Landscape and U ban Planning 160 (2017) 38–47
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Landscape and U ban Planning
jou nalhomepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/landu bplan
Na u e a home and a wo k: Na u ally good? Links be ween window
iews, indoo plan s, ou doo ac i i ies and employee well-being o e
one yea
Kale i Ko pela∗, Jessica De Bloom, Ma jaana Sianoja, Ty i Pasanen, Ulla Kinnunen
School o Social Sciences and Humani ies/Psychology, 33014 Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland
h i g h l i g h s
•We s udied wo-di ec ional associa ions o na u e exposu e wi h employee well-being.
•Physical ac i i y in na u e du ing ee ime p edic ed i ali y.
•Exposu e o he na u al wo ld a wo k was no linked o he well-being measu es.
•Con e sely, a ec i e well-being p edic ed he ype o na u e exposu e.
•Physical ac i i y in na u e is a po en ial s a egy o enhancing employee i ali y.
a i c l e i n o
A icle his o y:
Recei ed 1 Feb ua y 2016
Recei ed in e ised o m
22 No embe 2016
Accep ed 13 Decembe 2016
A ailable online 29 Decembe 2016
Keywo ds:
Indoo plan s
Window iew
Physical ac i i y
Na u e exposu e
Wo kplace
Well-being
a b s a c
We in es iga ed wo-di ec ional ela ions be ween a ious ypes o exposu e o he na u al wo ld, a
wo k and a home, and employee well-being. In o al, 841 employees answe ed an elec onic ques ion-
nai e wice wi h a one-yea in e al. Pa h analysis indica ed ha equen physical ac i i y in na u al
su oundings du ing ee ime p edic ed g ea e i ali y o e a one-yea pe iod a e including con ol
a iables. The use o one’s ya d/ga den and happiness we e ma ginally posi i ely associa ed o e ime.
None o he a iables in ol ing exposu e o he na u al wo ld a wo k we e linked o he well-being
measu es. In he e e se di ec ion, c ea i i y a wo k p edic ed mo e equen and i ali y less equen
use o one’s domes ic ga den. Happiness was ma ginally posi i ely ela ed o he equency o physical
ac i i y in na u e. The esul s sugges ha ee ime physical ac i i y in na u al su oundings is a po en ial
s a egy o enhancing employee i ali y ac oss ime.
© 2016 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie B.V. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND
license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. In oduc ion
Looking a he na u al wo ld om he window can be ega ded
as a “mic o- es o a i e” expe ience ha acco ding o he A en-
ion Res o a ion Theo y (ART) can ence o us a ion and boos
en husiasm abou one´
ıs job hus p omo ing employee well-being
(Kaplan, 1993), i.e., op imal psychological unc ioning and expe i-
ence (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Being exposed a wo kplaces o window
iews o e g eenspace has been ela ed o se e al well-being ou -
∗Co esponding au ho .
E-mail add esses: kale i.ko pela@u a.fi (K. Ko pela), jessica.de.bloom@u a.fi
(J. De Bloom), ma jaana.sianoja@u a.fi (M. Sianoja), y i.pasanen@u a.fi
(T. Pasanen), ulla.kinnunen@u a.fi (U. Kinnunen).
comes like lowe physiological a ousal and anxie y (Chang & Chen,
2005) and be e job sa is ac ion (Lo up, S igsdo e , Meilby, &
Claudi, 2013) compa ed wi h buil u ban iews.
The link be ween na u e exposu e and well-being is e iden also
in he psychophysiological s ess eco e y heo y (SRT), ano he
majo heo e ical pe spec i e in en i onmen al psychology (Ul ich
e al., 1991;B a man, Hamil on, & Daily, 2012). Acco ding o SRT,
a isual encoun e wi h na u al scenes p omp s an au oma ic shi
owa ds mo e posi i e emo ional s a es, inc eases pa asympa he ic
ac i i y inducing elaxa ion (Gladwell e al., 2012), and blocks neg-
a i e emo ions and hough s.
Complemen ing he idea o he es o a i e e ec s o na u e by
ART and SRT, some s udies ha e sugges ed ha exposu e o he na -
u al wo ld also has ( e-) i alizing e ec s (Ryan e al., 2010). Vi ali y
includes posi i e eelings ha a e mo e ene gized han he eelings
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.landu bplan.2016.12.005
0169-2046/© 2016 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie B.V. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/).
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
39
o
es o a ion
o
elaxa ion
(Ryan
e
al.,
2010).
Subjec i e
i ali y
is
a
eeling
o
ali eness
(Nix,
Ryan,
Manly,
&
Deci,
1999)
and
ac i-
a ed
posi i e
a ec
(Ryan
e
al.,
2010).
Vi ali y
inc eases
posi i e
coping
esponses,
be e
sel -con ol
and
enhances
p oduc i eness
(Ryan
&
Deci,
2008),
all
ele an
o
employee
well-being.
In
he
li -
e a u e,
he
i alizing
e ec s
o
na u e
exposu e
ha e
ecei ed
less
esea ch
a en ion
han
he
s ess- educing
aspec s.
Thus,
in
his
s udy
we
in es iga e
whe he
he
pe cep ions
o
he
use
o
na u al
elemen s
a
wo k
and
a
home
a e
ela ed
o
posi i e
and
sel -
enhancing
aspec s
o
employee
well-being,
pa icula ly
subjec i e
i ali y.
Mo eo e ,
a
ele an
ou come
dese ing
in es iga ion
in
his
con ex
is
he
eeling
o
c ea i i y
a
wo k
which
may
be
ela ed
o
i ali y
and
esul
om
a en ion
es o a ion
and
lowe
s ess ul
a ousal
a e
na u e
exposu e
(A chley,
S aye ,
&
A chley,
2012).
In
he
ollowing,
we
e iew
s udies
on
he
associa ions
o
win-
dow
iews,
plan s,
and
physical
ac i i y
in
na u e
wi h
well-being
and
wo k- ela ed
ou comes.
We
main ain
ha
impo an
gaps
in
esea ch
conce n
causal
di ec ions
and
he
ela i e
impo ance
o
di e en
ypes
o
na u e
exposu e.
Ou
s udy
aims
o
add ess
hese
gaps
by
using
a
longi udinal
design
including
se e al
ypes
o
na u e
exposu e.
1.1.
Gaps
in
knowledge:
he
ela i e
impo ance
o
he
ypes
o
na u e
exposu e
and
causal
di ec ions
Despi e
a
la ge
body
o
empi ical
esul s,
he
ela i e
impo ance
o
di e en
o ms
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
o
well-being
emains
elusi e.
Many
s udies
ha e
ocused
on
na u e
exposu e
only
wi hin
he
wo kplace
(A ies,
Vei ch,
&
Newsham,
2010;
La go-
Wigh ,
Chen,
Dodd,
&
Weile ,
2011).
In
his
s udy,
we
compa e
he
pe cep ions
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
a
he
wo kplace
wi h
he
pe cep ions
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
in
esiden-
ial
and
ee
ime
en i onmen s.
To
he
bes
o
ou
knowledge,
only
one
s udy
so
a
has
aken
in o
accoun
he
la e
when
s udying
he
ela ionship
be ween
he
use
o
g eenspace
a
he
wo kplace
and
well-being
(Gilch is ,
B own,
&
Mon a zino,
2015).
The
c oss-
sec ional
esul s
o
ha
s udy
indica ed
ha
knowledge
wo ke s’
use
o
g eenspace
nea
hei
wo kplaces
and
window
iews
o
na u e
we e
posi i ely
associa ed
wi h
sel - epo ed
well-being
when
con olling
o
he
use
o
domes ic
ga den
and
ou doo
ac i -
i y.
O he
c oss-sec ional
s udies
ha e
demons a ed
se e al
well-
being
benefi s
bu
ha e
no
inc eased
ou
unde s anding
abou
he
empo al
and
causal
na u e
o
he
ela ionships.
Fo
example,
exis ing
su ey
s udies
ha e
ela ed
o fices
wi h
plan s
( e sus
lean
o fices)
wi h
g ea e
o e all
job
sa is ac ion,
sel - a ed
quali y
o
li e
(D a igne,
Waliczek,
Linebe ge ,
&
Zajicek,
2008),
sel - epo ed
c e-
a i i y,
and
wo k
sa is ac ion
(B ingslima k,
Ha ig,
&
Pa il,
2007).
Rega ding
physical
ac i i y
(PA)
in
na u al
su oundings,
a
link
o
less
need
o
eco e y
om
wo k
has
been
epo ed
(Ko pela
&
Kinnunen,
2011).
Con e sely,
he
highe
he
le el
o
emo ional
demands
a
he
job,
he
mo e
o en
he
ou doo
ec ea ion
a eas
in
he
icini y
o
home
a e
isi ed
on
wo kdays
(Degenha d ,
F ick,
Buchecke ,
&
Gu sche ,
2011).
Expe imen al
esea ch
on
na u e
exposu e
and
well-being,
in
u n,
has
ocused
mainly
on
sho - e m
e ec s
(Knigh
&
Haslam,
2010)
and
shown
mixed
esul s.
Fo
ins ance,
one
s udy
ound
ha
wo king
in
“g een
o fices”
esul ed
in
be e
pe o mance
in
an
a en ion
capaci y
es
(Raanaas,
E ensen,
Rich,
Sjøs øm,
&
Pa il,
2011)
whe eas
ano he
s udy
ound
no
change
in
ei he
di ec ed
a en ion
capaci y
o
sel - epo ed
es o a ion
(E ensen,
Raanaas,
Häge häll,
Johansson,
&
Pa il,
2015).
Howe e ,
expe i-
men s
wi h
ollow-ups
ha e
indica ed
ha
en iching
a
p e iously
lean
o fice
wi h
plan s
was
associa ed
wi h
less
disengagemen
(e.g.,
eelings
o
apa hy
o
i edness)
among
employees,
which
in
u n
enhanced
hei
wo kplace
sa is ac ion
in
he
sho - e m
(2
weeks)
and
he
long- e m
(3.5
mon hs)
(Nieuwenhuis,
Knigh ,
Pos mes,
&
Haslam,
2014).
S udies
compa ing
na u e
walks
wi h
u ban
walks
ha e
shown
posi i e
sho - e m
e ec s
o
na u e
walks
on
a en ion
es o a ion
and
on
ne ous
sys em
a ousal
(Aspinall,
Ma os,
Coyne,
&
Roe,
2015;
Ha ig,
E ans,
Jamne ,
Da is,
&
Gä ling,
2003;
Pa k,
Tsune sugu,
Kase ani,
Kagawa,
&
Miyazaki,
2010).
Simi-
la ly,
a
s udy
compa ing
di e en
lunch ime
walks
in
he
wo kplace
showed
imp o emen
in
sel - epo ed
men al
heal h
only
in
he
na u e
walk
g oup
(B own,
Ba on,
P e y,
&
Gladwell,
2014).
Expo-
su e
o
na u e
in
he
o m
o
ga dening
has
shown
sho - e m
es o a i e
e ec s
on
mood
and
co isol
when
compa ed
o
indoo
eading
( an
den
Be g
&
Cus e s,
2011).
Some
longi udinal
in e en ion
s udies
sugges
a
p edic i e
ole
o
na u e
exposu e
in
well-being.
Fo
example,
ga dening
as
well
as
na u e-based
he apies
ha e
been
ela ed
o
be e
o e all
heal h
and
well-being
among
adul s
(G oenewegen,
an
den
Be g,
de
V ies,
&
Ve heij,
2006;
Wäh bo g,
Pe e sson,
&
G ahn,
2014).
Longi udinal
s udies
wi h
a
ocus
on
he
gene al
popula ion
ha e
sugges ed
ha
mo e
g eenspace
in
esiden ial
a eas
is
ela ed
o
lowe
le els
o
s ess
(Wa d
Thompson
e
al.,
2012)
and
ha
mo -
ing
o
g eene
a eas
is
ela ed
o
g ea e
subsequen
happiness
and
li e
sa is ac ion
(Whi e,
Alcock,
Wheele ,
&
Depledge,
2013).
1.2.
Resea ch
ques ions
and
hypo heses
The
p esen
s udy
add esses
se e al
gaps
in
he
esea ch
by
explo ing
ela ionships
be ween
sel - epo ed
exposu e
o
he
na -
u al
wo ld
bo h
a
wo k
and
a
home
and
employees’
expe iences
o
well-being.
We
s udy
he
posi i e
and
sel -enhancing
aspec s
o
well-being:
i ali y,
happiness,
igo ,
and
c ea i i y.
These
ela ion-
ships
a e
examined
o e
ime
(one
yea )
as
longi udinal
e idence
compa ing
di e en
ypes
o
na u e
exposu e
is
sca ce.
Fu he -
mo e,
we
aim
o
in es iga e
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
in
a
wide
con ex
han
p e iously
by
con olling
o
heo e ically
ele-
an
job
cha ac e is ics
and
he
s abili y
o
well-being
expe iences
o e
ime.
To
con ibu e
o
he
a e
compa isons
be ween
di e en
ypes
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld,
we
selec ed
pe cei ed
na u e
exposu e
a iables
ha
eflec
di e en
en i onmen s
−
na u al
elemen s
a
wo k
( he
numbe
o
indoo
plan s,
iews
om
win-
dows,
looking
ou
o
he
window),
a
home
(looking
ou
o
he
window,
being
in
he
ga den),
and
du ing
ee
ime
(physical
ac i -
i ies
in
na u al
su oundings).
The
only
s udy
so
a
con olling
o
he
p esence
o
a
domes ic
ga den
and
pa icipa ion
in
ou doo
ac i i ies
(Gilch is
e
al.,
2015)
did
no
con ol
o
he
equency
o
looking
ou
o
windows
o
he
use
o
he
domes ic
ga den.
Mo eo e ,
ou
na u e
exposu e
a iables
ep esen
a
pe cei ed
dimension
o
inc easing
imme sion
in
na u al
su oundings
and
an
inc easing
amoun
o
physical
ac i i y
( om
si ing
and
looking
a
plan s
o
ou doo
ec ea ion).
This
concu s
wi h
some
indica ions
in
he
li e a u e
o
a
linea
dose- esponse
ela ionship
be ween
expo-
su e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
and
well-being
ou comes
(Fjeld,
2000;
Jiang,
Li,
La sen
&
Sulli an,
2014).
As
he
majo i y
o
ea lie
s udies
a e
c oss-sec ional
causali y
has
emained
la gely
an
open
ques ion.
In
ou
s udy,
we
aim
o
gene a e
be e
condi ions
o
causal
hypo heses
by
using
a
wo-
wa e
panel
design.
We
use
a
one-yea
ime-lag
as
p e ious
s udies
p o ide
a
ange
om
one
yea
(As ell-Bu ,
Mi chell,
&
Ha ig,
2014;
Kinnunen
&
Feld ,
2013;
Whi e
e
al.,
2013)
o
fi e
yea s
o
po en-
ial
long- e m
e ec s.
In
a
5-yea
ollow-up
s udy,
g een
quali ies
a ound
he
esidence
in
an
in e ac ion
wi h
physical
ac i i y
p e-
dic ed
men al
heal h
(e.g.,
happiness,
abili y
o
ace
p oblems
and
enjoy
e e yday
ac i i ies)
o
women
(Anne s ed
e
al.,
2012).
To
unde s and
hese
p e ious
esul s
and
jus i y
he
one-yea
lag,
we
specula e
ha
he
ypes
o
na u e
exposu e
in
ou
s udy
(e.g.,
look-
ing
ou ,
being
physically
ac i e)
ep esen
ongoing
daily,
weekly,
40
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
o
mon hly
ecu en
loops
o
beha io s
ha ,
in
p inciple,
can
a ec
well-being
o e
longe
ime
pe iods,
such
as
one
yea .
Thus,
encoun e ing
na u e
exposu es
day
a e
day
will
inc ease
he
like-
lihood
o
con inuously
high
well-being.
Ou
well-being
a iables
a e
consis en
wi h
esea ch
on
i al-
i y,
a en ion
and
s ess
es o a ion
bu
eflec
he
posi i e
and
sel -enhancing
a he
han
s ess- educing
aspec s
o
well-being.
We
include
expe iences
o
i ali y
and
happiness,
which
ha e
been
di e en ia ed
because
i ali y
is
cha ac e ized
by
high
ene gy
o
ac i a ion,
which
is
no
necessa ily
ue
o
happiness
(Nix
e
al.,
1999).
Vi ali y- ela ed
a ec s
a e,
o
example,
peppy,
ac i e,
and
en husias ic,
whe eas
happiness- ela ed
a ec s
may
be
con en
and
sa isfied
(Nix
e
al.,
1999).
We
also
conside
igo
a
wo k
as
a
job- ela ed
well-being
expe ience
o
i ali y.
Vigo
is
a
key
dimension
o
wo k
engagemen
and
e e s
o
high
le els
o
ene gy
and
men al
esilience
while
wo king,
he
willingness
o
in es
in
one’s
wo k,
and
pe se e ance
in
he
ace
o
di ficul ies
(Schau eli,
Salano a,
González-Romá,
&
Bakke ,
2002).
Fu he ,
c ea i i y
a
wo k,
defined
as
he
p oduc ion
o
no el,
use ul
ideas
o
p oblem
solu ions
(Amabile,
Ba sade,
Muelle ,
&
S aw,
2005)
may
esul
om
a en ion
es o a ion
and
lowe
s ess ul
a ousal
in
na u e
(A chley
e
al.,
2012).
The
e ec s
o
na u e
on
posi i e
mood
(e.g.,
happiness)
and
he
consequen
s imula ion
o
insigh
and
di e gen
associa ions
ha e
also
been
p oposed
as
mechanisms
inc easing
pe o mance
in
c ea i e
asks
(Shiba a
&
Suzuki,
2002,
2004).
Based
on
p e ious
c oss-sec ional
findings
we
an icipa e
ha
(H1)
di e en
pe cei ed
ypes
and
deg ees
o
na u e
exposu e
a e
all
posi i ely
and
independen ly
(a e
accoun ing
o
o he
a i-
ables)
ela ed
o
well-being
ou comes
o e
one
yea .
An
in e es ing
ques ion
is
whe he
happiness,
i ali y,
igo ,
and
c ea i i y
a e
in e ela ed
psychological
p ocesses
and
show
consis en
associa-
ions
wi h
na u e
exposu e
o
whe he
benefi s
di e
wi h
di e en
well-being
ou comes.
In
addi ion,
we
include
adequa e
con ol
a iables
ha
ep e-
sen
al e na i e
explana ions
o
he
ela ionships
be ween
na u e
exposu e
and
well-being.
In
he
employee
well-being
li e a u e,
i ali y,
ene gy,
and
sel - egula o y
capaci ies
−
eflec ed
in
ou
ou comes
o
i ali y,
happiness,
igo ,
and
c ea i i y
−
a e
assumed
o
be
enhanced
by
sa is ac ion
o
needs
o
ela edness
( eel-
ing
connec ed),
au onomy
(sense
o
choice),
and
compe ence
(e ec i eness)
(Ryan
&
Deci,
2001,
2008).
Consequen ly,
job
cha -
ac e is ics
including
1)
suppo
om
colleagues
and
supe io s
( ela edness),
2)
au onomy
a
wo k
(au onomy),
and
3)
wo kload
(indica ing
a
challenge
and
po en ial
o
compe ence)
ma ch
hese
needs
and
a e
also
he
mos
impo an
job
cha ac e is ics
a ec ing
employee
well-being
in
Ka asek’s
well-known
demand-con ol-
suppo
model
(Ka asek
&
Theo ell,
1990).
Thus,
we
con ol
o
hem.
Ano he
al e na i e
explana ion
no
con olled
o
in
p e i-
ous
s udies
is
he
numbe
o
b eaks
om
wo k
ha
a
pe son
akes
du ing
he
day.
Mo e
b eaks
ha e
been
ela ed
o
be e
well-being
and
less
a igue
(Tucke ,
2003),
which
means
mo e
igo
and
pos-
i i e
a ec i e
s a es.
Hence,
he
numbe
o
b eaks
may
be
di ec ly
linked
o
well-being,
and
b eaks
may
also
p o ide
mo e
oppo u-
ni ies
o
engage
wi h
na u al
elemen s.
Fu he mo e,
i
is
known
ha
posi i e
a ec s
a e
mode a ely
s able
o e
mon hs,
e en
o e
yea s
(Lucas
&
Donnellan,
2007;
Wa son
&
Walke ,
1996).
We
accoun
o
his
empo al
s abili y
which
lea es
explana o y
powe
and
a iance
only
o
impo an
de e minan s
and
makes
ou
s udy
design
a
mo e
s ingen
es
o
o he
explana o y
a iables.
We
also
con ol
o
age
and
gende
which
may
be
associa ed
wi h
he
dependen
a iables
(Shiba a
&
Suzuki,
2004).
Ou
las
aim
is
o
in es iga e
bo h
di ec ions
o
he
ela ion-
ship
be ween
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
and
well-being.
The e
is
compelling
e idence
ha
na u e
exposu e
imp o es
well-being,
bu
as
longi udinal
s udies
a e
s ill
ew
and
expe imen al
e idence
is
limi ed,
he
e e se
o
ecip ocal
di ec ions
o
he
ela ionships
emain
plausible.
The
e e se
assump ion
s a es
ha
be e
well-
being
inc eases
exposu e
o
na u e
(H2),
whe eas
he
ecip ocal
assump ion
iews
his
ela ionship
as
bidi ec ional
(H3).
In
sup-
po
o
he
e e sed
e ec s,
i
is
well
known
ha
mood
a ec s
an
indi idual’s
selec ion
o
ce ain
places,
ac i i ies
and
expe iences
while
he e,
and
decisions
o
lea e
(Ke
&
Tacon,
1999).
In
ac ,
he
no ion
ha
people
use
pa icula
places
o
sel -
and
emo ion
egu-
la ion
is
a
common
p esupposi ion
in
esea ch
on
a o i e
places
and
es o a i e
en i onmen s
(Ko pela,
Ha ig,
Kaise ,
&
Fuh e ,
2001).
The
niche-building
heo y,
based
on
a
b oade
pe spec i e
o
he
pe son-en i onmen
fi
(Robe s
&
Robins,
2004),
posi s
ha
people
end
o
c ea e,
seek
ou ,
o
end
up
in
physical
and
social
en i-
onmen s
ha
co ela e
wi h
hei
pe sonal
needs,
disposi ions,
and
abili ies
(Tesse ,
2002).
In
a el
and
ou ism
s udies,
he
desi e
o
elaxa ion
and
es o a ion,
and
he
p e e ence
o
na u al
en i-
onmen s
has
been
ecognized
as
one
basis
o
he
choice
o
a el
des ina ions
(Leh o,
2013).
F om
leisu e
s udies,
i
is
known
ha
leisu e
in ol emen
ha
includes
physical
ac i i y
ollows
om
se e al
in insic
mo i es,
such
as
iden i y
a fi ma ion,
enjoymen ,
o
physical
fi ness
(Aal onen
e
al.,
2012).
Hence,
a
mul i ude
o
pe -
spec i es
and
empi ical
esul s
suppo s
he
no ion
o
he
ac i e
choice
o
en i onmen s
o
egula e
one´
ıs
well-being,
po en ially
p oducing
e e se
e ec s.
2.
Me hod
2.1.
Sample
and
p ocedu e
The
pa icipan s
we e
employees
wo king
in
ele en
o ganiza-
ions
in
di e en
sec o s,
he
la ges
o
which
we e
educa ion,
in o ma ion
echnology,
and
media.
By
sampling
di e en
o gani-
za ions,
we
wan ed
o
include
employees
om
a
a ie y
o
di e en
jobs.
The
o ganiza ions
we e
mainly
ec ui ed
om
he
clien
o ga-
niza ions
o
a
company
supplying
occupa ional
heal h
ca e
se ices.
As
no
all
ypes
o
na u al
en i onmen s
may
be
es o a i e
−
o
ins ance,
dense
wooded
a eas
may
also
e oke
ea
and
s ess
(Ga e sleben
&
And ews,
2013)
−
in
he
p esen
s udy,
we
ec ui ed
wo kplaces
nea
u ban
pa ks
o
woodlands
(max.
150
m
dis ance)
ha
we e
well
main ained
and
did
no
include
h ea ening
ea u es.
The
ques ionnai e
da a
we e
collec ed
in
wo
wa es
as
a
pa
o
a
la ge
p ojec
on
eco e y
a
wo k
aiming
ul ima ely
o
a
3-wa e
design.
In
he
fi s
phase,
in
sp ing
2013
(Time
1)
an
elec-
onic
ques ionnai e
was
sen
ei he
di ec ly
o
he
employees’
wo k
e-mail
add esses
(in
se en
o ganiza ions)
o
he
link
o
he
ques ionnai e
was
deli e ed
by
he
con ac
pe sons
o
he
employ-
ees
(in
ou
o ganiza ions).
O
he
employees
con ac ed
(N
=
3593),
1347
e u ned
he
comple ed
ques ionnai e
a e
wo
eminde s,
yielding
a
esponse
a e
o
37.5%.
Second,
in
sp ing
2014
(Time
2)
ano he
elec onic
ques ionnai e
was
sen
o
hose
employees
who
esponded
in
2013
and
who
we e
s ill
employed
in
he
same
o ga-
niza ions
(N
=
1192).
O
hese,
a
o al
o
841
employees
e u ned
he
comple ed
ques ionnai e,
yielding
a
esponse
a e
o
70.6%.
In
bo h
s udy
phases,
he
employees
ecei ed
in o ma ion
abou
he
goals
o
he
s udy
(“a
longi udinal
s udy
abou
eco e y
om
wo k
including
ques ionnai e
wi h
he
hemes
o
wo k,
wo k
en i on-
men ,
ee- ime,
well-being,
and
heal h”)
wi h
he
assu ance
ha
esponses
would
be
ea ed
confiden ially
and
ha
pa icipa ion
was
olun a y.
All
he
a iables
used
in
his
s udy
we e
measu ed
a
bo h
ime
poin s
T1
and
T2.
A
Time
1
o
his
longi udinal
sample
(N
=
841),
58.6%
o
pa ic-
ipan s
we e
women.
The
pa icipan s’
a e age
age
was
47.1
yea s
( ange
21–67,
SD
=
10.0).
Mos
o
hem
(76.4%)
we e
li ing
wi h
a
pa ne
(ei he
ma ied
o
cohabi ing),
and
45.6%
had
child en
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
41
(a e age
o
wo)
li ing
a
home.
O
he
sample,
38.2%
held
a
uni-
e si y
deg ee
(mas e ’s
le el
o
highe ),
26.6%
had
a
poly echnic
deg ee,
and
he
es
(35.2%)
had
a
oca ional
school
qualifica ion
o
less.
O
he
pa icipan s,
8.3%
we e
blue-colla
wo ke s
(e.g.,
cleane s),
30.0%
we e
lowe -whi e
colla
wo ke s
(e.g.,
o fice
wo k-
e s),
57.8%
we e
highe
whi e-colla
wo ke s
(e.g.,
eache s),
and
3.8%
we e
highe -le el
manage s
(e.g.,
chie
execu i e
o fice s).
The
majo i y
had
a
pe manen
job
(89.0%),
wo ked
ull- ime
(96.8%),
and
had
a
egula
day
shi
(89.7%).
A e age
hou s
wo ked
weekly
we e
39.1
(SD
=
5.9).
O
he
pa icipan s,
55.6%
wo ked
in
he
public
sec o ,
and
he
es
(39.4%)
wo ked
in
he
p i a e
sec o .
In
analyzing
sample
a i ion
we
compa ed
he
esponden s
o
he
longi udinal
sample
(i.e.,
hose
who
eplied
a
T1
and
T2)
wi h
he
non- esponden s
(who
did
no
eply
a
T2).
The
esponden s
did
no
di e
om
he
non- esponden s
in
e ms
o
gende ,
age,
ha ing
a
pa ne ,
numbe
o
child en,
o
educa ion.
The
espon-
den s
we e
mo e
o en
employed
as
highe
whi e-colla
wo ke s
(58%
s.
50%)
han
he
non- esponden s
(p
<
0.05)
and
had
mo e
o en
a
pe manen
employmen
con ac
(89%
s.
79%)
han
he
non- esponden s
(p
<
0.001).
Also,
he
esponden s
wo ked
longe
hou s
pe
week
(39.1
s.
37.9
h,
p
<
0.01)
and
mo e
o en
had
a
eg-
ula
day
shi
(90%
s.
83%,
p
<
0.01)
han
he
non- esponden s.
When
compa ing
he
s udy
a iables
a
T1
(na u e
exposu e,
job
cha ac e is ics,
ou comes)
wo
di e ences
we e
ound.
The
non- esponden s
a
T2
epo ed
ha ing
somewha
less
au onomy
a
wo k
(M
=
3.1,
SD
=
0.85)
han
he
long- e m
sample
(M
=
3.2,
SD
=
0.82;
(1226) =
2.2,
p
=
0.025)
and
ha ing
sligh ly
less
social
suppo
(M
=
3.9,
SD
=
0.74)
han
he
long- e m
sample
(M
=
4.0,
SD
=
0.66;
(672.3) =
2.0,
p
=
0.043).
2.2.
Measu es
In
o de
o
ele a e
he
esponse
a e,
o
co e
se e al
esea ch
hemes
and
no
o
bu den
he
employees
excessi ely,
we
had
o
measu e
he
a iables
as
concise
as
possible
in
ou
ques ion-
nai e.
In
addi ion
o
pe cei ed
na u e
exposu e
and
well-being,
he
ques ionnai e
included
se e al
measu es
abou
he
wo k
si ua ion,
eco e y
and
ee
ime,
no
epo ed
he e.
2.2.1.
Na u e
exposu e
a iables
a
he
wo kplace
The
numbe
o
indoo
plan s
was
measu ed
by
one
i em
asking
“How
many
(a ificial
o
eal)
plan s
o
flowe s
do
you
ha e
in
sigh
inside
you
oom/wo k
s a ion?”.
The
esponse
was
gi en
in
numbe s.
We
included
a ificial
plan s
in
ligh
o
he
ac
ha
e en
pos e s
o
plan s
can
ha e
simila
al hough
weake
e ec s
on
well-
being
han
eal
plan s
(Beukeboom,
Lange eld,
&
Tanja-Dijks a,
2012).
The
ype
o
iew
om
he
window
was
measu ed
by
asking
“Do
you
ha e
a
window,
a
glass
doo
o
a
glass
wall
in
you
oom/wo k
s a ion?”.
The
esponse
ca ego ies
we e
1)
No,
2)
Yes,
i
is
o
he
inside
o
he
building,
3)
Yes,
i
is
o
he
ou side
o
he
building
wi h
mainly
an
u ban
iew
( o
example
a
building
o
s ee )
4)
Yes,
i
is
o
he
ou side
o
he
building
wi h
mainly
a
na u al
iew
( o
example
a
lake,
field,
o
pa k).
Fo
he
s a is ical
analyses,
we
used
a
dicho omous
a iable
(1
=
indoo
o
u ban
iew
and
2
=
na u e
iew)
and
excluded
hose
wi h
no
iews
(5.9%
o
he
sample).
F equency
o
looking
ou
o
he
window
was
measu ed
in
he
con-
ex
o
ene gy
managemen
beha io s
du ing
he
wo king
day
(De
Bloom,
Kinnunen,
&
Ko pela,
2015).
We
ecognized
he
di ficul y
o
epo ing
on
looking
a
plan s
o
window
iew
pe
se
du ing
he
wo king
day
bu
hough
ha
people
migh
mo e
easily
ecog-
nize
he
momen s
when
hey
el
ele a ed
a e
looking
a
hei
su oundings.
Thus,
we
asked
“To
wha
ex en
do
you
use
each
o
he
beha io s
o
manage
you
ene gy
du ing
you
wo k
day?”
Among
a
lis
o
13
beha io s
we
included
“Look
ou
he
window”.
The
esponse
scale
was
a
Like
scale
om
1
“Ve y
seldom
o
ne e ”
o
5
“Ve y
o en
o
always”.
2.2.2.
Na u e
exposu e
a iables
a
home
and
du ing
ee
ime
F equency
o
looking
ou
a
a
na u e
iew
a
home
was
measu ed
wi h
a
ques ion
“Do
you
ha e
a
window
o
balcony
iew
o
na u-
al
su oundings,
e.g.,
g eenspace,
wa e ,
o
a
ga den?”
wi h
ou
esponse
ca ego ies
0)
No,
1)
Yes,
bu
I
look
a
i
ai ly
seldom,
2)
Yes,
and
I
look
a
i
some imes,
3)
Yes,
and
I
look
a
i
o en.
Use
o
one’s
own
back
ya d
(a
home)
wi h
na u al
elemen s
was
measu ed
wi h
one
i em
“Do
you
ha e
a
ga den,
ya d,
balcony
o
pa io
wi h
na u al
(e.g.,
plan s,
flowe s,
ees)
o
wa e
elemen s
(e.g.,
a
oun ain,
a
pond)?”.
The
esponse
ca ego ies
we e
0)
No,
1)
Yes,
bu
I
use
i
seldom,
2)
Yes,
and
I
use
i
some imes,
3)
Yes,
and
I
use
i
o en.
F equency
o
physical
ac i i ies
in
na u al
su oundings
du ing
ee
ime
was
measu ed
wi h
one
i em
“How
o en
do
you
spend
ee
ime
on
he
ollowing
ac i i ies?
Physical
ac i i ies
in
na u al
su -
oundings
(e.g.,
swimming,
unning,
cycling)”
was
included
in
he
lis
o
se en
ac i i ies.
The
esponse
ca ego ies
we e
1)
Ha dly
e e
o
a
ew
imes
pe
yea ,
2)
Abou
once
pe
mon h,
3)
A
ew
imes
pe
mon h,
4)
Abou
once
pe
week,
5)
A
ew
imes
pe
week,
6)
Almos
e e y
day.
2.2.3.
Well-being
a iables
Happiness
was
measu ed
wi h
a
single
i em
(“How
happy
do
you
eel
in
gene al?”)
using
a
10-poin
scale
anging
om
1
( e y
unhappy)
o
10
( e y
happy)
(Abdel-Khalek,
2006;
De
Bloom,
Geu s,
&
Kompie ,
2013).
Vi ali y
was
measu ed
wi h
ou
i ems
(excluding
he
syn-
onymous
exp essions
o
ene gy)
om
he
se en-i em
Subjec i e
Vi ali y
Scale
(Ryan
&
F ede ick,
1997)
(e.g.,
“Du ing
he
las
mon h,
I
ha e
el
ali e
and
i al”,
C onbach’s
alpha
=
0.88T1 and
0.88T2).
The
i ems
we e
a ed
on
a
5-poin
scale
om
1
( e y
seldom
o
ne e )
o
5
( e y
o en
o
always).
Vigo
a
wo k
was
measu ed
wi h
h ee
i ems
(e.g.,
“A
my
wo k,
I
eel
bu s ing
wi h
ene gy”,
C onbach’s
alpha
=
0.89T1 and
0.90T2)
om
he
sho ened
U ech
Wo k
Engagemen
Scale
(UWES,
Schau eli,
Bakke ,
&
Salano a,
2006),
o
which
he
cons uc
alidi y
has
been
ound
o
be
good
in
Finnish
occupa ional
samples
(Seppälä
e
al.,
2009).
The
esponse
scale
anged
om
0
(ne e )
o
6
(e e y
day).
C ea i i y
a
wo k
was
measu ed
wi h
h ee
i ems
(e.g.,
“My
head
is
ull
o
inno a i e
ideas
ha
a e
ela ed
o
my
wo k”,
C onbach’s
alpha
=
0.84T1 and
0.86T2)
(Geo ge
&
Zhou,
2001;
Jaussi,
Randel,
&
Dionne,
2007)
a ed
on
a
scale
om
1
( e y
seldom
o
ne e )
o
5
( e y
o en
o
always).
2.2.4.
Con ol
a iables
Job
au onomy
was
measu ed
wi h
fi e
i ems
(e.g.,
“I
can
influence
he
amoun
o
wo k
assigned
o
me“,
C onbach’s
alpha
=
0.77T1 and
0.78T2)
a ed
on
a
5-poin
scale
om
1
( e y
seldom
o
ne e )
o
5
( e y
o en
o
always)
om
he
QPS
No dic-ADW
(Dallne
e
al.,
2000).
Social
suppo
om
colleagues
was
measu ed
wi h
h ee
i ems
(e.g.,
“I
needed,
I
can
ge
suppo
and
help
wi h
my
wo k
om
my
co-wo ke s”)
and
om
supe iso s
wi h
h ee
i ems
(e.g.,
“My
wo k
achie emen s
a e
app ecia ed
by
my
immedia e
supe io ”)
ha
we e
aken
om
he
QPS
No dic-ADW
(Dallne
e
al.,
2000).
C onbach’s
alpha
o
suppo
wi h
colleagues
and
supe iso s
was
0.80T1 and
0.82T2.
The
i ems
we e
a ed
on
a
5-poin
scale
om
1
( e y
seldom
o
ne e )
o
5
( e y
o en
o
always).
Wo kload
was
measu ed
wi h
h ee
i ems
(e.g.,
“How
o en
does
you
job
equi e
you
o
wo k
unde
ime
p essu e?”;
C onbach’s
alpha
=
0.88T1 and
0.87T2)
om
he
QWI
(Spec o
&
Jex,
1998).
The
42
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
i ems
we e
a ed
on
a
scale
om
1
( e y
seldom
o
ne e )
o
5
( e y
o en
o
always).
Numbe
o
b eaks
las ing
o e
10
min
du ing
a
egula
wo king
day
was
elici ed
wi h
an
open-ended
ques ion.
The
esponse
was
gi en
in
numbe s.
We
also
con olled
o
gende
and
age.
2.2.5.
S a is ical
analyses
MANOVA
and
pai ed
sample
- es s
wi h
SPSS
22.0
we e
used
o
examine
he
change
in
he
mean
le el
o
he
a iables
om
T1
o
T2
and
ze o-o de
co ela ions
we e
calcula ed
o
examine
he
ela ionships
be ween
he
s udy
a iables.
We
used
a
wo-wa e
au o eg essi e
c oss-lagged
panel
model,
he
“ adi ional
longi u-
dinal
model”
(Selig
&
Li le,
2012)
o
examine
he
hypo hesized
ela ionships
ac oss
ime.
All
a iables
we e
measu ed
a
T1
and
T2.
In
he
model,
au o eg essions
e eal
he
s abili y
o
change
o
indi iduals’
ela i e
s andings
on
he
cons uc
om
one
occasion
o
he
nex
(Selig
&
Li le,
2012).
C oss-lagged
associa ions
a e
ela-
ionships
be ween
“independen
and
dependen ”
a iables,
i.e.,
he
e ec
o
a
cons uc
on
ano he
measu ed
a
a
la e
occasion.
C oss-
lagged
e ec s
a e
es ima ed
con olling
o
au o eg essions,
ha
is,
he
p io
le el
o
he
cons uc
being
p edic ed.
The
inclusion
o
au o eg essions
ules
ou
he
possibili y
ha
c oss-lagged
associa-
ions
a e
due
o
he
a iables
being
co ela ed
a
T1
(Selig
&
Li le,
2012).
We
an
his
“no mal
causa ion”
model
in
Mplus
7
including
au o eg essions
o
all
a iables
and
he
c oss-lagged
eg essions
om
na u e
exposu e
and
con ol
a iables
a
T1
o
ou
well-being
measu es
a
T2
(Fig.
1).
We
also
an
he
“ e e se
causa ion”
model
wi h
happiness,
i ali y,
igo ,
and
he
sense
o
c ea i i y
a
T1
p e-
dic ing
na u e
exposu e
and
con ol
a iables
a
T2
o
assess
he
di ec ion
o
he
hypo hesized
associa ions.
Las ,
we
an
he
“ ecip-
ocal”
model
which
assumes
ha
hese
pa hs
be ween
a iables
we e
bidi ec ional.
Accep able
model
fi s
we e
assessed
wi h
he
ollowing
c i e ia:
he
␹2 es
(Bollen,
1989),
Compa a i e
Fi
Index
(CFI)
and
Tucke
Lewis
Index
(TLI)
wi h
alues
g ea e
han
0.90
o .95,
Roo
Mean
Squa e
E o
o
App oxima ion
(RMSEA)
wi h
alues
smalle
han
0.06
−
0.08,
and
S anda dized
Roo
Mean
Squa e
Residual
(SRMR)
wi h
alues
smalle
han
0.08
(Sch eibe ,
No a,
S age,
Ba low,
&
King,
2006).
Fo
he
compa isons
o
non-nes ed
models
(no mal
s.
e e sed),
Akaike
in o ma ion
c i e ion
(AIC),
Bayes
in o ma-
ion
c i e ion
(BIC)
and
sample-size
adjus ed
BIC
we e
used
wi h
he
c i e ion
“ he
smalle ,
he
be e ”
(Sch eibe
e
al.,
2006).
Fo
he
compa ison
o
nes ed
models
( ecip ocal
s.
no mal
o
e e sed),
we
used
he
Sa o a-Ben le
scaled
␹2di e ence
es .
The
models
we e
es ima ed
wi h
he
MLMV
es ima o ,
which
is
a
maximum
likelihood
−based
es ima o
ha
is
obus
o
non-no mali y
o
obse ed
a iables
(Mu hén
&
Mu hén,
1998-2012).
3.
Resul s
3.1.
Desc ip i e
esul s
The
co ela ions
be ween
he
na u e
exposu e
a iables
we e
low
(excep
o
na u e
iew
a
home
and
use
o
ga den,
balcony,
o
ya d
a
home),
indica ing
low
mul icollinea i y
(Table
1).
The
co e-
la ions
be ween
he
na u e
exposu e
a iables
and
con ol
a iables
we e
likewise
low.
As
an icipa ed,
all
na u e
exposu e
a iables
had
some
significan
posi i e
co ela ions
wi h
he
well-being
a iables
bo h
c oss-sec ionally
and
o e
ime.
The
co ela ions
be ween
job- ela ed
con ol
a iables
(au on-
omy,
suppo ,
wo kload,
b eaks)
and
well-being
a iables
we e
o
mode a e
s eng h
and
mos ly
significan
c oss-sec ionally
and
o e
ime.
The
s onges
c oss-sec ional
co ela ions
we e
be ween
suppo
and
i ali y,
igo
and
happiness.
Wo kload
co ela ed
wi h
c ea i i y
bu
no
wi h
igo ,
happiness,
o
i ali y.
Numbe
o
b eaks
co ela ed
wi h
happiness
and
i ali y
bu
no
wi h
igo
and
c ea i i y.
Vigo ,
happiness,
and
i ali y
we e
in e ela ed
qui e
s ongly
and
significan ly,
c ea i i y
ha ing
lowe
bu
s ill
signifi-
can
ela ions
o
o he
well-being
a iables.
MANOVA
e ealed
s a is ically
significan
(Pillai
F(13,671) =
8.7,
p
<
0.001)
inc eases
om
T1
o
T2
in
he
mean
le el
(Table
1)
o
equency
o
looking
ou
o
he
window
a
wo k
and
a
home,
and
numbe
o
b eaks.
Vigo ,
c ea i i y,
and
wo kload
dec eased.
As
high
co ela ions
be ween
dependen
a iables
in
MANOVA
may
educe
powe ,
we
confi med
hese
esul s
wi h
sepa a e
pai ed
samples
- es s.
3.2.
Au o eg essi e
c oss-lagged
pa h
models
Ou
hypo hesized
model
o
“no mal
causa ion”
showed
a
good
fi
o
he
da a
excep
o
he
2 es ,
which
is
gene -
ally
known
o
be
o e sensi i e
wi h
la ge
samples
(Bollen,
1989)
(2162 =
415.3,
p
<
0.001;
CFI
=
0.95,
TLI
=
0.91;
RMSEA
=
0.05;
SRMR
=
0.04;
AIC
=
17.819;
BIC
=
18.609;
adj
BIC
=
18.035).
The
model
explained
43.9%
o
he
a ia ion
in
happiness,
40.1%
in
i ali y,
46.3%
in
igo ,
and
53.8%
in
sense
o
c ea i i y
a
T2.
Examina-
ion
o
he
s anda dized
coe ficien s
(Table
2)
showed
ha
equen
physical
ac i i y
in
na u al
su oundings
a
T1
was
associa ed
wi h
s onge
eelings
o
i ali y
a
T2.
F equency
o
using
one’s
back
ya d
wi h
na u e
elemen s
a
T1
was
ma ginally
ela ed
o
happi-
ness
a
T2.
O
he
con ol
a iables,
wo kload
and
au onomy
a
T1
p edic ed
highe
c ea i i y
a
wo k
a
T2
and
suppo
p edic ed
i ali y.
Au o eg ession
coe ficien s
we e
subs an ial
o
happi-
ness
(ˇ
=
0.63),
i ali y
(ˇ
=
0.54),
igo
(ˇ
=
0.64),
and
c ea i i y
(ˇ
=
0.70),
all
p
<
0.001,
sugges ing
no able
s abili y.
All
o he
coe -
ficien s
we e
non-significan .
The
“ e e se
causa ion
model”
had
a
nea ly
iden ical
fi
wi h
he
da a
(2162 =
420.5,
p
<
0.001;
CFI
=
0.95,
TLI
=
0.90;
RMSEA
=
0.05;
SRMR
=
0.04;
AIC
=
17.820;
BIC
=
18.611;
adj
BIC
=
18.036)
al hough
he
in o ma ion
c i e ia
we e
sligh ly
be e
in
he
“no mal
cau-
sa ion
model”.
The
e e sed
model
explained
53.6%
o
a iance
in
numbe
o
plan s,
34.7%
in
ype
o
iew
om
he
window,
33.9%
in
equency
o
looking
ou
o
he
window
a
wo k,
26.8%
in
e-
quency
o
looking
ou
o
he
window
a
home,
39.9%
in
use
o
ga den,
balcony,
pa io
o
ya d
wi h
na u e
elemen s
a
home
and
44.6%
in
equency
o
physical
ac i i y
in
na u al
su oundings
a
T2.
S anda dized
coe ficien s
(Table
3)
showed
ha
sense
o
c e-
a i i y
a
wo k
a
T1
p edic ed
mo e
equen
use
o
one’s
back
ya d
wi h
na u e
elemen s
a
T2.
Con e sely,
i ali y
a
T1
p e-
dic ed
less
equen
use
o
one’s
back
ya d
wi h
na u e
elemen s
a
T2.
Happiness
was
ma ginally
posi i ely
ela ed
o
he
equency
o
physical
ac i i y
in
na u e.
Au o eg ession
coe ficien s
we e
sub-
s an ial;
o
indoo
plan s
ˇ
=
0.73,
o
ype
o
iew
om
window
ˇ
=
0.59,
o
equency
o
looking
ou
ˇ
=
0.57,
o
looking
ou
a
na u e
a
home
ˇ
=
0.51,
use
o
ya d/ga den
a
home
ˇ
=
0.61
and
o
physical
ac i i y
in
na u e
ˇ
=
0.66,
all
p
<
0.001.
All
o he
coe -
ficien s
we e
non-significan .
The
“ ecip ocal
model”
showed
no
imp o emen
in
he
model
fi
ela i e
o
he
hypo hesized
no mal
(2di
(40) =
42.1,
p
=0.38)
o
e e se
model
(2di
(40) =
46.8,
p
=0.21).
Fu he mo e,
he
ecip o-
cal
model
e ealed
no
new
significan
pa hs.
4.
Discussion
O e all,
we
ob ained
limi ed
suppo
o
he
link
be ween
pe -
cei ed
na u e
exposu e
and
employee
well-being
o e
ime.
The
link
be ween
na u e
and
well-being
was
no
clea ly
unidi ec ional
o e
ime.
While
acknowledging
he
limi a ions
in
ou
design
and
measu es,
hese
“conse a i e”
findings
show
ha
in
eal-li e
con-

K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
43
Table
1
Means,
s anda d
de ia ions
and
Pea son
co ela ions
be ween
na u e
elemen s
a
wo k
and
home,
backg ound,
job
cha ac e is ic
and
well-being
a iables.
1
Plan s
2
View
ype
3
Look
ou
4
View,
home
5
Ya d,
home
6
Na u e,
PA
7 Gende
a
1 emale
2 male
8
Age
a
12
B eaks
13
Au o-
nomy
14
Sup-
po
15
Wo k
load
16
C ea i i y
T1 T2
17
Vigo
T1 T2
18
Happiness
T1 T2
19
Vi ali y
T1 T2
1. Plan s .69***
-
.05
.01
.04
.08*
.00
-
.18**
*
-
.01
-.12**
-
.07*
.04
.19**
*
-
.00
.08
*
.00
-
.0
4
2. View, u ban
s na u e
-.07 .58
***
.08*
.03
.03
.02
.02
-
.03
.00
.07
.04
-
.03
.03
.05
.06
.09
**
3. Looking ou
o he window
-.004 .12** .55***
.16**
*
.09*
*
.12**
*
-
.10**
-
.01
.09**
.09*
*
.09*
*
.00
.10
**
.09
**
.04
.07
4. Na u e iew,
home
.03
.004
.21***
.57***
.52**
*
.13**
*
-
.05
.24**
*
.04
.04
.02
.04
.15
***
.15
***
.12
***
.12
***
5. Use o home
ga den / ya d
.03
.02
.17***
.51***
.66***
.16***
-
.04
.23**
*
.06
-
.03
.02
.11**
*
.14
***
.12
***
.13
***
.12
***
6. Na u e,
phys.ac i i y
.06 .05 .10** .14*** .20*** .66***
-
.18**
*
.00
.02
.01
.03
.02
.05
.08
*
.14
***
.16
***
7. Gende
a
-.22***
-.01
-.14***
-.08*
-.05
-.17***
.04
.23***
.16***
-
.02
-.15***
.07
*
-
.09
**
-
.08
*
.03
8. Age
a
.001 -.03 .01 .25*** .28*** .03 .04 .16***
-
.06
-
.05
-
.07
-
.01
.0
0
-
.02
.04
12. F eq o > 10
min. b eaks
-.10** .02 .11** .04 .004 .07* .26*** .07 .67***
.06
.05
-.22***
.03
.01
.09
**
.09
**
13. Au onomy -.05 .003 .04 -.03 -.03 .03 .16*** -.08* .07* .74*** .34*** -.24***
.
20
***
.26
***
.1
2***
.29
***
14. Suppo .11**
.05
.01
.00
.02
.05
-.02
-.10**
.02
.32***
.63***
-.05
.17
***
.3
9
***
.32
***
.39
***
15. Wo kload .10** -.09* -.01 .05 .11** .02 -.16*** .03 -.24*** -.30*** -.08* .69***
.18
***
.0
6
-
.0
3
-
.0
7*
16. C ea i i yT1 -.02 .08* .08* .11*** .12*** .04 .05 .01 -.01 .15*** .15*** .15***
C ea i i yT2 .00 .05 .06 .09** .08* .05 .07* -.01 -.01 .16*** .12*** .15*** .72*** .30*** .11** .27***
17. Vigo T1 .09*
.07
.04
.10**
.12***
.19***
-.06
.01
.04
.26***
.39***
.01
.35***
Vigo T2 .07*
.03
.05
.09*
.11***
.15***
-.09**
.00
.00
.19***
.29***
.04
.24***
.33***
.68***
.34***
.56***
18. HappinessT1 .05
.03
.03
.14***
.16***
.17***
-.12***
.004
.08*
.13***
.26***
.01
.14***
.41***
Happiness T2 .04
.05
.03
.10**
.14***
.16***
-.08*
-.02
.10**
.11***
.24***
-.02
.15***
.16***
.37***
.37***
.68***
.50***
19. Vi ali y T1 .04
.06
.07
.11***
.12***
.20***
-.01
.002
.11**
.27***
.40***
-.07
.29***
.65***
.59***
Vi ali y T2 .00
.07
.05
.11***
.12***
.19***
.03
.04
.11**
.22***
.30***
-.05
.26***
.30***
.50***
.63***
.47***
.57***
.67***
Response scale 0-20
1-2
1-5
0-3
0-3
1-6
1-2 21
-67
0-8
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
0-6
1-10
1-5
Mean
T1
(T2)
2.28
(2.12)
20%
na u e
3.02
(3.30)
2.40
(2.57)
2.29
(2.32)
4.30
(4.30
)
59%
emale
47.13
2.44
(2.54)
3.18
(3.20)
3.99
(3.96)
3.89
(3.82)
3.45
(3.37)
4.53
(4.37)
7.77
(7.83)
3.37
(3.41)
SD
T1
(T2)
3.50
(3.51)
22%
na u e
1.20
(1.13)
.88
(.77)
.96
(.90)
1.30
(1.30
)
10.02
1.12
(1.18)
.82
(.80)
.66
(.69)
.82
(.79)
.77
(.77)
1.21
(1.32)
1.59
(1.52)
.79
(.78)
*,
**,
***Significan
a
p
≤
0.05,
0.01,
o
0.001
espec i ely.
N
=
683–841.
Uppe
iangle
(g ey
a ea):
in e co ela ions
a
T2.
Lowe
iangle:
in e co ela ions
a
T1
excep
well-being
a iables
a
T2.
Au oco ela ions
be ween
T1
and
T2
on
he
diagonal,
unde lined.
a:
Gende
and
age
a e
om
T1– he
same
esponden s
answe ed
a
T2.
44
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
Vi ali
y T2
Happiness T2
Vigo T2
C ea
i i
y T2
Vi ali
y T1
Happiness T
1
Vigo T1
C ea
i i
y T1
Indoo plan s
T1
Window
iew
T1
Looking
ou ,
wo k T1
Looking ou ,
home T1
Indoo
plan sT2
Use o ya d,
home T1
PA
in na u e
T1
Job au onomy
T1
Social
suppo T1
Wo kload T1
Numbe o
b eaks T1
Gende T1
Age T1
Windo
w
iew T2
Looking ou ,
wo k T2
Looking ou ,
home T2
Use o
ya d,
home T2
PA in na u e
T2
Job
au onomy
T2
Social
suppo T2
Wo kload
T2
Numbe o
b eaks T2
Fig.
1.
The
hypo he ical
“no mal
causa ion“
wo-wa e
au o eg essi e
c oss-lagged
panel
model.
To
simpli y
he
figu e,
he
ou
sho
a ows
om
each
o
he
na u e
exposu e
and
con ol
a iables
ep esen
pa hs
o
ou
well-being
a iables
(happiness,
i ali y,
igo ,
c ea i i y).
Table
2
“No mal
causa ion”
model,
s anda dized
pa h
coe ficien s
be ween
na u e
exposu e,
con ol
and
well-being
a iables
in
an
au o eg essi e
c oss-lagged
panel
model.
Significan
coe ficien s
a e
bolded,
ma ginally
significan
(p
≤
0.06)
in
i alics.
T2:
Happiness
Vi ali y
Vigo
C ea i i y
T1:
ˇ
S.E.
p
ˇ
S.E.
p
ˇ
S.E.
p
ˇ
S.E.
p
1.
Plan s
0.005
0.029
0.849
−0.006
0.027
0.837
0.024
0.028
0.384
0.010
0.025
0.689
2.
View,
u ban
s.
na u e
0.031
0.028
0.283
0.028
0.031
0.365
0.004
0.029
0.897
−0.008
0.027
0.780
3.
Looking
ou
o
he
window
−0.005
0.030
0.870
−0.003
0.031
0.920
0.022
0.029
0.435
0.000
0.030
0.998
4.
Na u e
iew,
home
−0.017
0.038
0.658
0.050
0.031
0.110
−0.017
0.031
0.574
0.006
0.032
0.853
5.
Use
o
home
ga den/ya d
0.076
0.041
0.061
0.032
0.035
0.362
0.051
0.032
0.107
−0.032
0.035
0.359
6.
Na u e,
physical
ac i i y
0.036
0.037
0.321
0.070
0.033
0.031
0.005
0.029
0.855
0.013
0.029
0.648
7.
Gende
−0.009
0.035
0.794
0.042
0.033
0.205
−0.053
0.030
0.072
0.039
0.031
0.206
8.
Age
−0.046
0.034
0.177
0.045
0.032
0.157
−0.015
0.030
0.623
0.001
0.031
0.982
12.
F eq
o
>
10
min
b eaks
0.001
0.036
0.982
0.051
0.034
0.135
0.013
0.030
0.650
−0.016
0.031
0.607
13.
Au onomy
−0.004
0.039
0.912
0.049
0.036
0.173
0.024
0.031
0.447
0.086
0.032
0.008
14.
Suppo 0.023
0.038
0.552
0.088
0.035
0.012
0.046
0.034
0.174
−0.005
0.030
0.875
15.
Wo kload
0.014
0.037
0.694
0.024
0.032
0.455
0.010
0.031
0.745
0.078
0.029
0.008
ex s
only
a
small
po ion
o
he
a iance
in
employee
well-being
migh
be
explained
wi h
pe cei ed
na u e
exposu e
a e
con-
olling
o
he
s abili y
o
well-being
and
job
cha ac e is ics.
Ou
esul s
highligh
ha
he
inclusion
o
physical
ac i i y
in
he
in e -
ac ion
wi h
na u e
migh
be
mo e
e ec i e
han
mo e
passi e
o ms
o
in e ac ion.
Mo e
specifically,
he
p esen
esul s
sugges
ha
o
p omo e
employee
i ali y
and
happiness
independen ly
o
job
cha ac e is ics,
age
o
gende ,
i
may
be
beneficial
o
specifically
s imula e
and
plan
o
na u e-based
ee- ime
ac i i ies.
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
45
Table
3
“Re e se
causa ion”
model,
s anda dized
coe ficien s
be ween
well-being
and
na u e
exposu e
a iables
in
an
au o eg essi e
c oss-lagged
panel
model.
Significan
coe ficien s
a e
bolded,
ma ginally
significan
(p
≤
0.06)
in
i alics.
Fo
b e i y
pa h
coe ficien s
o
con ol
a iables
a e
no
epo ed.
T2:
Plan s
View,
u ban
s.
na u e
Looking
ou
o
he
window
Na u e
iew,
home
Use
o
home
ga den/ya d
Na u e,
physical
ac i i y
T1:
Happiness
ˇ
−0.008
0.030
0.047
−0.011
0.090
0.073
S.E.
0.036
0.038
0.040
0.059
0.049
0.038
p
0.829
0.427
0.237
0.858
0.067
0.057
Vi ali y
ˇ
−0.026
−0.051
−0.042
−0.013
−0.130
−0.004
S.E.
0.037
0.052
0.051
0.052
0.054
0.046
p
0.481
0.330
0.403
0.804
0.016
0.928
Vigo
ˇ
−0.010
−0.013
0.042
0.066
0.006
−0.015
S.E.
0.048
0.046
0.043
0.047
0.045
0.044
p
0.832
0.780
0.328
0.158
0.895
0.732
C ea i i y
ˇ
0.025
−0.002
0.060
0.024
0.082
0.022
S.E.
0.029
0.036
0.038
0.036
0.034
0.034
p
0.396
0.964
0.114
0.512
0.016
0.516
4.1.
Hypo hesis
ega ding
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld,
“no mal
causa ion
model”
On
he
basis
o
p e ious
findings,
we
an icipa ed
ha
(H1)
he
pe cep ions
o
di e en
ypes
and
deg ees
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
would
be
posi i ely
and
independen ly
ela ed
o
psychological
well-being
ac oss
ime.
Acco dingly,
mo e
equen ,
sel - epo ed
physical
ac i i y
in
na u e
p edic ed
s onge
eel-
ings
o
i ali y
one
yea
la e .
Hence,
physical
ac i i ies
in
na u e
e ealed
independen
powe
in
“explaining”
i ali y.
Howe e ,
he
size
o
his
associa ion
emained
ela i ely
small,
possibly
because
we
placed
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
in
a
s ingen
es
by
including
impo an
job
cha ac e is ics
and
he
s abili y
o
well-
being
in
ou
model.
Au o eg essions
emained
he
mos
powe ul
de e minan s
in
he
longi udinal
models.
Thus,
i ali y
o
happiness
a e
qui e
s able
in e indi idually
ac oss
one
yea
which
cons ains
he
size
o
he
associa ion
ha
na u e
exposu e
can
ha e
wi h
such
eelings
longi udinally.
Mo eo e ,
he
mo e
equen
use
o
one’s
ga den,
back
ya d
o
pa io
was
ela ed
o
inc eased
happiness
bu
only
ma ginally.
Thus
only
he
mos
in ensi e
o ms
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
−
sel - epo ed
physical
ac i i y
( o
i ali y)
and
he
use
o
he
ga den
( o
happiness)
−
showed
ela ions
o
some
aspec s
o
well-being
o e
one
yea .
Bo h
exposu es
we e
ela ed
o
home
and
ee
ime
en i onmen s.
E en
hough
he
mean
le els
o
sel - epo ed
equencies
o
looking
ou
o
he
window
a
wo k
and
a
home
inc eased
om
he
fi s
measu emen
poin
o
he
second
and
he
es
emained
qui e
s able,
none
o
he
na u e
exposu e
a iables
a
wo k
p e-
dic ed
well-being.
We
specula ed
ha
na u e
exposu e
a iables
ep esen
con inually
epea ed
beha io s
o e
he
yea
bu
we e
no
able
o
check
his
empi ically.
On
he
o he
hand,
i
ou
non-significan
esul s
hold
ue
also
in
u u e
longi udinal
s ud-
ies,
ea lie
c oss-sec ional
su ey
esul s
showing
se e al
posi i e
e ec s
o
wo kplace
na u e
exposu e
may
ha e
ac ually
e ealed
only
sho - e m
associa ions
and/o
may
ha e
su e ed
om
he
common
me hod
a iance
bias.
The
exis ence
and
he
o m
o
a
long- e m
dose- esponse
ela ionship
be ween
na u e
exposu e
and
well-being
s ill
emains
an
open
ques ion.
Ou
esul s
ag ee
wi h
ea lie
s udies
s a ing
ha
he
e ec s
o
na u e
exposu e
depend
on
he
ou comes
(B ingslima k,
Ha ig
&
Pa il,
2009).
Vi ali y
bu
no ,
o
example,
happiness
was
esponsi e
o
sel - epo ed
physical
ac i i y
in
na u e
o e
ime.
This
is
in e -
es ing
as
he e
is
e idence
ha
momen a y
happiness
in
na u al
en i onmen s
is
g ea e
han
in
u ban
en i onmen s
(MacKe on
&
Mou a o,
2013).
One
eason
o
ou
finding
may
lie
in
he
ac
ha
i ali y
had
he
lowes
s abili y
ac oss
one
yea ;
he e o e
he e
was
mo e
a iance
le
o
be
explained
o
example
by
physical
ac i i y.
I
is
known
ha
physical
exe cise
inc eases
i ali y
pe
se
bu ,
as
ye ,
he e
is
no
clea ly
o mula ed
heo y
ega ding
he
specific
ea u es
o
he
na u al
en i onmen
influencing
i ali y.
Vi al-
i y
may
a ise
om
di e en
aspec s
o
human-na u e
in e ac ion
han
in
a en ion
o
s ess
es o a ion.
I
is
no ewo hy
ha
he
associa ion
o
exposu e
o
he
na u al
wo ld
wi h
i ali y
was
s a is-
ically
significan
(and
ma ginally
also
o
happiness),
independen
o
wo k- ela ed
suppo ,
au onomy,
wo kload,
and
he
numbe
o
b eaks.
Thus
hey
a e
likely
based
on
di e en
psychological
mechanisms
han
ela edness,
compe ence,
and
au onomy
a
wo k.
Again,
he
p ocesses
o
a en ional
and
s ess
es o a ion
may
be
ope a ional
bu
as
we
could
no
measu e
hese
mechanisms
in
he
p esen
s udy,
he
sugges ions
emain
specula i e.
Fu u e
he-
o e ical
con ibu ions
and
longi udinal
s udies
ocusing
on
hese
di e ences
in
a ec i e
e ec s
a e
called
o .
4.2.
Hypo heses
ega ding
he
“ e e se”
and
“ ecip ocal
models”
The
e e se
model
showed
an
almos
equal
fi
wi h
ou
da a
sup-
po ing
H2
and
sugges ing
ha
in
his
field
o
s udy,
i
is
impo an
o
emembe
ha
mood
and
a ec i e
s a es
may
a ec
he
choice
be ween
en i onmen s
and
hus
na u e
exposu e.
In
he
e e se
model,
sel - epo ed
c ea i i y
a
wo k
p edic ed
mo e
equen
sel - epo ed
use
o
one’s
ya d/ga den.
I
seems
possible
ha
people
who
eel
mo e
c ea i e
a e
inclined
o
selec
g een
housing
en i on-
men s
o
use
hem
mo e
o en.
In
con as
o
he
“no mal
causa ion”
whe e
he
mo e
equen
use
o
one’s
ya d
ma ginally
p edic ed
mo e
happiness,
mo e
happiness,
in
u n,
p edic ed
mo e
equen
physical
ac i i y
in
na u e
(ma ginally).
Vi ali y
p edic ed
he
less
equen
use
o
one’s
ya d
al hough
mo e
equen
physical
ac i i y
in
na u al
se ings
p edic ed
s onge
i ali y
in
he
“no mal
causa-
ion
model”.
I
can
be
specula ed
ha
as
equen
physical
ac i i y
seems
o
be
ela ed
o
s onge
i ali y
and
happiness,
mo e
i al
and
happie
people
equi e
and
use
mo e
dis an
and
la ge
na u al
a eas
han
hei
home
ya d
o
be
able
o
be
su ficien ly
ac i e.
The
ecip ocal
model
(H3)
go
no
suppo .
46
K.
Ko pela
e
al.
/
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning
160
(2017)
38–47
4.3.
Limi a ions
A
limi a ion
o
he
p esen
s udy
includes
using
sel - epo
measu es
o
all
a iables,
gi ing
ise
o
conce ns
abou
common
me hod
a iance
(CMV).
Tempo ally
sepa a ing
p edic o
and
c i-
e ion
a iables,
as
in
he
p esen
s udy,
is
one
accep able
way
o
educing
he
isk
o
CMV
(Podsako ,
MacKenzie,
Lee,
&
Podsako ,
2003).
Despi e
his
and
he
ac
ha
we
modelled
simul aneously
se e al
na u e
exposu e
a iables
while
con olling
o
heo e i-
cally
impo an
a iables
and
e en
es ed
e e se
and
ecip ocal
models,
causal
claims
equi e
u he
esea ch
as
ou
models
we e
co ela i e.
The
one-yea
ime
lag
be ween
ou
measu emen s
may
no
ha e
been
op imal
and
should
be
a ied
in
u u e
s udies.
Ou
selec ion
was
based
on
ea lie
esea ch
bu
also
on
he
p ac ical
eali y
o
busy
o ganiza ional
se ings
no
allowing
da a
collec ions
wi hin
sho
ime
spans.
A
u he
limi a ion
o
he
p esen
s udy
and
an
op ion
o
u u e
s udies
is
ha
we
we e
no
able
o
measu e
he
in ensi y
o
na u e-
based
physical
ac i i y
o
he
amoun
o
quali y
o
in e ac ion
wi h
indoo
plan s
du ing
he
wo king
day.
The
es - e es
eliabili y
o
ou
one-i em
measu es
was
sa is ac o y
(co ela ions
be ween
T1
and
T2
anging
om
0.55
o
0.69).
Howe e ,
he
alidi y
o
epo -
ing,
e.g.,
he
use
o
he
ga den
may
be
ques ioned,
pa icula ly
i
ha
use
a ies
by
season.
Al hough
he
pa icipan s
knew
ha
he
s udy
was
abou
eco e y
om
wo k,
he
ques ionnai e
included
so
many
ques ions
ha
i
is
unlikely
ha
demand
cha ac e is ics
(guessing
he
ela ionships
ha
we e
s udied)
bias
he
esul s
significan ly.
The e
was
some
selec i e
a i ion
in
ou
sample.
Hence,
he
findings
canno
be
gene alized
o
he
wo king
popula ion
as
a
whole;
hose
mo e
commi ed
o
hei
companies
may
ha e
pa -
icipa ed
mo e
likely.
The
esul s
migh
look
di e en
in
samples
expe iencing
hea ie
wo kloads
o
ope a ing
in
di e en
sec o s
o
cul u al
con ex s.
Acknowledgemen
This
p ojec
was
suppo ed
by
he
Academy
o
Finland
(g an
no.:
257682).
Re e ences
Aal onen,
S.,
Leskinen,
T.,
Mo is,
T.,
Alen,
M.,
Kap io,
J.,
Liukkonen,
J.,
e
al.
(2012).
Mo i es
o
and
ba ie s
o
physical
ac i i y
in
win
pai s
disco dan
o
leisu e
ime
ac i i y
o
30
yea s.
In e na ional
Jou nal
o
Spo s
Medicine,
33,
157–163.
Abdel-Khalek,
A.
M.
(2006).
Measu ing
happiness
wi h
a
single-i em
scale.
Social
Beha io
and
Pe sonali y,
34,
139–150.
Amabile,
T.
M.,
Ba sade,
S.
G.,
Muelle ,
J.
S.,
&
S aw,
B.
M.
(2005).
A ec
and
c ea i i y
a
wo k.
Adminis a i e
Science
Qua e ly,
50,
367–403.
Anne s ed ,
M.,
Os e g en,
P.-O.,
Bjö k,
J.,
G ahn,
P.,
Skä bäck,
E.,
&
Wäh bo g,
P.
(2012).
G een
quali ies
in
he
neighbou hood
and
men al
heal h
−
Resul s
om
a
longi udinal
coho
s udy
in
Sou he n
Sweden.
BMC
Public
Heal h,
12(1),
337.
A ies,
M.
B.
C.,
Vei ch,
J.
A.,
&
Newsham,
G.
R.
(2010).
Windows,
iew,
and
o fice
cha ac e is ics
p edic
physical
and
psychological
discom o .
Jou nal
o
En i onmen al
Psychology,
30,
533–541.
Aspinall,
P.,
Ma os,
P.,
Coyne,
R.,
&
Roe,
J.
(2015).
The
u ban
b ain:
analysing
ou doo
physical
ac i i y
wi h
mobile
EEG.
B i ish
Jou nal
o
Spo s
Medicine,
49,
272–276.
As ell-Bu ,
T.,
Mi chell,
R.,
&
Ha ig,
T.
(2014).
The
associa ion
be ween
g een
space
and
men al
heal h
a ies
ac oss
he
li e
cou se:
A
longi udinal
s udy.
Jou nal
o
Epidemiology
and
Communi y
Heal h,
68,
578–583.
A chley,
R.
A.,
S aye ,
D.
L.,
&
A chley,
P.
(2012).
C ea i i y
in
he
wild:
Imp o ing
c ea i e
easoning
h ough
imme sion
in
na u al
se ings.
Plos
One,
7(12),
e51474.
Beukeboom,
C.
J.,
Lange eld,
D.,
&
Tanja-Dijks a,
K.
(2012).
S ess- educing
e ec s
o
eal
and
a ificial
na u e
in
a
hospi al
wai ing
oom.
The
Jou nal
o
Al e na i e
and
Complemen a y
Medicine,
18(4),
329–333.
Bollen,
K.
A.
(1989).
S uc u al
equa ions
wi h
la en
a iables.
New
Yo k:
Wiley.
B a man,
G.
N.,
Hamil on,
J.
P.,
&
Daily,
G.
C.
(2012).
The
impac s
o
na u e
expe ience
on
human
cogni i e
unc ion
and
men al
heal h.
Annals
o
he
New
Yo k
Academy
o
Sciences,
1249,
118–136.
B ingslima k,
T.,
Ha ig,
T.,
&
Pa il,
G.
G.
(2007).
Psychological
benefi s
o
indoo
plan s
in
wo kplaces:
Pu ing
expe imen al
esul s
in o
con ex .
Ho Science,
42,
581–587.
B ingslima k,
T.,
Ha ig,
T.,
&
Pa il,
G.
G.
(2009).
The
psychological
benefi s
o
indoo
plan s:
A
c i ical
e iew
o
he
expe imen al
li e a u e.
Jou nal
o
En i onmen al
Psychology,
29,
422–433.
B own,
D.
K.,
Ba on,
J.
L.,
P e y,
J.,
&
Gladwell,
V.
F.
(2014).
Walks4Wo k:
Assessing
he
ole
o
he
na u al
en i onmen
in
a
wo kplace
physical
ac i i y
in e en ion.
Scandina ian
Jou nal
o
Wo k,
En i onmen
&
Heal h,
40,
390–399.
Chang,
C.-Y.,
&
Chen,
P.-K.
(2005).
Human
esponse
o
window
iews
and
indoo
plan s
in
he
wo kplace.
Ho Science,
40,
1354–1359.
Dallne ,
M.,
Elo,
A.-L.,
Gambe ale,
F.,
Ho inen,
V.,
Kna dahl,
S.,
Linds öm,
K.,
e
al.
(2000).
Valida ion
o
he
gene al
No dic
ques ionnai e
(QPSNo dic)
o
psychological
and
social
ac o s
a
wo k
(No
No d
2000
12).
Copenhagen:
No dic
Council
o
Minis e s.
De
Bloom,
J.,
Geu s,
S.
A.
E.,
&
Kompie ,
M.
A.
J.
(2013).
Vaca ion
(a e -)
e ec s
on
employee
heal h
and
well-being,
and
he
ole
o
aca ion
ac i i ies:
Expe iences
and
sleep.
Jou nal
o
Happiness
S udies,
14,
613–633.
De
Bloom,
J.,
Kinnunen,
U.,
&
Ko pela,
K.
(2015).
Reco e y
p ocesses
du ing
and
a e
wo k:
Associa ions
wi h
heal h,
wo k
engagemen :
and
job
pe o mance.
Jou nal
o
Occupa ional
and
En i onmen al
Medicine,
57,
732–742.
Degenha d ,
B.,
F ick,
J.,
Buchecke ,
M.,
&
Gu sche ,
H.
(2011).
Influences
o
pe sonal,
social,
and
en i onmen al
ac o s
on
wo kday
use
equency
o
he
nea by
ou doo
ec ea ion
a eas
by
wo king
people.
Leisu e
Sciences,
33,
420–440.
D a igne,
A.,
Waliczek,
T.
M.,
Linebe ge ,
R.
D.,
&
Zajicek,
J.
M.
(2008).
The
e ec
o
li e
plan s
and
window
iews
o
g een
spaces
on
employee
pe cep ions
o
job
sa is ac ion.
Ho Science,
43,
183–187.
E ensen,
K.
H.,
Raanaas,
R.
K.,
Häge häll,
C.
M.,
Johansson,
M.,
&
Pa il,
G.
G.
(2015).
Res o a i e
elemen s
a
he
compu e
wo ks a ion:
A
compa ison
o
li e
plan s
and
inanima e
objec s
wi h
and
wi hou
window
iew.
En i onmen
and
Beha io ,
47,
288–303.
Fjeld,
T.
(2000).
The
e ec
o
in e io
plan ing
on
heal h
and
discom o
among
wo ke s
and
school
child en.
Ho Technology,
10,
46–52.
Ga e sleben,
B.,
&
And ews,
M.
(2013).
When
walking
in
na u e
is
no
es o a i e
−The
ole
o
p ospec
and
e uge.
Heal h
&
Place,
20,
91–101.
Geo ge,
J.
M.,
&
Zhou,
J.
(2001).
When
openness
o
expe ience
and
conscien iousness
a e
ela ed
o
c ea i e
beha io :
An
in e ac ional
app oach.
Jou nal
o
Applied
Psychology,
86,
513–524.
Gilch is ,
K.,
B own,
C.,
&
Mon a zino,
A.
(2015).
Wo kplace
se ings
and
wellbeing:
G eenspace
use
and
iews
con ibu e
o
employee
wellbeing
a
pe i-u ban
business
si es.
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning,
138,
32–40.
Gladwell,
V.
F.,
B own,
D.
K.,
Ba on,
J.
L.,
Ta ainen,
M.
P.,
Kuoppa,
P.,
P e y,
J.,
e
al.
(2012).
The
e ec s
o
iews
o
na u e
on
au onomic
con ol.
Eu opean
Jou nal
o
Applied
Physiology,
112,
3379–3386.
G oenewegen,
P.
P.,
an
den
Be g,
A.
E.,
de
V ies,
S.,
&
Ve heij,
R.
A.
(2006).
Vi amin
G:
E ec s
o
g een
space
on
heal h,
well-being,
and
social
sa e y.
BMC
Public
Heal h,
6,
149.
Ha ig,
T.,
E ans,
G.
W.,
Jamne ,
L.
D.,
Da is,
D.
S.,
&
Gä ling,
T.
(2003).
T acking
es o a ion
in
na u al
and
u ban
field
se ings.
Jou nal
o
En i onmen al
Psychology,
23,
109–123.
Jaussi,
K.
S.,
Randel,
A.
E.,
&
Dionne,
S.
D.
(2007).
I
am,
I
hink
I
can,
and
I
do:
The
ole
o
pe sonal
iden i y,
sel -e ficacy:
and
c oss-applica ion
o
expe iences
in
c ea i i y
a
wo k.
C ea i i y
Resea ch
Jou nal,
19,
247–258.
Jiang,
B.,
Li,
D.,
La sen,
L.,
&
Sulli an,
W.
C.
(2014).
A
dose- esponse
cu e
desc ibing
he
ela ionship
be ween
u ban
ee
co e
densi y
and
sel - epo ed
s ess
eco e y.
En i onmen
&
Beha io ,
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1177/
0013916514552321
Kaplan,
R.
(1993).
The
ole
o
na u e
in
he
con ex
o
he
wo kplace.
Landscape
and
U ban
Planning,
26,
193–201.
Ka asek,
R.,
&
Theo ell,
T.
(1990).
Heal hy
wo k:
s ess,
p oduc i i y
and
he
econs uc ion
o
wo king
li e.
New
Yo k:
Basic
Books.
Ke ,
J.
H.,
&
Tacon,
P.
(1999).
Psychological
esponses
o
di e en
ypes
o
loca ions
and
ac i i ies.
Jou nal
o
En i onmen al
Psychology,
19,
287–294.
Kinnunen,
U.,
&
Feld ,
T.
(2013).
Job
cha ac e is ics:
eco e y
expe iences
and
occupa ional
well-being:
Tes ing
c oss-lagged
ela ionships
ac oss
1
yea .
S ess
and
Heal h,
29,
369–382.
Knigh ,
C.,
&
Haslam,
S.
A.
(2010).
The
ela i e
me i s
o
lean,
en iched,
and
empowe ed
o fices:
An
expe imen al
examina ion
o
he
impac
o
wo kspace
managemen
s a egies
on
well-being
and
p oduc i i y.
Jou nal
o
Expe imen al
Psychology:
Applied,
16,
158–172.
Ko pela,
K.,
&
Kinnunen,
U.
(2011).
How
is
leisu e
ime
in e ac ing
wi h
na u e
ela ed
o
he
need
o
eco e y
om
wo k
demands?
Tes ing
mul iple
media o s.
Leisu e
Sciences,
33,
1–14.
Ko pela,
K.
M.,
Ha ig,
T.,
Kaise ,
F.
G.,
&
Fuh e ,
U.
(2001).
Res o a i e
expe ience
and
sel - egula ion
in
a o i e
places.
En i onmen
and
Beha io ,
33,
572–589.
La go-Wigh ,
E.,
Chen,
W.
W.,
Dodd,
V.,
&
Weile ,
R.
(2011).
Heal hy
wo kplaces:
The
e ec s
o
na u e
con ac
a
wo k
on
employee
s ess
and
heal h.
Public
Heal h
Repo s,
126(Suppl.
1),
124–130.
Leh o,
X.
Y.
(2013).
Assessing
he
pe cei ed
es o a i e
quali ies
o
aca ion
des ina ions.
Jou nal
o
T a el
Resea ch,
52,
325–339.
Lo up,
L.,
S igsdo e ,
U.
K.,
Meilby,
H.,
&
Claudi,
A.
G.
(2013).
The
wo kplace
window
iew:
A
de e minan
o
o fice
wo ke s’
wo k
abili y
and
job
sa is ac ion.
Landscape
Resea ch,
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/01426397.2013.
829806
Lucas,
R.
E.,
&
Donnellan,
M.
B.
(2007).
How
s able
is
happiness?:
Using
he
s a s
model
o
es ima e
he
s abili y
o
li e
sa is ac ion.
Jou nal
o
Resea ch
in
Pe sonali y,
41,
1091–1098.