Interactive effects of workplace social environments

Workplace social environments such as norms and culture can significantly influence sedentary behaviours among office-based workers4 and can affect how workplace design influences workers’ behaviour. Most previous studies have tested the effects of workplace design on employees’ active and sedentary behaviours within Western contexts,5 leaving a gap in how these relationships vary in other geographical settings with unique workplace norms and cultures. For instance, in a workplace where extended sitting is a cultural norm, employees may still predominantly engage in sedentary behaviour, regardless of having activity-promoting features in their workplace. Conversely, an activity-promoting environment might help mitigate norms towards sitting or even produce multiplicative positive effects in contexts where activity in the workplace is already customary. Conducting studies across varied geographical settings is necessary to identify similarities and differences in the impact of workplace norms and design on workers’ active and sedentary behaviours. Cross-cultural studies can shed light on the generalisability of findings and help develop customised interventions that address specific norms and cultural challenges. Future research can also employ mixed methods to gain a more thorough understanding of the complex interplay between workplace design, norms and culture, and employees’ behaviour. Additionally, the rise of home and hybrid working arrangements indicates that office social norms could extend to home work environments. For example, a culture of regular stretch breaks in the office might encourage similar practices at home, influencing physical activity behaviours remotely. Understanding the detailed relationship between workplace design, norms and employee behaviour is critical for developing targeted contextually relevant interventions that promote active workplace environments.

Precision in tracking workplace behaviours

Accurately measuring employees’ active and sitting behaviours and identifying the ‘locations’ where these behaviours occur is essential to understand their relationships with workplace design attributes. Global positioning systems (GPS) have been commonly used in combination with accelerometer devices to measure and spatially track people’s active and sedentary behaviour in outdoor environments, such as neighbourhoods and cities.6 Nevertheless, GPS signals have limited accuracy or can be disrupted within indoor environments, resulting in less precise location data.

An indoor positioning system (IPS) can address the limitations of GPS in indoor environments.7 IPS is a wayfinding technology that uses existing low-cost WiFi and Bluetooth to provide precise locations of individuals inside buildings. The IPS can be integrated with activity-tracking wearable devices, such as accelerometers, pedometers and heart rate monitors, as well as traditional methods like behavioural mapping. This integration allows for the collection of employees’ location data, movement patterns, activity intensities and other biometric data within workplaces. Additionally, the synergy between IPS and wearable devices effectively differentiates between occupational and leisure physical activities in workplaces. This distinction is key to better understanding the health paradox of the different health effects of these two types of physical activities.8 Furthermore, with the growth of artificial intelligence (AI), there has been a unique opportunity to employ geospatial AI (GeoAI) in workplace environments and health research. GeoAI techniques aim to integrate innovations in spatial sciences with AI, particularly deep learning.9 The joint application of IPS and GeoAI would enable precise location data of individuals within the workplace while using the power of spatial analysis. GeoAI can analyse workers’ movement patterns derived from IPS in combination with geospatial layers such as spatial layouts, access to common places, and light conditions. For instance, a GeoAI trained by tracking data on people’s movements in various indoor environments would predict people’s movements and derive estimates of the amount of sedentary behaviour of employed people only from planned indoor layout. This analysis allows for identifying hotspots or areas within the workplace where active and sedentary behaviour is prevalent.

Beyond individual design elements: exploring the influence of building layout on workplace behaviour

Most previous studies have primarily examined individual design elements but fail to consider how the overall spatial layout influences movement and behaviour. Building layout encompasses the spatial arrangement of building elements such as walls, doors, windows, and access ways, and plays a fundamental role in defining the functionality of interior spaces. Once a building layout has been established, making substantial alterations to it becomes challenging or, in some cases, impossible. Therefore, designing (and, if feasible, retrofitting) building interiors to promote health is imperative, but it is still unclear which workplace layouts are most supportive of workers’ active behaviours.

The urban design theory of space syntax has the potential to partially address this gap in knowledge. Space syntax uses a set of graph-based estimators to quantify spatial layouts.10 It offers a framework to investigate the impact of building layout factors, such as workstation arrangement, common area location, and space accessibility, on workers’ movement patterns and behaviours. It goes beyond isolated design elements and considers the spatial configuration as a whole (figure 1). Additionally, more research on ‘how’ people use and perceive their workspaces could complement the space syntax evaluations of building design.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Space syntax examines building layouts as a whole, using the graph theory: (A)a schematic workplace layout, (B)space syntax axial lines (i.e., longest and fewest lines traversing all spaces) of the layout, and (C)the connectivity of all spaces based on the graph theory.