The Restorative Office: Real Human Needs

Where science, design, and human experience meet to create workplaces that support the whole person.

Restorative offices include elements on the interior and exterior.

Designing workplaces that genuinely support mental well-being requires far more than aesthetic upgrades or the latest furniture trends. It asks us to consider how people actually feel in their environments, how stress accumulates throughout the day, how attention drains, and how the built world can either soothe or intensify these experiences. Environmental psychology has long demonstrated that design choices influence cognitive load, mood, and physiological stress in measurable ways (Evans & McCoy, 1998; Ulrich et al., 2008). Yet many corporate offices still prioritize efficiency, stimulation, and output, often at the expense of restoration.

Meaningful Spaces

One of the most meaningful ways organizations can counterbalance this tendency is by integrating restorative or reflective spaces. These areas are intentionally set apart from routine activity. They include quiet rooms, small nooks, sensory-reduced zones, and enclosed lounges that incorporate biophilic elements. Although such spaces may appear to conflict with productivity-driven culture, research suggests the opposite. When employees can pause and recalibrate, their fatigue decreases and attention rebounds, which improves overall performance (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). In fast-moving environments, these pockets of calm act like psychological pit stops. They signal that resetting is both acceptable and beneficial, rather than something employees must squeeze in at the margins of their day.

Feeling mentally supported at work also depends on a few consistent factors. Employees need a sense of autonomy, reasonable sensory conditions, and environments that acknowledge emotional experience rather than ignore it. In practical terms, this means access to natural light, manageable noise levels, ergonomic comfort, and spaces that honor the human need for retreat (Vischer, 2007). When people can choose how and where they work, whether by stepping into a quiet zone, sitting near a window, or collaborating in an active area, their sense of agency increases. This rise in agency is strongly associated with reduced stress and a stronger sense of place.

Undervalued Design

Despite decades of research, architects and designers frequently overlook several foundational principles of environmental psychology. Attention Restoration Theory describes the cognitive benefits of environments that allow the mind to rest (Kaplan, 1995). Stress Reduction Theory highlights the calming influence of natural elements and organic patterns (Ulrich et al., 1991). These ideas have been widely cited, yet many workplaces still struggle to integrate them into an overall design in a meaningful way.

One area that remains especially undervalued involves the need for visual, acoustic, and olfactory privacy. Regular movement within one’s line of sight, unpredictable or high-pitched voices, and unwanted scents all interfere with concentration and create cognitive strain. These sensory distractions may stem from personal fragrances, lingering food odors, inadequate hygiene, or competing smells in dense open spaces.

Multisensory Stimulation

Research on multisensory distraction shows that odor cues in particular can interrupt cognitive processing and elevate stress, especially in shared environments where personal space is limited (Smeets & Semin, 2005). Nevertheless, many offices continue to rely on open-plan layouts even though noise, smells, constant visibility, and diminished boundaries are known to reduce well-being and performance (Kim & de Dear, 2013).

If we imagine a mentally supportive corporate workspace, several qualities come into focus. It would offer a range of sensory experiences rather than assume that one generalized environment works for everyone. Quiet zones would be located alongside collaborative areas, allowing employees to choose the conditions best suited to their tasks. Lighting would be soft and layered, with daylight available throughout the space. Materials and colors would draw from natural palettes, and textures would create a sense of warmth and belonging rather than sterility.

Most importantly, employees would be able to regulate their experience. This includes adjusting lighting and sound, selecting preferred seating, and choosing their proximity to others. These small yet powerful affordances help establish psychological safety, the feeling that it is acceptable to pause, breathe, and exist as a whole person rather than maintain constant outward performance.

Summary

Designing for well-being is not about transforming offices into retreats. It is about acknowledging that people work best when they feel calm, supported, and grounded. As research continues to underscore the connection between environment and emotional health, the most forward-thinking workplaces will be those that treat restoration as an essential element of productivity rather than a rare privilege.

Further Reading

Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. Wiley.

Banbury, S. P., & Berry, D. C. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48, 1, 25–37.

Boyce, P. R. (2014). Human factors in lighting (3rd ed.). CRC Press.

Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 3, 577–594.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 4, 227–268.

Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 1, 90–94.

Joyce, M., & O’Boyle, A. (2023). Biophilic design and perceptual fluency: Cognitive benefits of natural patterns in indoor environments. Journal of Environmental Design Research, 12, 2, 45–59.

Kaplan, R. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 3, 169–182.

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

Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy–communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.

Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 2, 267–284.

Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D. P., & Brill, M. (1994). Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environment and Behavior, 26, 2, 195–222.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11,3, 201–230.

Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60, 4, 467–486.