job Satisfaction?
A range of control variables were selected from the dataset to investigate possible
relationships between view satisfaction and employees’work ability and job
satisfaction. Some of them were background variables, such as gender, age, educational
Table 4. The four groups of control variables, all of which have previously been found to have
an effect on employees’work ability and job satisfaction.
Control variables
Odds Ratio (OR) between
the control variable and
high view satisfaction
Omnibus test
of model
coefficients
(χ
2
)
Results
adjusted for
gender and age
Omnibus test
of model
coefficients
(χ
2
)
Background
factors
- Gender (male
coded as 0;
female coded
as 1)
1.49, p= 0.051 p= 0.051 0.68, p= 0.066 p= 0.106
(only adjusted
for age)
- Age
a
p= 0.236 p= 0.106
- Management
position
a
p= 0.981 p= 0.162
- Educational
level
a
p= 0.594 p= 0.169
General well-
being
1.51, p= 0.042 p= 0.042 1.53, p= 0.038 p= 0.036
Work station
characteristics
- Type of work
space
a
p= 0.782 p= 0.286
- Indoor plants
b
p= 0.001 p= 0.002
To some extent 1.18, p= 0.060 1.14, p= 0.684
To a large extent 2.96, p= 0.005 2.68, p= 0.013
To a very large
extent
5.21, p= 0.017 4.75, p= 0.026
Company
c
p= 0.023 p= 0.026
C1 2.10, p= 0.087 1.87, p= 0.156
C2 0.44, p= 0.175 0.41, p= 0.153
C3 1.01, p= 0.974 0.91, p= 0.812
C4 0.98, p= 0.963 0.87, p= 0.745
C5 0.73, p= 0.404 0.68, p= 0.321
a
For variables with an Omnibus test of model coefficients (χ
2
) > 0.100, Odds Ratio is not
reported. For these variables, all dimensions were insignificant.
b
In the binary logit model, ‘no
indoor plants at all’was the constant.
c
In the binary logit model, C6 was the constant.
10 L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
level and managerial position. Other control variables were factors which have
previously been found to have had an impact on employees’work ability and job
satisfaction in the literature on the topic. Studies have shown that employees’general
sense of well-being is significantly related to employees’job satisfaction (for a meta-
analysis, see Bowling et al., 2010), and both work ability and job satisfaction have
been found to be related to the characteristics of the physical working environment,
such as the type and size of office (Goins et al., 2010; Rashid et al., 2009a, 2009b) and
the presence of indoor plants (for a review, see Bringslimark et al., 2009). Finally, job
satisfaction and work ability can vary from one company to another depending on, for
example, the companies working environment, health strategies, management style and
type of production.
The control variables were classifid into four groups: ‘background factors’,‘general
well-being’,‘work station characteristics’and ‘company’(see Table 4).
The first step in the analysis was to investigate whether the control variables were
significantly associated with ‘view satisfaction’in order to obtain an indication of any
particularly important variables that had to be adjusted for in the analyses. Binary logit
models showed that ‘general well-being’and ‘indoor plants’were significantly related
to view satisfaction. Respondents who reported ‘high general well-being’had 1.51
times higher odds for reporting ‘high view satisfaction’than respondents who reported
‘low/medium general well-being’(p= 0.042), and respondents who reported that the
company’s indoor environment was dominated by plants ‘to a large extent’or ‘to a
very large extent’had respectively 2.96 and 5.21 times higher odds for reporting ‘high
view satisfaction’than respondents who reported that the company’s indoor
environment was not at all dominated by plants (p= 0.05 and p= 0.017). The models
also indicated that female office workers had 1.49 times higher odds for reporting ‘high
view satisfaction’than their male colleagues (p= 0.051), and that respondents from
Company 1 had 2.10 times higher odds for reporting ‘high view satisfaction’than
respondents from Company 6 (p= 0.087). When the results were adjusted for gender
and age, the effect of general well-being and indoor plants remained robust, while the
effect of gender and company vanished (see Table 4).
The next step in the analysis was to investigate whether there were any significant
relationships between ‘work ability’and ‘general job satisfaction’, and ‘view
satisfaction’, and whether such relationships were robust subsequent to the adjustment
of the control variables. Binary logit models were used for this purpose.
With respect to work ability, the model showed a significant relationship with view
satisfaction. Respondents who reported ‘high view satisfaction’had 2.13 times higher
odds for reporting ‘high work ability’than respondents who reported ‘low/medium
view satisfaction’(p= 0.002). Table 5 shows that the result remained robust when
adjusted for the control variables in different combinations. Job satisfaction was added
to the model as an additional control variable, and the significant relationship between
work ability and view satisfaction vanished as a result of this.
With respect to job satisfaction, the model showed significant relationships with
view satisfaction. Respondents who reported ‘high view satisfaction’had 3.03 times
higher odds for reporting ‘high job satisfaction’than respondents who reported ‘low/
medium view satisfaction’(p= 0.001). Table 5 shows that the result remained robust
when adjusted for control variables in different combinations. Work ability was then
The Workplace Window View 11
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Table 5. Results (Odds Ratio) from binary logit models showing significant associations between high view satisfaction, and high work ability and
high job satisfaction (N= 402)
Work ability Job satisfaction
Adjusted for:
OR
Omnibus test of model coefficients (χ
2
)
OR
Omnibus test of model coefficients (χ
2
)
(95% CI) (95% CI)
Sign.Sign.
No adjustment 2.13 p= 0.002 3.03 p< 0.001
(1.32–3.46) (1.60–5.75)
p= 0.002 p= 0.001
Gender 2.15 p= 0.007 3.20 p= 0.008
- Age (1.32–3.52) (1.67–6.12)
p= 0.002 p< 0.001
Gender 1.89 p< 0.001 2.98 p< 0.001
Age (1.11–3.24) (1.52–5.86)
General well-being p= 0.020 p= 0.001
Gender 2.10 p= 0.005 3.10 p= 0.004
Age (1.27–3.48) (1.60–6.02)
Indoor plants p= 0.004 p= 0.001
Background factors 1.92 p< 0.001 3.49 p< 0.001
General well-being (1.08–3.42) (1.67–7.32)
Work station characteristics p= 0.026 p= 0.001
Company
Background factors 1.57 p<0.001
General well-being (0.86–2.86)
Work station characteristics p= 0.143
Company
High job satisfaction
Background factors 3.15 p< 0.001
General well-being (1.46–6.77)
p= 0.003Work station characteristics
Company
High work ability
12 L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
added to the model as an additional control variable, but the result remained robust
despite this.
Discussion
The six case study companies in this study were all knowledge-producing, project-
organised companies, but there were significant differences between the samples from
the six companies with respect to the background variables used in the analyses.
However, after having adjusted the findings for the effect of company, they still showed
significant associations between view satisfaction and the content of the view, and
between view satisfaction, and work ability and job satisfaction.
Relationship between the Content of the Window View and the Office Worker’s View
Satisfaction
The finding that employees prefer a view of natural elements to a view of buildings is
in line with the majority of the existing literature on the topic (Kaplan, 1993, 2007;
Ozdemir, 2010). Kaplan (2007) found strong preferences for a view of large trees and
landscaped areas. In this study, we found that a ‘park-like environment’had the highest
positive effect on view satisfaction, which may be understood as being similar to a
landscaped area, which would then support Kaplan’sfindings. A possible explanation
for the importance of a view of a ‘park-like environment’may be found in the
‘Savannah Theory’(Orians, 1980, 1986), which claims that humans, for evolutionary
reasons, prefer savannah-like environments with long vistas, large solitary trees, cliffs
and caves. Park-like environments consist of areas of mowed grass, trees and shrubs,
with the opportunity to find private places hidden from view from others. These
settings, therefore, provide some of the characteristics of the savannah. However, the
respondents in this study may have interpreted ‘park-like environment’differently.
Therefore, further studies are necessary to investigate whether the explanation for the
significant effect of this characteristic is related to Savannah Theory. The significant
effect of ‘wild self-seeded natural environment’on view satisfaction vanished when the
result was adjusted for company. This can be explained by the fact that the dominance
of this characteristic was very uneven amongst the companies, and 78.6% of all
respondents, who reported this characteristic, were employed at one company (C1).
There was no significant relationship between ‘mowed grass’and view satisfaction,
which is in line with Kaplan’s (2007) findings. A possible explanation for the lack of
relationship might be that mowed grass is perceived as being a surface, rather than a
natural element. Also, in other contexts than workplaces, mowed grass is less preferred,
or does not show the same beneficial effects as other natural elements (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989; Matsuoka, 2010).
Relationship between the Office Worker’s View Satisfaction and His/Her Work Ability
and Job Satisfaction
The findings of this study showed that respondents who reported a high level of view
satisfaction had increased odds for experiencing a high level of job satisfaction and
The Workplace Window View 13
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
work ability. The results were independent of the respondents’background factors,
general well-being, work station characteristics, and company. This may indicate that
satisfaction with the window view at the workplace is fundamental to most working
people. A possible explanation for the importance of view satisfaction may be that it is
a type of satisfaction that can be experienced several times during the working day.
This is in line with Kaplan’s (2001) description of the window as a micro-restorative
environment that can provide respite from immediate tasks and demands by drawing
the attention to the window view. As mentioned in the introduction, having a window
view of the outdoor environment from one’s working station may be the most
uncomplicated way to access a green outdoor environment during the working day. In
line with Attention Restoration Theory, long-term contact with nature through the
accumulation of many short episodes, may moderate the costs associated with deficits
in directed attention, and may therefore be particularly useful for sustaining restoration
(Kaplan, 2001).
The relationship between view satisfaction and job satisfaction is in line with the
findings from the only other study that, to our knowledge, has addressed the effect of
employees’view satisfaction (Kaplan, 1993). In this study, the relationship proved to be
robust regardless of the applied adjustments. In contrast, when the relationship between
view satisfaction and work ability was adjusted for job satisfaction, the significant result
vanished. This may indicate that job satisfaction mediates the effect of view satisfaction
on work ability. A reason for this result may be the perception of satisfaction, which is
present in both view satisfaction and job satisfaction. Office workers may derive
satisfaction from looking at the window view, and because the view is constant during
the working day, it may result in the perception that the entire working day and the job
in general are more satisfying. In contrast, work ability is probably dominated by the
extent to which the individual perceives that he/she is able to perform the necessary
work tasks, even though it may also comprise satisfaction, for example, satisfaction
with performing the work. These findings support the organisational psychological
studies which address the relationship between job satisfaction and work ability, which
find that high job satisfaction leads to improved work ability (for meta-analyses, see Ng
et al., 2009; Whitman et al., 2010).
Relationship between General Well-being and Indoor Plants and View Satisfaction
Two of the control variables showed strong associations with view satisfaction: general
well-being and indoor plants. To our knowledge, these associations have not been
addressed by previous studies. General well-being and view satisfaction could be
associated by the fact that they both describe positive emotions, and that an individual’s
fundamental approach to life might be an essential part of both concepts. The
relationship between indoor plants and view satisfaction indicates that, when asked to
rate their satisfaction with the window view, the respondents included indoor elements
in their evaluation. The respondents may have evaluated everything they saw when
looking in the direction of the window. Therefore, the indoor plants, which are often
placed near windows in order to get enough light, may have unconsciously been
perceived as being part of the view. Further studies are needed to explore whether this
explanation holds any truth.
14 L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Methodology
The data presented in this article are part of a larger dataset including data on use of
the outdoor environment at workplaces, and encouragement and impediments to going
outdoors during the working day (these data are presented in Lottrup et al., 2012).
A strength of this study is that it includes data from six companies, which makes it
possible to adjust the results for the influence of the specific companies. The companies
were among those thought to have some of the best and most well-used green
workplace outdoor environments in Denmark and this case selection may be considered
a weakness as it limited the variation in the features of the outdoor environments. In
order to investigate preferences for certain features in the outdoor environment it might
have been more appropriate to include a range of cases from no green at all to very
green outdoor environments.
To investigate if the large variation of the number of respondents from the six
companies (from 16 to 122; see Table 1) affected the results, alternative analyses were
performed (data not shown), where C2 was left out of the analyses, and the sample size
of C3 and C5 was reduced by 50% by random selection of respondents. In these
analyses the number of respondents varied from 38 to 66 respondents between the five
companies. Regarding the relationship between the content of the window view and the
respondents’view satisfaction, the alternative analysis showed the same pattern as the
initial analysis, except with regard to the two independent variables ‘flowers’and ‘no
window view’, which were now insignificant. Presumably, the reason for this change is
that only few respondents had mentioned these characteristics. With respect to the
relationships between the respondents’view satisfaction and his/her work ability and
job satisfaction, the alternative analyses also showed the same pattern as the initial
analyses. Results regarding work ability were slightly stronger than in the initial
analysis, and results regarding job satisfaction were slightly weaker. Based on the small
difference between results from the initial and the alternative analyses, it appears that
the varying number of respondents from the six cases does not influence the overall
results.
This study was cross-sectional, which meant that it was not possible to investigate
causal relationships between any of the variables. A longitudinal study would have
been useful to investigate such relationships and it would also have shown whether
uncontrolled circumstances, such as at Company 6 where approximately 10% of the
employees were fired three hours after the questionnaire was delivered, had an impact
on the respondents’answers.
In this study, the key variables were converted into binary variables, and with respect
to the variables ‘work ability’and ‘job satisfaction’, the categorisation leads to unequal
groups, which might reduce the robustness of the results. However, the size of each
group is still large enough to produce significant results. Also the measurement of
‘work ability’and ‘job satisfaction’has some limitations. Both variables were measured
by a single overall item, and even though these items are used in previous studies, the
study could have been strengthened by including a range of items, addressing different
aspects of the variables. Also additional types of measurements could have been
interesting to include in the study, for example, an observational study or the
company’s reports of work efficiency.
The Workplace Window View 15
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Future Perspectives
View satisfaction at the workplace is a concept which refers to several fields of
research, such as research on perception, organisational psychology, environmental
psychology, architecture and landscape architecture. Further studies are needed to
uncover the different elements in view satisfaction and to differentiate between the
relationship between view satisfaction and the content of the window view. A recent
study shows that individuals reported preferences for certain features in the outdoor
environment differently, depending on the individuals’level of stress (Grahn &
Stigsdotter, 2010). This indicates that personal factors such as mood, health and level
of stress play a role in employees’preferences. This may also be the case with respect
to preferences for features of the window view. This is an interesting avenue of
research for future studies. Presently, there is insufficient research into the causal
relationships between view satisfaction, and work ability and job satisfaction, and
longitudinal studies or intervention studies are necessary to investigate such
relationships. In such studies, the effect of high view satisfaction on additional
variables, such as health, social relationships and mental fatigue could be explored.
Furthermore, studies on the effect of deliberate attention on the window view during
the workday may be valuable in order to determine whether the restorative effect of the
window view can be optimised by increased, or in other ways altered, attention.
Conclusion
This study adds to existing knowledge regarding the importance of window views at
workplaces in two different ways: 1) by showing employees’preference for a window
view to natural elements rather than to built elements; and 2) by indicating important
benefits from employees being satisfied with their window view. While the first finding
confirms existing literature on view preference at workplaces, the latter finding indicates
a potential direction for future research aiming to further reveal the benefits of access to
a green outdoor environment in a workplace context, and the importance of the
employees’perception and evaluation of such access.
Acknowledgements
This paper was made possible by financial support from Arkitema Architects and The
Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and by the kind participation
of the six Danish companies.
References
Abkar, M., Kamal, M. S., Maulan, S., & Mariapan, M. (2010). Influences of viewing nature through
windows. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4, 5346–5351.
Allen, D. (2001). Getting things done: The art of stress-free productivity. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Aries, M. B. C., Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict
physical and psychological discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 533–541.
Best, J. B. (1999). Cognitive psychology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
16 L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Bjørne, J. B., Damsgaard, M. T., & Watt, T. (1997). Dansk manual til SF-36. Et spørgeskema om
helbredsstatus [Danish manual on SF-36 questionnaire]. Copenhagen: Lægemiddelindustriforeningen.
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic
examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 167–185.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship
between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83, 915–934.
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.
Burton, P., Wu, Y. A., & Prybutok, V. R. (2010). Social network position and its relationship to performance
of IT professionals. Informing Science, 13, 121–137.
Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living. How to get better performances and results from knowledge
workers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T. H., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Beers, M. C. (1996). Improving processes for knowledge work.
Chemtech, 26, 14–23.
de Vries, H. J., Reneman, M. F., Groothoff, J. W., Geertzen, J. H. B., & Brouwer, S. (in press). Self-reported
work ability and work performance in workers with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation.
Ditton, M. J. (2009). How social relationships influence academic health in the ‘enterprise university’: An
insight into productivity of knowledge workers. Higher Education Research and Development, 28, 151–
164.
Dravigne, A., Waliczek, T. M., Lineberger, R. D., & Zajicek, J. M. (2008). The effect of live plants and
window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. Hortscience, 43, 183–187.
Erlich, A., & Bichard, J. (2008). The welcoming workplace: Designing for ageing knowledge workers.
Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10, 273–285.
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A
meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105–112.
Gaulin, S. J. C., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Evolutionary psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, J. J. (1997). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Goins, J., Jellema, J., & Zhang, H. (2010). Architectural enclosure’s effect on office worker performance: A
comparison of the physical and symbolic attributes of workspace dividers. Building and Environment, 45,
944–948.
Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green
space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 264–275.
Halstead, D. (1999). The Use of Comparison Standards in Customer Satisfaction Research and Management:
A Review and Proposed Typology. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 13–26.
Hansen, T. (2008). Consumer food satisfaction: Fulfillment of expectations or evaluation of performance?
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11, 178–201.
Hitchings, R. (2010). Urban greenspace from the inside out: An argument for the approach and a study with
city workers. Geoforum, 41, 855–864.
Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26,
193–201.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33,
507–542.
Kaplan, R. (2007). Employees’reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: The wild and the tame.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 82, 17–24.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., Bardwell, L. V., Ford, H. A., & Kaplan, S. (1996). The corporate back-40: Employee benefits of
wildlife enhancement efforts on corporate land. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 1–13.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Knight, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: An
experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and
productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 158–172.
The Workplace Window View 17
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., & Lawrence, C. (1998). Windows in the workplace: Sunlight, view, and
occupational stress. Environment and Behavior, 30, 739–762.
Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H., & Goodwin, G. K. (1996). Interior plants may improve worker productivity
and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 14, 97–100.
Lottrup, L., Stigsdotter, U. K., Meilby, H., & Corazon, S. S. (2012). Associations between use, activities and
characteristics of the outdoor environment at workplaces. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11, 159–
168.
Matsuoka, R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 97, 273–282.
Moore, E. O. (1981). Prison environment’s effect on health care service demands. Journal of Environmental
Systems, 11, 17–34.
Munch-Hansen, T., Wieclaw, J., Agerbo, E., Westergaard-Nielsen, N., & Bonde, J. P. (2008). Global measure
of satisfaction with psychosocial work conditions versus measures of specific aspects of psychosocial work
conditions in explaining sickness absence. Bmc Public Health, 8.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Yim, F. (2009). Does the job satisfaction-job performance relationship vary
across cultures? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 761–796.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In S. J. Lockard
(Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Orians, G. H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-
Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meaning and values (pp. 3–25). London: Allen and Unwin.
Ozdemir, A. (2010). The effect of window views’openness and naturalness on the perception of rooms’
spaciousness and brightness: A visual preference study. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 2275–2287.
Pan, W., Hawryszkiewycz, I., & Xue, D. (2007). A framework for supporting knowledge work processes.
International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2007), Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, Jun
12-16, 2007.
Peponis, J., Bafna, S., Bajaj, R., Bromberg, J., Congdon, C., Rashid, M., Warmels, S., Zhang, Y., & Zimring,
C. (2007). Designing space to support knowldege work. Environment and Behavior, 39, 815–840.
Pomerantz, J. R. (2003). Perception: Overview. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (vol. 3,
pp. 527–537). London: Nature Publishing Group.
Rashid, M., Wineman, J., & Zimring, C. (2009a). Space, behavior, and environmental perception in open-plan
offices: A prospective study. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 36, 432–449.
Rashid, M., Wineman, J., & Zimring, C. (2009b). Space, behavior, and environmental perception in open-plan
offices: A prospective study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36, 432–449.
Roper, K. O., & Juneja, P. (2008). Distractions in the workplace revisited. Journal of Facilities Management,
6, 91–109.
Shepley, M. M. (2006). The role of positive distraction in neonatal intensive care unit settings. Journal of
Perinatology, 26, S34–S37.
Shin, W. S. (2007). The influence of forest view through a window on job satisfaction and job stress.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 248–253.
Sitzia, J., & Wood, N. (1997). Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts. Social Science &
Medicine, 45, 1829–1843.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A Reexamination of the Determinants of
Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15–32.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner
city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49–63.
Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 15, 77–85.
Thorsen, S. V., Burr, H., Diderichsen, F., & Bjorner, J. B. (2012). A one-item workability measure mediates
work demands, individual resources and health in the prediction of sickness absence. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health.
Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Jahkola, A., Katajarinne, L., & Tulkki, A. (1998). Work ability index. Helsinki:
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.
18 L. Lottrup et al.
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Seitsamo, J., Huuhtanen, P., Martikainen, R., & Nygard, C. H. (1997). Summary of
the Finnish research project (1981–1992) to promote the health and work ability of aging workers.
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 23, 66–77.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill
(Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 417–419.
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. A. Kellert & E. O. Wilsson (Eds.),
The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Verderber, S., & Reuman, D. (1987). Windows, views, and health status in hospital therapeutic environments.
Journal of Architectural & Planning Research, 4, 120–133.
Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and
performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63,
41–81.
Wineman, J. D., Kabo, F. W., & Davis, G. F. (2009). Spatial and social networks in organizational innovation.
Environment and Behavior, 41, 427–442.
The Workplace Window View 19
Downloaded by [Ulrika Stigsdotter] at 04:55 06 March 2014
