Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-7
Biophilic Design Interventions for Indoor Environments: Exploring Nature Connectedness,Well-being,and Public Acceptance Through a Within-subjects Experiment
The need for humans to connect with nature, known as biophilia, is well-established. Despite the proven benefits of nature exposure, modern indoor living often disconnects individuals from nature, particularly in windowless spaces. This disconnect has led to the development of biophilic design interventions aimed at integrating nature into built environments to enhance occupant well-being and connectedness to nature. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness and public acceptance of indoor biophilic design interventions, referred to as biophilic illusions, among 345 California-based participants through an online questionnaire. Specifically, we evaluated three modalities of biophilic illusions: wind-animated tree shadows, sun-animated lighting, and location-responsive sounds, using low-fidelity digital prototypes. The study’s two objectives were to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of biophilic design interventions in promoting nature connectedness and occupant well-being, and (2) understand the factors influencing public acceptance of these technological interventions using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) model. Our results suggest that integrating biophilic illusions in windowless or confined indoor spaces can positively affect an occupant’s nature connectedness and well-being. We also found that performance expectancy, social influence, and hedonic motivation significantly influence the behavioral intention to use all three design interventions.
AltafB.BianchiE.DouglasI. P.DouglasK.ByersB.ParedesP. E.ArdoinN. M.MarkusH. R.MurnaneE. L.BencharitL. Z.LandayJ. A.BillingtonS. L. (2022). Use of crowdsourced online surveys to study the impact of architectural and design choices on well-being. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 780376. https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=5051136376778581928&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5
2.
AltafB.BillingtonS. L. (2024). Using biophilic illusions to promote nature connectedness and occupant wellbeing in the built environment. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering.
3.
AltafB.BloomfieldL. S. P.KarzaiD. N.SaweN. A.MurnaneE. L.BencharitL. Z.LandayJ. A.BillingtonS. L. (2023). Time perception during the pandemic: A longitudinal study examining the role of indoor and outdoor nature exposure for remote workers. Building and Environment, 243, 110644.
4.
AltafB.TavakoliA.BianchiE.LandayJ.BillingtonS. L. (2024). Leveraging immersive virtual environments for occupant well-being analysis. In Computing in civil engineering (pp.85–92).
5.
AltafB.TavakoliA.RuthP.GreenA.XuJ.JainS.ChiuE.BencharitL. Z.MurnaneE. L.LandayJ. A.BillingtonS. L. (2025). Impact of windows, natural materials, and diverse representations in built environments on psychological and physiological well-being: A between-subjects experiment in immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment, 280, 113147.
6.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
ArbuckleJ. (2008). Amos 17.0 user’s guide. SPSS Inc.
9.
AtchleyR. A.StrayerD. L.AtchleyP. (2012). Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PLoS One, 7(12), e51474.
10.
BaptistaG.OliveiraT. (2015). Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 418–430.
11.
BianchiE.BencharitL. Z.MurnaneE. L.AltafB.DouglasI. P.LandayJ. A.BillingtonS. L. (2024). Effects of architectural interventions on psychological, cognitive, social, and pro-environmental aspects of occupant well-being: Results from an immersive online study. Building and Environment, 253, 111293.
12.
BianchiE.BloomfieldL. S. P.BencharitL. Z.AltafB.SaweN. A.MurnaneE. L.LandayJ. A.BillingtonS. L. (2023). A study of the role of indoor nature on solidarity and group identity during remote work. Building and Environment, 245, 110909. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132323009368
13.
RyanC. O.BrowningW. D.ClancyJ. O.AndrewsS. L.KallianpurkarN. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-Being in the built environment. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 8, 62–76.
14.
ButlerD. L.BinerP. M. (1989). Effects of setting on window preferences and factors associated with those preferences. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 17–31.
15.
CarlaR. M.SilviaS. B.JuanF. T. (2010). A comparative study of mobile messaging services acceptance to participate in television programmes. Journal of Service Management, 21(1), 69–102.
16.
CheungG. W.Cooper-ThomasH. D.LauR. S.WangL. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
17.
CuttleC. (1983). People and windows in workplaces. Proceedings of the People and Physical Environment Research Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 203–212.
18.
DadhichM.HiranK. K.RaoS. S.SharmaR. (2022). Factors influencing patient adoption of the IoT for E-Health Management Systems (e-HMS) using the UTAUT model: A high order SEM-ANN approach. International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence, 13(1), 1–18.
19.
David GarsonG. (2001). Guide to writing empirical papers, theses, and dissertations. CRC Press.
20.
DijkstraK.PieterseM.PruynA. (2006). Physical environmental stimuli that turn healthcare facilities into healing environments through psychologically mediated effects: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(2), 166–181.
21.
DouglasI. P.MurnaneE. L.BencharitL. Z.AltafB.CostaJ. M. D. R.YangJ.AckersonM.SrivastavaC.CooperM.DouglasK.KingJ.ParedesP. E.CampN. P.MaurielloM. L.ArdoinN. M.MarkusH. R.LandayJ. A.BillingtonS. L. (2022). Physical workplaces and human well-being: A mixed-methods study to quantify the effects of materials, windows, and representation on biobehavioral outcomes. Building and Environment, 224, 109516.
22.
DunnE. W.GilbertD. T.WilsonT. D. (2011). If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 115–125.
23.
Escobar-RodríguezT.Carvajal-TrujilloE. (2014). Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Tourism Management, 43, 70–88.
24.
FarleyK. M. J.VeitchJ. A. (2001). A room with a view: A review of the effects of windows on work and well-being. Citeseer.
25.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
26.
FrommE. (1964). The heart of man. Harper & Row.
27.
GornG. J.ChattopadhyayA.SenguptaJ.TripathiS. (2004). Waiting for the Web: How screen color affects time perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 215–225.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. Essex Pearson Educ. Ltd.
30.
HartigT.MitchellR.de VriesS.FrumkinH. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
31.
HebbD. O. (1955). Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62(4), 243–254.
32.
HeerwagenJ. (1990). The psychological aspects of windows and window design. In Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 269–280). EDRA.
33.
HullandJ. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199902)20:2<3.0.co;2-7
34.
KaplanR. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26(1-4), 193–201.
35.
KellertS. R.HeerwagenJ. MadorM. (2011). Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
36.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
37.
KlepeisN. E.NelsonW. C.OttW. R.RobinsonJ. P.TsangA. M.SwitzerP.BeharJ. V.HernS. C.EngelmannW. H. (2001). The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11(3), 231–252.
38.
LatiniA.TorresinS.ObermanT.Di GiuseppeE.AlettaF.KangJ.D’OrazioM. (2024a). Effects of biophilic design interventions on university students’ cognitive performance: An audio-visual experimental study in an immersive virtual office environment. Building and Environment, 250, 111196.
39.
LatiniA.TorresinS.ObermanT.Di GiuseppeE.AlettaF.KangJ.D’OrazioM. (2024b). Virtual reality application to explore indoor soundscape and physiological responses to audio-visual biophilic design interventions: An experimental study in an office environment. Journal of Building Engineering, 87, 108947.
40.
LeatherP.PyrgasM.BealeD.LawrenceC. (1998). Windows in the workplace: Sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 739–762.
41.
LeeY.BeckD.ParkW. (2020). Human factors evaluation of an ambient display for real-time posture feedback to sedentary workers. IEEE Access, 8, 223405–223417.
LeslieR.HartlebS. (1990). Windows, variability, and human response [Conference session]. Proceedings of the International Daylighting Conference. Moscow. Research Institute of Building Physics (NIISF), Moscow, Russia.
44.
MayerP.VollandD.ThiesseF.FleischE. (2011). User acceptance of “Smart Products”: An empirical investigation. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 9.
45.
MorrisM. G.VenkateshV. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375–403.
46.
ParkB.-J.TsunetsuguY.KasetaniT.MorikawaT.KagawaT.MiyazakiY. (2009). Physiological effects of forest recreation in a young conifer forest in Hinokage Town, Japan. Silva Fennica, 43(2), 291–301.
47.
PascaL.AragonésJ. I.CoelloM. T. (2017). An analysis of the connectedness to nature scale based on item response theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1330.
48.
RahmanM. M.LeschM. F.HorreyW. J.StrawdermanL. (2017). Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 108, 361–373.
RenZ.ZhouG. (2023). Analysis of driving factors in the intention to use the virtual nursing home for the elderly: A modified UTAUT model in the Chinese context. Healthcare, 11(16), 2329. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11162329
51.
RogersE. (Ed.). (2003). Diffusions of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
52.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
53.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.
TakanoT.NakamuraK.WatanabeM. (2002). Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(12), 913–918.
TeperR.SegalZ. V.InzlichtM. (2013). Inside the mindful mind: How mindfulness enhances emotion regulation through improvements in executive control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 449–454.
58.
UlrichR. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421.
59.
UlrichR. S.SimonsR. F.LositoB. D.FioritoE.MilesM. A.ZelsonM. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.
60.
VenkateshV. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. Mississippi Quarterly, 23(2), 239–260.
61.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G. (2000). Why don’t Men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. Mississippi Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.
62.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Mississippi Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
63.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y. L.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Mississippi Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
64.
WilsonE. O. (1984). The human bond with other species. Harvard.
65.
YinJ.ZhuS.MacNaughtonP.AllenJ. G.SpenglerJ. D. (2018). Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Building and Environment, 132, 255–262.
66.
ZhongW.SchröderT.BekkeringJ. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114–141.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
