Author's personal copy

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/ufug

Associations between use, activities and characteristics of the outdoor

environment at workplaces
Lene Lottrup ∗ , Ulrika K. Stigsdotter 1 , Henrik Meilby, Sus Sola Corazon
Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Today, office work in western societies is more sedentary and more mentally demanding than ever
Case study before. This way of working plays a role in the increase in lifestyle diseases related to sedentary rou-
Health tines and stress. Green outdoor environments have been found to motivate physical activity and reduce
Job satisfaction
stress levels. In this study, we therefore considered these environments to have a positive affect on work
Office worker
force health and wellbeing. However, research on the workplace outdoor environment is still limited. To
Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSD)
Work performance investigate how and why the workplace outdoor environment is used by office workers and the impact
of these environments on office workers’ health and wellbeing, five research questions were formulated.
The questions addressed the use of the outdoor environments; the outdoor activities; encouragement and
impediments for going outdoors; characteristics of the outdoor environment, and the impact of work-
place outdoor environments on employees’ health, job satisfaction and work performance. In order to
answer these research questions, we conducted a web-based questionnaire, completed by (N) 402 office
workers from six Danish companies. The results show that 37.8% of the respondents spent time outdoors
during their working day, and that the proportion of men spending time outdoors was higher than the
proportion of women. Eight outdoor activities were identified, and significant relationships between the
outdoor activities and perceived sensory dimensions (PSD) of the outdoor environment were found, indi-
cating that the presence of the dimension ‘serene’ increased the odds for respondents going outdoors and
that five of the eight activities would be performed. Only few significant relationships between outdoor
environment use and employee health, job satisfaction and work performance were identified.
© 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Office work in western societies of today is more sedentary
and more mentally demanding than ever before (Brownson et al.,
2005; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2011;
World Health Organization, 2011a). Therefore, the working envi-
ronment plays an important role in explaining the increase in
lifestyle diseases, such as obesity and stress (European Agency
for Safety and Health at Work, 2011; World Health Organization,
2011b). Because the working population in western societies
spends most of the waking hours at the workplace, offering inter-
vention programs (e.g. programs for increasing physical activity
and healthier diets) at work may be an efficient strategy to improve
employee health and wellbeing (Proper et al., 2003; Engbers et al.,
2005; Groeneveld et al., 2010) and work attendance (Conn et al.,
2009). The indoor physical working environment is often used for
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 28302556.
E-mail addresses: lbpl@life.ku.dk, llo@arkitema.dk (L. Lottrup), uks@life.ku.dk
(U.K. Stigsdotter), heme@life.ku.dk (H. Meilby), suoe@life.ku.dk (S.S. Corazon).
1
Tel.: +45 40110801.
interventions assuming that the design of the office can influence
the office workers’ performance (Peponis et al., 2007; Goins et al.,
2010), level of stress (Vischer, 2007; Rashid and Zimring, 2008),
and job satisfaction (Rashid et al., 2009). An aspect of the physi-
cal working environment, in relation to office worker’s health and
well-being, which is largely overlooked, is the workplace outdoor
environment. The point of departure for this study on office work-
ers’ use of the outdoor environment at the workplace is the basic
assumption that green workplace outdoor environments have the
potential to contribute positively to office workers’ health and well-
being.
State of the art
Of the limited body of research on the present topic, the major-
ity of the studies deal with the importance of having a view of
the outdoor environment from the working station, or the char-
acteristics of the outdoor environment in relation to stress and job
satisfaction. A study shows that employees with a view of natural
vegetation from their workplace reported fewer ailments, better
overall health, more patience, less frustration, and higher job and
life satisfaction compared to employees without the possibility of

1618-8667/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.12.006
 Author's personal copy
160 L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168
viewing natural vegetation (Kaplan, 1993). A view of natural ele-
ments (such as trees and flowers) is also found to attenuate the
negative impact of job stress and to have a similar, albeit marginal,
effect on general wellbeing (Leather et al., 1998). Research suggests
that different natural elements in the workplace outdoor environ-
ment have a varying influence on satisfaction (Kaplan, 2007; Shin,
2007). For instance, a view of large trees is strongly associated with
high satisfaction with the nearby natural environment; a view of
landscaped areas is more weakly associated with high satisfaction
with the nearby natural environment, and mowed grass is not at all
associated with high satisfaction with the nearby natural environ-
ment (Kaplan, 2007). A recent study (Hitchings, 2010) investigates
the factors that encourage and impede city office workers from
going outdoors during their working day. It concludes that the office
workers consider themselves to be too busy to go outdoors during
their working day, and that they easily forget about it. However,
seeing other people in the outdoor environment is a factor that
encourages them to go outdoors (Hitchings, 2010).
A growing body of research in other outdoor environmental
contexts, such as public urban spaces, residential settings, schools
and hospitals, shows that a view of and physical access to green
outdoor environments seem to enhance health and reduce stress
(Hartig et al., 2003; Bjork et al., 2008; Ottosson and Grahn, 2008;
Stigsdotter et al., 2010; van den Berg et al., 2010). Natural environ-
ments may affect human health by encouraging physical activity
(Hug et al., 2009; Coombes et al., 2010) and social contact (Kuo
and Sullivan, 2001; Sullivan et al., 2004), and by offering mental
restoration (Hartig et al., 1991; Tennessen and Cimprich, 1995;
Kaplan, 2001; van den Berg et al., 2007). Theoretical explanations
for this positive impact of natural environments on human health
and wellbeing are mainly cognitive or evolutionary. The ‘Attention
Restoration Theory’ describes two different types of attention,
which are based on different brain functions (Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989). The ‘directed attention’, which is used when demanding
tasks are performed or disturbing environmental factors are dealt
with, has limited capacity, and if it is used without possibilities to
restore, it may lead to mental fatigue. Environments that provide
the possibility for more effortless attention, called ‘soft fascination’,
offer opportunities for mental restoration. Natural environments
are found to provide this kind of attention (Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989). The ‘Aesthetic Affective Theory’ explains the stress-reducing
effect of nature as a matter of unconscious processes and affects,
which are humans’ most primitive emotions (Ulrich, 1999). This
theory argues that humans unconsciously read the special infor-
mation in nature that signals whether the surroundings are safe,
and that humans in surroundings which are perceived as being safe
automatically relax and restore from stress (Ulrich, 1999). The need
to differentiate the understanding of natural environments, and
thereby gain knowledge of which specific features, characteristics
or activities that provide beneficial effects has been addressed by
recent studies, e.g. by studying relationships between user prefer-
ences and certain characteristics and activities in the green outdoor
environment (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010; Stigsdotter and Grahn,
2011). The following eight perceived sensory dimensions have
been defined, based on how humans perceive and process sensory
information in a natural environment; ‘serene’, ‘space’, ‘nature’,
‘rich in species’, ‘refuge’, ‘culture’, ‘prospect’ and ‘social’ (Grahn
and Stigsdotter, 2010; Stigsdotter and Grahn, 2011). Individuals
ranked preferences for the dimensions differently depending on
whether they reported stress or not. In general, individuals showed
the highest preference for ‘serene’, ‘space’ followed by ‘nature’,
but if they reported stress, they showed the highest preference
for a combination of ‘nature’, ‘refuge’ and ‘rich in species’ with the
absence of ‘social’ (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010).
Based on the above-mentioned research, we assume that nat-
ural outdoor environments at the workplace can be a small, but
valuable, asset in workforce health and wellbeing. Still we know lit-
tle about the actual and potential use of the outdoor environment
at workplaces. We lack knowledge on what types of individuals
use the outdoor environment, what kind of activities they perform
and what encouragements and impediments they experiences. Fur-
thermore, we lack knowledge on how the different characteristics,
offered by the environment, influence office workers’ behaviour.
Aim
The aim of the paper is to identify possible associations between
use, activities and characteristics of the outdoor environment at
workplaces. Furthermore, we want to investigate any possible
impact of use of workplace outdoor environments on employ-
ees’ health and wellbeing. This leads to the following research
questions:
1. What is the frequency of use of the outdoor environment during
the workday, and what characterises the users?
2. What types of activities are performed in the outdoor environ-
ment at the workplace?
3. Who encourages and what impedes the use of workplace out-
door environments?
4. Is there a relationship between activities and the characteristics
of the outdoor environment?
We also aim to investigate any possible relationship between
the issues addressed by these four research questions and
employees’ health, job satisfaction and work performance. This
leads to a fifth research question:
5. Are there relationships between use, activities, encouragement,
impediments and outdoor characteristics, and employee health,
job satisfaction or work performance?
Methods
Case selection
Our ambition was to conduct an exploratory study on a num-
ber of companies in Denmark, where the employees have physical
and/or visual access to rich green outdoor environments that offer
the visitor different kinds of experiences. Furthermore, the out-
door environment should be used by the workforce. The cases
were selected as ‘critical cases’ to achieve information that per-
mits logical deductions of the following type, “If this is (not) valid
for this case, then it applies to all (no) cases” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.
230). We assumed that activities which are not performed in these
‘high quality’ environments are unlikely to be performed anywhere
else in Danish outdoor environments at workplaces, and that the
case study would therefore be able to collect the greatest possible
amount of information on the potential use of green outdoor envi-
ronments at workplaces in Denmark. To investigate whether differ-
ent types of outdoor environments motivate different kinds of uses,
the study had to include cases that vary with respect to degrees
and ways of being green. Flyvbjerg (2006) describes this selection
criterion as ‘maximum variation’, where the cases are selected “to
obtain information about the significance of various circumstances
for case process and outcome” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 230). Further
selection criteria for the companies were that they should be similar
in terms of the number of employees, production and organisa-
tion. The employees should primarily be office workers, and the
companies should all be located in Denmark. In order to identify
companies that met these criteria, all business councils in Denmark
were approached. It transpired that the criterion about employees
using the outdoor environment was difficult to match. However,
15 larger (min. 100 employees) knowledge-producing companies
 Author's personal copy

L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168 161

Table 1
Description of the six cases in terms of field of work, employees, and characteristics of the green workplace outdoor environment.

Company Field of work Number of Number of employees Outdoor Building footprints and Photo of outdoor
employees contacted (number of environment green natural outdoor environment
responses) and environment. Scales
response rate are relative to each
other.

C1 Competency 96 96 (66) 68.8% Forest-like

development

C2 Consultancy and 300 26 (16) 61.5% Forest-like

research

C3 Pension advisers 454 454 (122) 23.1% Park-like

C4 Telecommunication 1233 71 (54) 76.1% Green courtyards

C5 Media company 302 302 (106) 35.1% Green courtyards

C6 Architect office 200 86 (38) 44.2% Roof terrace with

view to forest and
sea

with employees working in project teams with a high level of self-
management met all the criteria and were therefore selected as
possible cases. The 15 companies were contacted and six agreed to
participate. The details of each company are presented in Table 1.
Collection of data
A quantitative survey in the form of a questionnaire with pri-
mary pre-coded questions with the opportunity to add personal
comments was conducted. The questionnaire was approved by the
Danish Data Protection Agency.
The questionnaire consisted of five parts targeting the respon-
dent’s, (1) background data, (2) health status, (3) working life
situation, (4) physical working environment, and (5) psychological
working environment.
Part 1 of the questionnaire asked questions about the respon-
dent’s background data, such as age, gender and educational level.
Because research indicates that individuals who have access to
green outdoor environments at home are more likely to use green
outdoor environments in other contexts than people without a
green outdoor environment at home (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003),
the questionnaire also asked the question, ‘Do you have access to a
green outdoor environment at home?’ The possible response cat-
egories were: ‘no access to any green environment’, ‘balcony or
terrace’, ‘common courtyard’, ‘private garden <600 m2 ’, and ‘private
garden ≥600 m2 ’.
In part 2, the respondents made an assessment of their own
health status. In this study, only the following question from part
2 was used in the analyses: ‘how would you rate your overall
health?’ with the following possible responses, ‘excellent’, ‘very
good’, ‘good’, ‘not very good’, and ‘poor’. Part 3 of the questionnaire
asked questions about the respondent’s working life, of which the
following two were used in the analyses: ‘do you have a manage-
rial position in the company?’ with the response categories ‘yes’
and ‘no’, and ‘how will you rate your current work capacity com-
pared to when it was best?’ with response categories ranging from
0 (the respondent is not able to work) to 10 (the best work capacity
possible).
Part 4 of the questionnaire focussed on the physical working
environment and asked the question: ‘did you have the possibility
to go out of doors during your working day, e.g. during coffee and/or
lunch breaks, during the last 6 months?’ The possible response cat-
egories were: ‘no’, ‘yes, the possibility existed, but I did not use
it’, ‘yes, and I have used it more than once a month’, ‘yes, I have
used it more than once a week’, and ‘yes, I have used it on a daily
basis’. In the analyses, the two last categories were grouped into
one category called, ‘spending time outdoors more than once a
week’. Part 4 also asked a question about what kind of activities
the respondents had performed in the workplace outdoor environ-
ment during the last 6 months. Here the respondents could choose
between the following response categories: ‘walking from the bus,
train, parking lot, or similar, to work’, ‘having lunch’, ‘drinking
 Author's personal copy
162 L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168
coffee or similar’, ‘smoking’, ‘talking to colleagues’, ‘participating in
meetings’, ‘relaxing’, ‘performing physical exercise’, and ‘enjoying
sunshine, flowers, birdsong or similar’. The activity, ‘walking from
bus, train, parking lot, or similar to work’ was not used in the anal-
yses, because it is not an activity of the respondents’ own choice.
The respondents were asked if they were encouraged to use the out-
door environment during their working day (with possible answers
being ‘no’, ‘yes by colleagues’, ‘yes by managers’, and ‘yes by oth-
ers’), what they were encouraged to do in the outdoor environment
(with possible answers being ‘have lunch’, ‘drink coffee or similar’,
‘conversation’, ‘perform physical exercise’, and ‘other things’), and if
they experienced impediments to using the outdoor environment
during their working day (with possible answers being ‘no’, ‘yes,
I do not want to’, ‘yes, the distance from my desk to the door to
the outside is too far, ‘yes, I am too busy’, ‘yes, my colleagues do not
consider it appropriate to go outdoors during the working day’, ‘yes,
my managers do not consider it appropriate to go outdoors during
the working day’, and ‘other impediments’). Finally, questions were
asked about the characteristics of the outdoor environment which
were inspired by the eight perceived sensory dimensions (PSD)
identified by Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010). Each of the eight PSDs
was transformed into a statement, except the PSD ‘space’ which was
divided into two statements. The respondents were asked, “which
of the statements below, in your opinion, characterises the outdoor
environment at your workplace?” The possible response categories
were: ‘wild, free growing nature (Nature)’, ‘the experience of cul-
ture/a lost time (Culture)’, ‘a large, open room with vast vistas
(Prospect)’, ‘organised for amusement, outdoor seating or similar
(Social)’, ‘an experience of entering a different world where the
parts of the environment are perceived as a whole (Space)’, ‘view of
a large area, e.g. the sea, a lake or the roofs of the city (Space view)’,
‘vast variety of both animals and plants (Rich in species)’, ‘an experi-
ence of safety and shelter in an enclosed room (Refuge)’, ‘a silent and
calm room where one can retire and be undisturbed (Serene)’, and
‘none of the statements characterise the outdoor environment’. Part
5 of the questionnaire focused on the psychological working envi-
ronment from which only the following question was used in the
analysis, ‘how will you rate your overall job satisfaction?’ and the
possible response categories were, ‘very satisfied’, ‘satisfied’, ‘nei-
ther satisfied or dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’, ‘very dissatisfied’, and ‘I
don’t know’.
In November 2008, the questionnaire was sent by e-mail to
581 workers in five companies and distributed by intranet to 454
workers in one company. After one reminder, a total of 402 ques-
tionnaires were answered.
The overall response rate was 48.2% in companies where the
questionnaire was distributed by email, while it varied from 35.1%
to 76.1% between the companies. For the company with the low-
est response rate (35.1%), an explanation could be that many of
the employees worked freelance and did not necessarily work in
the buildings of the company. For the company with the second
lowest response rate (44.2%), an explanation could be that the com-
pany fired approximately 10% of the workforce three hours after the
questionnaire had been delivered by email. In the company where
the employees had access to the questionnaire via the company’s
intranet, 122 of the 454 employees answered the questionnaire,
giving a response rate of 26.9%. This very low rate can be explained
by the fact that the questionnaire was not personally addressed, as
was the case with the other companies.
Statistical analysis
Chi-square tests and binary logit models were used to analyse
the data from the questionnaire. Statistical analyses were per-
formed using PASW statistics, Version 18, and a significance level
of 0.05 was used.
Results
Sample characteristics
Table 2 shows the sample characteristics. The age of the respon-
dents varied from 21 to 64 years (mean 43 years), with more
women (59.7%) than men (40.3%) responding. The percentage of
respondents in managerial positions varied widely between the
companies, from 9.0% to 44.7%. Also, the respondents’ educational
levels varied between the companies. The percentage of respon-
dents with a formal education of less than 3 years varied from 6.3%
to 63.0%, and respondents with an education of more than 4 years
varied from 15.6% to 81.3%. The majority (97.5%) of the respondents
had access to a green outdoor environment at home, either a private
garden (70.4%), a balcony/terrace (12.7%) or a common courtyard
(11.4%). There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the
companies with respect to all the above-mentioned characteristics,
except access to a green outdoor environment at home.
What is the frequency of use of outdoor environment during the
workday, and what characterises the users?
With respect to the use of the workplace outdoor environ-
ment, our results show that 37.8% of the respondents spent time
outdoors during their working day more than once a week (see
Table 3). However, the difference between the companies was
significant (p = 0.027), and the percentage varied from 20.4% (C4)
to 53.3% (C6). The background factors ‘age’, ‘managerial position’
and ‘educational level’ did not have any significant relation to
spending time outdoors more than once a week in any of the
companies (see Table 3). In one company (C4), there was a sig-
nificant relationship between having access to a green outdoor
environment at home and spending time outside more than once
a week. This shows that respondents who reported having access
to a courtyard at home, spent time outdoors more than once a
week at work more often than respondents who reported hav-
ing access to other kinds of outdoor environments at home. There
was a significant relationship between ‘gender’ and time spent out-
doors in two companies (C3 and C5), indicating that men spent
time outdoors more often than women. This was a clear pattern
across all companies except one (C4), where no gender differ-
ence was found. A binary logit model (omnibus test of model
coefficients (X2 ): p < 0.001) including data from all six companies
showed that male respondents had 2.083 times higher odds of
spending time outdoors more than once a week than female
respondents (p < 0.001).
What types of activities are performed in the outdoor
environment at the workplace?
In five of the six companies, the same three outdoor activ-
ities were most commonly reported: ‘having lunch’ (average in
the six companies: 45.0%), ‘talking to colleagues’ (average in the
six companies: 39.8%) and ‘enjoying sunshine, flowers, birdsong
or similar’ (average in the six companies: 33.6%) (see Table 4).
In the last company (C2) ‘talking to colleagues’ replaced ‘physical
activity’. In the response category, ‘other activities’, the answers
could be divided into the following activities: ‘working’, ‘making
a telephone call’, ‘going on an errand’, and ‘walking to or from
meetings or the canteen’. Only the respondents from company 5
reported ‘working’ as an outdoor activity. This can be explained
by the fact that it is a media company, where the outdoor envi-
ronment is often used as a location for television footage. The
majority of the respondents who reported ‘going on an errand’
were from company 6 which is located in an urban setting. There
were significant differences between the companies with respect to
 Author's personal copy

L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168 163

Table 2
Characteristics of the respondents in terms of age, gender, management position, educational levels, and access to a green outdoor environment at home. Test of homogeneity:
Pearson Chi-square. N = 402.

Characteristics of respondents Companies

C1% C2% C3% C4% C5% C6% Average%

Age (p < 0.001)

≤30 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 (22.7) 43.0 (56.3) 68.9 (31.1) 63.0 (37.0) 42.5 (57.5) 50.0 (50.0) 59.7 (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
Access to green environment at home (p = 0.213)
Private garden 66.7 93.8 68.9 76.0 66.1 66.3 70.4
Common courtyard 16.7 6.3 10.7 3.7 14.2 10.5 11.4
Balcony/terrace 9.1 0.0 17.2 14.8 12.3 7.9 12.7
Other 3.0 0.0 0.8 5.6 3.8 5.3 3.0
No access 4.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.5

Table 3
Frequency of time spent outdoors more than once a week. Test of homogeneity: Pearson Chi-square. N = 402.

Company C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Percentage of respondents spending time outdoors more than once a 39.4 31.3 37.7 20.4 40.6 53.3
week (difference between companies: p = 0.027) Average: 37.8
Impact of background variables:
Age ns ns ns ns ns ns
Gender:
Percentage of males/females spending time outdoors more than 53.3/35.3 33.3/28.6 52.6/31.0 20.0/20.6 49.2/28.9 68.4/42.1
once a week
p = 0.209 p = 0.838 p = 0.022 p = 0.959 p = 0.035 p = 0.103
Managerial position ns ns ns ns ns ns
Educational level ns ns ns ns ns ns
Percentage of respondents, with access to the following types of outdoor environments at home, spending time outdoors more than once a week:
No green environment 0.0 33.3 25.0
Balcony/terrace 50.0 42.9 25.0 38.5 33.3
Common courtyard 45.5 0.0 61.5 100.0 60.0 25.0
2
Private garden <600 m 42.1 20.0 16.7 0.0 44.0 41.7
Private garden ≥600 m2 36.0 40.0 42.6 17.6 33.3 70.6
Other green environments 50 0.0 33.3 50 100.0
p = 0.750 p = 0.575 p = 0.069 p = 0.037 p = 0.546 p = 0.185

the activities ‘having lunch’, ‘drinking coffee or similar’, ‘talking to
colleagues’, ‘relaxing’, ‘performing physical activity’, and ‘enjoying
sunshine, flowers, birdsong or similar’. There was no consistent
pattern across the companies regarding the role of gender in per-
forming activities in the workplace outdoor environment.
To explore possible patterns in performing the outdoor activi-
ties, correlation matrices for the activities in each company were
made (data not shown). The matrices show a cluster of social
activities (‘having lunch’, ‘drinking coffee or similar’, ‘talking to
colleagues’) which are correlated with each other (correlation
0.286–0.553, p < 0.001–0.002) in all six companies, but one (C2).
In one company (C4) ‘drinking coffee or similar’ was not a part of
the social cluster, but was instead correlated with ‘relaxing’, and
in one company (C6), ‘having lunch’ was not significantly corre-
lated with any of the other activities. The matrices also show that
in all companies but one (C2), ‘performing physical activity’ was
correlated with ‘enjoying sunshine, flowers, birdsong or similar’
(correlation 0.307–0.546, p < 0.001–0.024). Furthermore, ‘perform-
ing physical activity’ was related to different other activities in
the different companies. Besides being correlated with ‘perform-
ing physical activity’ in five of the six companies, the activity
‘enjoying sunshine, flowers, birdsong or similar’ showed significant

Table 4
Percentage of respondents performing activities in the outdoor environment during their working day (the three most often performed activities in bold). Test of homogeneity:
Pearson Chi-square. N = 402.

Activity C1% C2% C3% C4% C5% C6% Average%

Having lunch (p < 0.001) 56.1 43.8 39.3 22.2 48.1 68.4 45.0
Drinking coffee or similar (p < 0.001) 30.3 18.8 15.6 3.7 32.1 31.6 22.4
Smoking (p = 0.818) 16.7 12.5 11.5 11.1 14.2 7.9 12.7
Talking to colleagues (p = 0.002) 48.5 12.5 41.0 18.5 46.2 44.7 39.8
Participating in a meeting (p = 0.593) 15.2 6.3 9.8 5.6 12.3 13.2 10.9
Relaxing (p = 0.005) 16.7 6.3 18.0 5.6 27.4 31.6 19.4
Performing physical activity (p = 0.034) 15.2 31.3 15.6 1.9 18.9 15.8 15.7
Enjoying sunshine, flowers, birdsong or similar (p = 0.046) 27.3 37.5 38.5 16.7 39.6 36.8 33.8
Other activities (p < 0.001) 4.5 0.0 3.3 5.6 14.2 21.1 8.2
 Author's personal copy

164 L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168

Table 5
Impediments to use the workplace outdoor environments. Test of homogeneity: Pearson Chi-square. N = 402.

Company C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Percentage of respondents reporting following impediments (impediments reported by less than 5% of respondents are excluded):
No impediments, p = 0.092 47.0 75.0 63.9 66.7 67.0 65.8
I don’t want to go outdoors p = 0.833 6.3 5.6
Distance from work station to a door to the outside, p = 0.024 6.3 11.1 13.2
I’m too busy, p < 0.001 48.5 18.8 24.6 14.8 21.7 21.1

Gender differences in impediments:

No impediments 46.7/47.1 77.8/71.4 73.7/59.5 90.0/52.9 78.7/51.1 78.9/52.6
(% of males/females) p = 0.979 p = 0.771 p = 0.131 p = 0.005 p = 0.003 p = 0.087
Distance from work station to a door outside: 6.7/0.0 0.0/14.3 5.3/4.8 0.0/17.6 1.6/2.2 10.5/15.8
(% of males/females) p = 0.063 p = 0.242 p = 0.906 p = 0.046 p = 0.827 p = 0.631
I’m too busy: 53.3/47.1 11.1/28.6 18.4/27.4 5.0/20.6 14.8/31.1 10.5/31.6
(% of males/females) p = 0.669 p = 0.375 p = 0.287 p = 0.119 p = 0.043 p = 0.111
Other impediments 0.0/5.9 11.1/0.0 5.3/8.3 0.0/14.7 1.6/13.3 5.3/5.3
(% of males/females) p = 0.336 p = 0.362 p = 0.548 p = 0.072 p = 0.017 p = 1.000

Table 6
Results (odds ratio) from a binary logit model showing the association between ‘spending time outdoors more than once a week’ and encouragement/impediments to go
outdoors. N = 402.

Company C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
2
Omnibus test of model coefficients (X ) p = 0.001 p = 0.824 p = 0.001 p = 0.195 p = 0.033 p = 0.265
No impediments OR: 6.78 OR: 1.29 OR: 2.98 OR: 1.47 OR: 1.85 OR: 2.87
p = 0.001 p = 0.852 p = 0.013 p = 0.622 p = 0.169 p = 0.138
Encouragement by colleagues, managers or others OR: 2.52 OR: 2.33 OR: 3.54 OR: 5.05 OR: 3.62 OR: 1.81
p = 0.168 p = 0.590 p = 0.006 p = 0.074 p = 0.031 p = 0.539

correlations with all other types of activities, but the pattern dif-
fered between the companies.
Who encourages and what impedes the use of workplace outdoor
environments?
The majority of respondents in all six companies (from 77.0%
(C3) to 88.9% (C4)) reported that they were not encouraged to go
outside, while some respondents (from 5.6% (C4) to 21.3% (C3))
reported being encouraged by their colleagues and a few respon-
dents (from 0.0% (C5) to 12.3% (C3)) by their manager (data not
shown). Furthermore, the respondents were asked what they were
encouraged to do when outdoors. Of the respondents who were
encouraged to go outdoors, the most common activity was ‘having
lunch’ (12.7%), followed by ‘talking to colleagues’ (9.7%) and ‘drink-
ing coffee or similar’ (5.2%). Gender turned out to be an important
factor in explaining differences in the frequency of use of the out-
door environment (question 1). Therefore, we examined whether
there were any differences between male and female employees
when it came to perceived encouragement to go outdoors. The
results show no significant differences.
With respect to perceived impediments to go outdoors dur-
ing the working day, the vast majority of respondents in five of
the six companies reported no impediments (from 63.9% (C3) to
75.0% (C2)), while for Company 1 far fewer (47.0%) reported no
impediments and even more participants (48.5%) indicated that
they were too busy. While many fewer indicated being too busy
as an impediment at the other companies (from 14.8% (C4) to
24.6% (C3)), this was nonetheless the most commonly reported
impediment. Differences between male and female office workers
were also investigated. In two companies (C4 and C5) significantly
more female than male office workers experienced impediments
for going outdoors. This finding was consistent with the patterns
in three out of the four remaining companies, where also more
females than males reported impediments to going outdoors. In the
last company (C1), no gender difference was found. With respect
to the most commonly reported impediment ‘I’m too busy’, a sig-
nificant difference between males and females was found in one
company (C5). The finding was consistent with patterns in four
of the five remaining companies, where also more females than
males considered themselves to be too busy to spend time out-
doors during their working day. In the last company (C1), slightly
more males than females reported being busy as an impediment
(see Table 5).
The influence of encouragement and impediments on the
frequency of use of outdoor environment
Binary logit models were used to investigate whether perceived
encouragement and impediments were related to the frequency
of use. The models showed a significant positive impact of expe-
riencing ‘no impediments’ in two companies (C1 and C3) and
experiencing ‘encouragement from colleagues, managers or oth-
ers’ in two companies (C3 and C5), see Table 6. Since there were
many similarities with respect to encouragement and impediments
across the companies, a binary logit model, including data from
all six companies, was used to explore new possible patterns for
relationships between encouragement and impediments, and fre-
quency of use. The model (omnibus test of model coefficients (X2 ):
p < 0.001) showed that respondents who reported encouragement
to use the outdoor environment had 3.1 times higher odds for
spending time outdoors more than once a week than respondents
who did not report encouragement by their colleagues (p < 0.001).
The analysis also showed that respondents who did not experi-
ence impediments for going outdoors had 2.8 times higher odds for
spending time outdoors more than once a week than respondents
who experienced impediments (p < 0.001).
Is there a relationship between activities and the characteristics of
the outdoor environment?
A binary logit model was used in order to investigate whether
certain characteristics offered by the workplace outdoor environ-
ment were related to the frequency of use. The model (omnibus
test of model coefficients (X2 ): p = 0.003) showed that respon-
dents who reported the PSD ‘serene’ had 1.8 times higher odds of
 Author's personal copy

L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168 165

Table 7
Results (odds ratio) from a binary logit model showing the association between performance of certain activity types and self-reported perceived sensory dimensions (PSD)
in the outdoor environment. N = 402.

Activity type PSDa

Serene (e.g., silent, calm) Space (e.g. coherent, view) Refuge (e.g., safety, enclosure) Social (e.g., outdoor seating)

Having lunch 1.8 (p = 0.029) ns 1.7 (p = 0.042) ns

Drinking coffee or similar 2.3 (p = 0.005) ns ns ns
Smoking ns ns ns ns
Talking to colleagues 2.4 (p < 0.001) ns 1.9 (p = 0.020) ns
Participating in meetings ns ns ns 3.0 (p = 0.014)
Relaxing 2.0 (p = 0.023) ns ns ns
Performing physical 1.9 (p = 0.040) ns ns ns
activity
Enjoying sun-shine, ns 2.6 (p = 0.016) 1.8 (p = 0.027) ns
flowers, birdsong or
similar
a
Adjusted for company.

spending time outdoors more than once a week than respondents
who did not report ‘serene’ (p = 0.022). ‘Company’ was included as
an independent variable in the model and had a significant impact
on the odds of spending time outdoors more than once a week in
five of the six companies.
In some cases, a significant relationship between the outdoor
activities and the self-reported PSDs was observed, which indicates
that the presence of the PSDs ‘serene’, ‘space’, ‘nature’ and ‘refuge’
positively influences the odds of six of the eight outdoor activity
types being performed (Table 7). The activity ‘smoking’ had no sig-
nificant relation to the PSDs, and ‘participating in meetings’ was
the only activity which was significantly related to the PSD ‘social’.
The PSDs ‘nature’, ‘rich in species’, ‘culture’ and ‘prospect’ did not
show associations with any activity types and are not included in
Table 7. ‘Company’ was included as an independent variable in the
model, and had significant impact on the odds for performing all
activities except ‘smoking’ and ‘participating in meetings’.
Are there relationships between use, activities, encouragement,
impediments and characteristics, and employee health, job
satisfaction or work performance?
The respondents were asked to rate their overall health sta-
tus, their general job satisfaction and how they would rate their
own work performance. Binary logit models were used to investi-
gate relationships between each of these three variables and; (1)
frequency of time spent outdoors; (2) activities performed in the
outdoor environment; (3) perceived encouragement and impedi-
ments for going outdoors; and (4) self-reported perceived sensory
dimensions in the outdoor environment. The independent variables
‘company’, ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘educational level’, ‘managerial position’,
and ‘green outdoor environment at home’ were also included in the
models. The frequency of time spent outdoors, encouragement to
go outdoors, and self-reported perceived sensory dimensions did
not show significant relationships with any of the three depen-
dent variables. With respect to impediments for going outdoors
and outdoor activities, a few of the dimensions showed significant
relationships to health, job satisfaction or work performance (see
Table 8), but there was no clear pattern in the relationships.
Discussion
What is the frequency of use of the outdoor environment during
the workday, and what characterises the users?
The results showed that between 20.4% (C4) and 53.3% (C6)
of the respondents spent time outdoors more than once a week
and that gender played a role in how often the respondents spent
time outdoors in five of the six companies. Gender differences
were significant in the two companies with the largest sample size.
To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the
importance of gender in the use of green outdoor environments
at workplaces, and therefore it is not possible to make compar-
isons with related studies. One study of reported use of urban green
spaces in Denmark found no such difference in gender (Schipperijn
et al., 2010). A study from Sweden which focused on the leisure
time use of such areas actually showed the opposite pattern, in
that females reported higher frequency of use of green urban space
than males (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003). However, the reasons
for using an outdoor green space during leisure time are likely to
be different than during the working day, which could explain the
gender related differences observed in this study.

Table 8
Results (odds ratio) from a binary logit model showing the association between health, job satisfaction and work performance, and outdoor activities (A) and impediments
for going outdoors (I). Only significant relationships are shown. N = 402.

Independent variables Omnibus test of model coefficients (X2 ) Odds ratio Sign.

Health (reported as very good or excellent)

Smoking (A) p < 0.001 0.5 p = 0.042
Participating in a meeting (A) 2.1 p = 0.045
Long distance from work station to door to the outside (I) 0.4 p = 0.042

Job satisfaction (reported as high or very high)

Enjoying sun-shine, flowers, birdsong or similar (A) p = 0.008 2.7 p = 0.014
Not accepted by my colleagues to go outdoor during workday (I) p = 0.003 0.1 p = 0.002

Workability (reported as 8–10 on a scale from 0 to 10)

Relaxing (A) p = 0.006 2.2 p = 0.029
Long distance from work station to door to the outside (I) p = 0.008 0.3 p = 0.014

Adjusted for age, gender, educational level, management position, outdoor environment at home.
 Author's personal copy
166 L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168
What types of activities are performed in the outdoor
environment at the workplace?
In this study, the most commonly reported outdoor activity was
‘having lunch’ in five out of the six companies, while it was the
second most common in the last company. This company was rep-
resented by a sample of only 16 respondents, and the difference
between this company and the other companies might be due to the
small sample size. ‘Having lunch’ as the most commonly reported
activity was unsurprising as the lunch break is the longest and most
formalised break during the working day for the majority of office
workers in Denmark. The finding is in line with a Danish report
on the use of workplace outdoor environments (Præstholm and
Lassen, 2008) which concludes that eating lunch is by the far most
common activity in the outdoor environment during the workday.
Furthermore, the results show that the workplace outdoor envi-
ronment can accommodate a wide range of activities, sedentary
and physical, as well as individual and social, and that the activi-
ties are performed regardless of age, gender, level of education or
managerial position. The results show that correlations between
the outdoor activities differ between the companies, but that some
common patterns are present. The company with a sample size
of 16 respondents differed in several cases from the patterns of
the other companies, and this may be due to the small sample
size. One of the common patterns was a cluster of social activi-
ties, which indicated that respondents, who had lunch outdoors,
often also drank coffee and talked to colleagues. Furthermore, the
results showed that the activity ‘enjoying sunshine, flowers, bird-
song or similar’ was correlated with ‘performing physical activity’,
‘drinking coffee or similar’ and ‘talking to colleagues’ in the major-
ity of companies, and correlated with all of the other activities in
some of the companies. This may indicate that ‘enjoying sunshine,
flowers, birdsong or similar’ is better understood as a special kind
of positive attention to the environment, rather than an activity in
itself.
Who encourages and what impedes the use of workplace outdoor
environments?
The majority of respondents in all six companies did not report
encouragement to go outdoors during the working day. To the
authors’ knowledge, the only previous study, which addresses the
encouragement of employees to go outdoors concluded that office
workers become socialised into certain behaviours and routines
from which it is very difficult to deviate (Hitchings, 2010). The
outdoor environment tends to be forgotten by office workers as
behaviours and routines rarely address any aspect of the outdoors
(Hitchings, 2010). This might explain the low level of encourage-
ment observed in our study. Still, our results show that perceived
encouragement had a significant influence on the respondents’
odds for spending time outdoors. From Hitchings’ (2010) perspec-
tive, encouragement to go outdoors could, therefore, be important
for the frequency of use through its potential for inclusion in the
behaviours and routines of the workplace.
In all six companies, the most common impediment to going
outdoors was ‘I am too busy’. This result is in line with Hitchings’
(2010) finding; namely that the perception of being too busy to go
outdoors is one of the major reasons for employees to stay inside
the office. Our results showed that experiencing no impediments
was connected to high odds for spending time outdoors. An expla-
nation for the difference between males and females with respect
to time spent outdoors could be that female respondents experi-
enced more impediments than their male colleagues, which was
the case in five out of the six companies. In these five companies,
more female than male respondents considered themselves to be
too busy to go outdoors. This is in line with the findings of a Danish
national survey, which concludes that female employees experi-
ence more work-related stress than their male colleagues (Bonke,
2002). This may be due to the fact that Danish women spend more
time on household chores and caring for children than men and
are often responsible for picking up children from school and day
care centres (Bonke, 2002), so that they may experience greater
time pressure during their working day than men. Furthermore,
a Swedish study shows that more women than men report high
stress levels, especially younger women with children (Stigsdotter
and Grahn, 2011).
Studies found relationships between access to green outdoor
environment and increased attention (Tennessen and Cimprich,
1995) and student academic achievements (Tennessen and
Cimprich, 1995; Matsuoka, 2010). These findings may indicate that
access to green outdoor environments may contribute to improved
work performance by increasing attention and lowering stress,
which could off-set the time lost by spending time outside. The
obvious danger is the opposite; that spending time outside, away
from work tasks, might lead to more stress due to time loss. There-
fore, these relationships have to be studied carefully before giving
recommendations in relation to work-force health.
Is there a relationship between activities and the characteristics of
the outdoor environment?
This study found that respondents who reported the PSD ‘serene’
had significantly higher odds for spending time outdoors than
respondents who did not report ‘serene’. Furthermore, the study
showed a significant relationship between the presence of ‘serene’
and five of the eight activity types. This could indicate that the expe-
rience of a quiet and calm environment with the opportunity to rest
and be undisturbed, as represented by the PSD ‘serene’, is espe-
cially important in workplace settings. The PSDs ‘space’, ‘nature’,
‘refuge’, and ‘social’ also showed a significant relationship with one
or more of the activity types. These relationships are partly consis-
tent with the findings of Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010), who show
that visitors to urban green spaces have the strongest preferences
for a combination of the PSDs ‘serene’, ‘space’ and ‘nature’. In con-
trast, Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010) found that the PSD ‘social’ was
the least important PSD. An explanation might be that the activity
‘participating in meetings’, which relates to the PSD ‘social’, is the
only activity type in our questionnaire which is specifically related
to working life, and is thus not an expected option for park visitors.
Furthermore, the activity ‘participating in meetings’ is social by its
very nature, which might be what is being reflected in the findings.
The only activity type which showed no relation to any of the PSDs
was ‘smoking’. This might be explained by the fact that in Danish
companies, employees are not allowed to smoke indoors and that
individuals who want to smoke during the working day are forced
to go outside regardless of what is offered by the workplace outdoor
environment.
Are there relationships between use, activities, encouragement,
impediments and characteristics, and employee health, job
satisfaction or work performance?
In this study, only a few significant relationships were identi-
fied between the investigated aspects of the workplace outdoor
environment and employees’ health, job satisfaction and work per-
formance. The reason for these few relationships might be that
most of the respondents in the study were exposed to a green,
natural outdoor environment during their working day. Even if
the employees do not go outside, they can see the outdoor envi-
ronment through the window, or they may walk through it on
their way to work, etc. Therefore, the variation in exposure to
the green outdoor environment might not be large enough to
 Author's personal copy
L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168
enable us to detect the relationships addressed by this research
question.
Discussion of methodology
This study is highly exploratory due to the limited previous
research on the subject. A strength of the study is that it includes
six cases and therefore makes it possible to compare the findings
between the cases. The consistency of the overall findings despite
the demographic and organisation cultural differences makes the
findings more broadly applicable. Another strength is that the
six investigated companies are thought to have some of the best
and most well-used green workplace outdoor environments in
Denmark. Therefore, we think that the study describes a large
and varied dataset in terms of outdoor environmental characteris-
tics and activities performed in the outdoor environment. In order
to investigate health related benefits, it might have been more
appropriate to include cases with substantial variation in avail-
ability of green outdoor environments. Another possible limitation
of the study is related to certain uncontrolled circumstances with
respect to the cases. For example, one of the companies (C1) was
rebuilding their canteen when the questionnaire was distributed,
so the employees were eating their lunch in a hallway on a tem-
porary basis. As mentioned earlier, another company (C6) fired
about 10% of its employees three hours after the questionnaire
was delivered by email. These circumstances probably influenced
the respondents’ answers in a negative way. It may have been
possible to control for these circumstances by performing a longi-
tudinal study with, e.g. three questionnaires distributed at intervals
of one year. The study would then show how much the use of
the outdoor environment is influenced by the variation in cir-
cumstances over time. If a longitudinal study is not possible, the
questionnaire could include a question such as, ‘is your use of
the outdoor environment being influenced by any temporary cir-
cumstances at the moment?’ With respect to the distribution the
questionnaire, the fact that at one company (C3), it was posted
on the company’s intranet instead of being mailed to the employ-
ees’ personal inbox, may have influenced the responses. Clearly it
resulted in a low response rate and it may have made the employ-
ees feel less responsible for answering the questionnaire. Indeed,
it may only have been the employees who were already inter-
ested in the outdoor environment, who took the time to answer
the questionnaire. However, the results from this company do not
represent the extremes in most of the analyses. Therefore, the way
the questionnaires were distributed does not appear to influence
the results.
Implications for practice
Unfolding the potential of workplace outdoor environments
requires a multidimensional approach and recommendations can
be given to different audiences based on the findings of this study.
Recommendations for corporate managers, who want to
develop a working culture that includes the outdoor environment,
include encouraging their employees to use the outdoor envi-
ronment even when they feel that they are too busy, as well as
investigating their employees’ perceived impediments to going
outdoors, and taking action to limit these impediments. Man-
agement should include gender differences when investigating
impediments.
Recommendations for architects, landscape architects, corpo-
rate management, city planners and others in a position to make
decisions about the outdoor environment at workplaces include
a focus on what kind of characteristics the outdoor environment
offers its visitors, and particularly the PSDs ‘serene’, ‘space’, ‘nature’,
167
‘refuge’, and ‘social’ might be important to support different activ-
ities in the workplace outdoor environment.
Future perspectives
There is insufficient research into whether and how spend-
ing time outdoors during the workday affects employees’ health,
wellbeing and work performance, as well as a lack of knowledge
regarding which characteristics offered by the workplace outdoor
environment are preferred by employees. Especially, studies which
address the impact of the workplace outdoor environment on
employees’ physical activity during the workday would be of great
value. Such studies could investigate different types of physical
activity in the outdoor environment, for how long the activity was
performed, and exactly where in the outdoor environment the
activity took place. An interesting perspective for future research
could be to perform qualitative research, such as interviews and
‘walk and talks’ (where the interview is performed while walking
in the outdoor environment), to investigate how specific char-
acteristics of the workplace outdoor environment are perceived,
and to deepen our knowledge of what meaning the environment
has for the office worker. Intervention studies could be another
option addressing the use of workplace outdoor environments
before and after a physical intervention in the outdoor environ-
ment. Such studies could contribute valuable knowledge regarding
the importance of specific characteristics or PSDs in the environ-
ment. Furthermore, the effect of performing certain activities in the
workplace outdoor environment, and their inclusion in workplace
intervention programs to increase employees’ health and wellbe-
ing, would be an interesting issue for future research.
Conclusions
This study contributes to the existing knowledge on workplace
outdoor environments by addressing a variety of issues regarding
such environments, both physical issues, such as the characteristics
of the outdoor environment, behavioural issues, such as frequency
of going out, and cultural issues, such as perceived encouragement
and impediments to going outdoors. By investigating relationships
between these different issues, this study contributes with valuable
new indications of patterns of relationships between employee,
company and the outdoor environment. A next step could be a
study designed to investigate the impacts of outdoor environment
use, characteristics and activities on employees’ health, wellbe-
ing and productivity, and on companies’ culture, reputation and
recruiting capability. This study shows that the workplace outdoor
environment can support a range of different activities, includ-
ing social wellbeing, and physical and mental restoration. In the
present debate on workforce health and wellbeing, a focus on the
workplace outdoor environment could improve employees’ social
networking, physical activity and opportunities to recover from
mentally demanding work tasks.
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 com-
panies in the study. We would like to thank Emil Stamp, statistician
at Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, for his assistance.
References
Bjork, J., Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardo, J., Wadbro, J., Ostergren, P.O., Skar-
back, E., 2008. Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to
 Author's personal copy
168 L. Lottrup et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012) 159–168
neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 62, e2.
Bonke, J., 2002. Tid og Vel færd (Time and welfare). In: Socialforskningsinstituttet
rapport 02:26. Socialforskningsinstitut, København (in Danish).
Brownson, R.C., Boehmer, T.K., Luke, D.A., 2005. Declining rates of physical activity
in the United States: what are the contributors? Annual Review of Public Health
26, 421–443.
Conn, V.S., Hafdahl, A.R., Cooper, P.S., Brown, L.M., Lusk, S.L., 2009. Meta-analysis
of workplace physical activity interventions. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 37, 330–339.
Coombes, E., Jones, A.P., Hillsdon, M., 2010. The relationship of physical activity and
overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social
Science & Medicine 70, 816–822.
Engbers, L.H., van Poppel, M.N.M., Paw, M.J.M.C., van Mechelen, W., 2005. Worksite
health promotion programs with environmental changes – a systematic review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29, 61–70.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2011. Stress,
http://osha.europa.eu/da/topics/stress/index html (retrieved 26.05.11).
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative
Inquiry 12, 219–245.
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., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening 2, 1–18.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2010. The relation between perceived sensory dimen-
sions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning
94, 264–275.
Groeneveld, I.F., Proper, K.I., Van der Beek, A.J., Hildebrandt, V.H., van Mechelen,
W., 2010. Lifestyle-focused interventions at the workplace to reduce the risk
of cardiovascular disease – a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Work
Environment & Health 36, 202–215.
Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., Garling, T., 2003. Tracking restoration
in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,
109–123.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G.W., 1991. Restorative effects of natural-environment
experiences. Environment and Behavior 23, 3–26.
Hitchings, R., 2010. Urban greenspace from the inside out: an argument for the
approach and a study with city workers. Geoforum 41, 855–864.
Hug, S.M., Hartig, T., Hansmann, R., Seeland, K., Hornung, R., 2009. Restorative qual-
ities of indoor and outdoor exercise settings as predictors of exercise frequency.
Health & Place 15, 971–980.
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. Envi-
ronment 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.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city – does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33, 343–367.
Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., Lawrence, C., 1998. Windows in the work-
place – sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior 30,
739–762.
Matsuoka, R.H., 2010. Student performance and high school landscapes: examining
the links. Landscape and Urban Planning 97, 273–282.
Ottosson, J., Grahn, P., 2008. The role of natural settings in crisis rehabilitation: how
does the level of crisis influence the response to experiences of nature with
regard to measures of rehabilitation? Landscape Research 33, 51–70.
Peponis, J., Bafna, S., Bajaj, R., Bromberg, J., Congdon, C., Rashid, M., Warmels, S.,
Zhang, Y., Zimring, C., 2007. Designing space to support knowledge work. Envi-
ronment and Behavior 39, 815–840.
Præstholm, S., Lassen, J.N., 2008. Use of companies green areas. A report from Land-
skabsværkstedet, DFIF, and DGI. Frederiksberg & København (in Danish).
Proper, K.I., Koning, M., Van der Beek, A.J., Hildebrandt, V.H., Bosscher, R.J., van
Mechelen, W., 2003. The effectiveness of worksite physical activity programs on
physical activity, physical fitness, and health. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
13, 106–117.
Rashid, M., Wineman, J., Zimring, C., 2009. Space, behavior, and environmental per-
ception in open-plan offices: a prospective study. Environment and Planning B:
Planning & Design 36, 432–449.
Rashid, M., Zimring, C., 2008. A review of the empirical literature on the relation-
ships between indoor environment and stress in health care and office settings
– problems and prospects of sharing evidence. Environment and Behavior 40,
151–190.
Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U.K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-
Jorgensen, F., Randrup, T.B., 2010. Factors influencing the use of green space:
results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban
Planning 95, 130–137.
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.
Stigsdotter, U.K., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn, J., Toftager, M., Kamper-Jorgensen, F.,
Randrup, T.B., 2010. Health promoting outdoor environments – associations
between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based
on a Danish national representative survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health 38, 411–417.
Stigsdotter, U.K., Grahn, P., 2011. Stressed individuals’ preferences for activities
and environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening 10 (4), 295–304.
Sullivan, W.C., Kuo, F.E., DePooter, S.F., 2004. The fruit of urban nature – vital neigh-
borhood spaces. Environment and Behavior 36, 678–700.
Tennessen, C.M., Cimprich, B., 1995. Views to nature – effects on attention. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 15, 77–85.
Ulrich, R.S., 1999. Effects of gardens on health outcomes, theory and research. In:
Marcus, C.C., Barnes, M. (Eds.), Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design
Recommendations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
van den Berg, A.E., Hartig, T., Staats, H., 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized
societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social
Issues 63, 79–96.
van den Berg, A.E., Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., 2010. Green space as
a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine 70,
1203–1210.
Vischer, J.C., 2007. The effects of the physical environment on job performance:
towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health 23, 175–184.
World Health Organization, 2011a. Obesity and Overweight,
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ (retrieved 26.05.11).
World Health Organization, 2011b. Physical Inactivity: A Global Pub-
lic Health Problem, http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet
inactivity/en/index.html (retrieved 26.05.11).