ArticleScientific reports2025
Understanding the effects of timber rich workplaces on occupants perceived productivity and health: a pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Leveraging the inherent connection people have with nature through the implementation of biophilic design principles is not new. Research has documented how the incorporation of natural finishings (including timber), daylight and greenery can boost workers' creativity, productivity whilst curbing stress. Despite the body of work, a recent meta-analysis of 49 studies shows that there is a prevalence of (i) confounding factors, (ii) university students as the primary demography and (iii) limited use of quantitative methods to analyse data. This study contributes to this knowledge gap by exploring the effect of timber-rich workplaces on occupant perceived productivity and health. By concentrating on timber, a material of great prevalence within Australian workplaces, this study illustrates the feasibility quantitative methods when investigating the biophilic design effects on people whilst testing a mixed-method blueprint for experiments to be conducted in workplaces. To do this a novel mixed-method pilot study of quantitative survey and biomarkers (i.e. hair cortisol) was deployed in a real-world field experiment setting that included (n = 23) office worker participants working in and then moving from a concrete office space to a timber-rich office space. Results indicate that, following the move, participants reported higher comfort, well-being, and productivity. Analysis of our cortisol data showed lower average stress levels after moving to the timber rich setting (before Mean = 317.200 pg/mg or log(5.33) and three months after Mean = 286.421 pg/mg or log(5.23). That is, office workers had lower cortisol (i.e. lower stress levels) after moving from the concrete office space into the timber office space. Our study provides preliminary quantitative evidence that timber-rich environments provide a viable means to positively influence occupant wellbeing, comfort and productivity. That said, based on the studies small sample size and other limitations the authors caution generalizability of key findings relating to any observable changes. Rather, as the prevalence of timber rich workplaces increases in construction, this study should be seen as a first of its kind pilot study and opportunity for future research into office worker wellness and productivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.