sustainability

Article
Inclusive Design of Workspaces: Mixed Methods
Approach to Understanding Users
1, 2 2
Olivia Phoeby Narenthiran *, Jose Torero and Michael Woodrow

1
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London, London WC1H 0AY, UK
2
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London,
London WC1H 0AY, UK; j.torero@ucl.ac.uk (J.T.); m.woodrow@ucl.ac.uk (M.W.)
* Correspondence: phoeby.narenthiran.17@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract: Accessible design within the built environment has often focused on mobility conditions
and has recently widened to include mental health. Additionally, as one in seven are neurodivergent
(including conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia, and dyspraxia), this highlights a growing
need for designing for ‘non-visible’ conditions in addition to mobility. Emphasised by the growing
disability pay gap and the disability perception gap, people with disabilities are still facing discrim-
ination and physical barriers within the workplace. This research aimed to identify key ways of
reducing physical barriers faced by people with a disability and thus encourage more comfortable
and productive use of workspaces for all. Once the need for designing for a spectrum of users and
inclusive workspace design was understood, a survey was then circulated to students and staff at a
large university in the UK (working remotely from home), with the aim of understanding how people
have adapted their home spaces and what barriers they continue to face. Quantitative and qualitative
results were compared to the literature read with key issues emerging, such as separating work and
rest from spaces in bedrooms. The survey findings and literature were evaluated, extracting key
performance-based goals (e.g., productivity and focus within a study space) and prescriptive design
check ror features (e.g., lighting, furniture, and thermal comfort), whilst also considering the inclusivity of
updates
these features. The key conclusion establishes that, to achieve maximum benefit, it is important to
Citation: Narenthiran, O.P.; Torero,
work with the users to understand specific needs and identify creative and inclusive solutions.
J.; Woodrow, M. Inclusive Design of
Workspaces: Mixed Methods
Keywords: inclusive design; wellbeing; workspaces; accessibility; neurodiversity; disability;
Approach to Understanding Users.
social sustainability; interior design; environmental design
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3337.
https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14063337

Academic Editor: Wann-Ming Wey 1.Introduction

Received: 8 February 2022 To ensure the built environment contributes to an equal and inclusive society, we
Accepted: 9 March 2022 need to ensure our spaces are being designed to be accessible and inclusive. Until recently,
Published: 12 March 2022 the discussion regarding equality in the use of the built environment focused on physical
access [1,2] as this has improved, the discussion has only just widened to address mental
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
health and neurological conditions [3–5].
claims in published maps and ‘If you do not intentionally, deliberately and proactively include, you will unin-
institutional affil- iations. tentionally exclude’. Jean-Baptiste [6].
Including understanding the user, it should be noted that there is a strong relationship
between inclusive design and sustainability [7,8]. As mentioned, successful integration
of inclusive design within the design process contributes to the overall usability of the
Copyright: © 2022 by the space, thus improving the overall sustainability of infrastructure [1]. Similarly, by
authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel,
following the social model of disability, designers must aim to remove barriers
Switzerland. This article is an open
experienced by the user, hence shifting the responsibility onto the designer to actively
access article distributed under
design a better space. This responsibility shift is similarly seen in designing purely for
the terms and conditions of the
environmental sustainability: for example, designers actively implementing on-site
Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY) license (https://
renewables to reach net-zero. This
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063337 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2 of 30
3337

appears to be a ‘big-picture’ approach, vital to including and integrating sustainability and

inclusive design into the overall process.
While sustainability can be quantified in physical terms, and therefore tools developed
to support sustainable design, performance assessment of inclusive design requires the
involvement of the user [9–11]. Thus, the user should have a more prominent part in
specifying inclusive design features, and hence a more effective balance between the
opinions held by the designer and user would appear more effective. This is evident in
recent studies regarding the design of healthcare facilities [12], where user centeredness is
highlighted as one of the most important concepts to pursue, which was raised through
quantitative and qualitative results.
Disability Rights UK recommends that employers need to create cultures in which
people living with conditions feel more confident, and they should embed flexible working
practices and thorough mental health services within companies [13]. By creating more
comfortable and flexible work environments, we are, in turn, designing for the future, to
create socially and physically sustainable spaces, contributing to long-term usability
and economic viability [1] but also making the best use of the workforce.
This paper aims to add to this discussion, by analysing existing research on the design
of workspaces from an inclusive design perspective, focusing on non-mobility conditions.

2.Background
Workspace adaptations for people with disabilities have often focused on physical
adjustments for people with mobility-related conditions, such as implementing ramps
and lifts. A key issue highlighted in research regarding the implementation of
workspace adaptations is the dependence on goodwill and a dedicated senior leadership
team [14,15]. This implies stricter inclusive regulations to improve the overall baseline.
Within the last year, research has been published specifically identifying
workplace adjustments for people with autism [16,17]. While studying autism is a large
step in designing inclusively, we must also consider a spectrum of conditions aligned to
the term neurodivergence. Overall, improving the baseline in regulations and policy, by
considering neurodivergence, can help to improve inclusive design.

2.1. Inclusive Design Applied in the Built Environment

The Equality Act imposes duties to make reasonable adjustments and provide equality
of service; however, it does not say how the built environment should be altered. This is
provided through the Building Regulations and the Approved Documents; approval of
these regulations is mandatory for all new buildings, extensions, and material changes.
Figure 1 below shows a breakdown of key laws, standards, and organisations that further
feed into integrating inclusive design into the built environment within the UK.
Access and inclusive design professionals most commonly refer to Approved Docu-
ment M: Access to and use of buildings (ADM), often also referring to BS 8300-2:2018
that provides additional guidance.
These guides are useful in providing the minimum criteria for the design of
buildings and are largely developed via lived experience, e.g., the Grenfell Tower
disaster and fire safety [18]. These building regulations have been described as the
‘least acceptable solution’ [19] and seem to largely hold issues at their creation; as
Imrie states:
‘The regulation is based on a medical conception of disability that assumes
that the primary problem for disabled people, in gaining access to dwellings,
resides with their impairment’. —Imrie [20]
This describes a sense of blame on the person with the disability, an idea that Imrie
goes on to highlight as a widespread view amongst the industry.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3 of 30
3337

Figure 1. Overview of influential inclusive design organisations, guidance, and legislation.

It should be noted that designing for wellbeing is not prominent in the Approved
Documents; terms such as ‘well-being’ and ‘mental health’ were searched for
throughout ADM, finding no occurrences. Furthermore, terms used to represent some
non-visible disabilities, including ‘autism’ and ‘dyslexia’, also had no occurrences. This
highlights a clear lack of mandatory guidance surrounding non-visible conditions.

2.2. Disability and the Workspace

The need for accessible workspace design can be justified by considering demograph-
ics, and thus the users to design for and with. The Family Resources Survey (FRS) reported
that in 2019/20, 22% of people in the UK reported a disability, roughly equivalent to one
in five [21]. Mental health conditions rose from 25% to 29% of the total reported cases,
equating to approximately one in fifteen of the population. Designing without proactively
considering the broad range of disabilities is therefore not acceptable.
Furthermore, the breakdown per age group shown in Figure 2 highlights the distri-
bution of ‘visible and non-visible’ disabilities, i.e., mobility and mental health conditions,
respectively. It concludes that for working-age adults (16–64), 42% reported a mental
health condition, further emphasising the need to provide inclusive workspaces. The age
groups
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4 of 30
3337

also do not add up to 100%, implying respondents reported more than one condition,
reinforcing the need for intersectional and broad inclusive design.

Figure 2. Family Resources Survey, 2020, showing percentage of people with a disability per
age group and condition [21].

When considering workspaces, we should consider neurodiversity. This term refers to

the different ways our brains work and interpret information; most people are neurotypical,
which means their brain functions in the way society expects it to. About one in seven
people are neurodivergent [22], meaning that their brain functions, learns, and
processes information differently; this includes attention deficit disorders (ADD or
ADHD), autism, dyslexia, and dyspraxia. It should be noted that most forms of
neurodivergence are experienced along a spectrum; the associated characteristics vary
from person to person and can change over time [22]. Considering the limited research
on the way in which neurodivergent people operate in workspaces designed for
neurotypical people, it is essential to explore this further.
Additional to the physical environment, social attitudes regarding disability must
be considered to improve workspaces. The disability equality charity Scope published
a report in 2018 [23] highlighting the disability perception gap, which shows the public
continuing to stereotype and negatively view people with disabilities; it reported that one
in three people see disabled people as being less productive than non-disabled people [23].
Scope states that workplaces must tackle attitudes and misconceptions to encourage more
disabled people in work.
One way Scope proposes to tackle these attitudes is using the social model of disability,
which is part of their ‘Everyday Equality Strategy’, aiming to change attitudes towards
disabled people. Scope describes it as follows:
‘The model says that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their
impairment or difference. Barriers can be physical, like buildings not having
accessible toilets . . . removing these barriers creates equality and offers disabled
people more independence, choice and control’. —Scope [23]
This highlights the importance of removing barriers within daily life and thus reflects
the mentality that designers should embody when designing. Thus, a key principle of
design is to create spaces where such barriers are removed; this is how designers think
of ergonomic features or systems that aid the occupants (lifts, lighting, acoustics, etc.).
Therefore, while the principles of design are not being changed, most of these features need
to be reconsidered in a more inclusive way.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5 of 30
3337

2.3. Workspace Design Considerations

To identify the inclusivity of current workspace design, a consideration must first
be made regarding current trends in workplace and library design, identifying the
overlaps between obtaining optimum productivity and happiness, with a focus on
inclusivity.
The design of workplaces aims to improve work performance both in quantity and
quality [24]. Open-plan working [25] and hot-desking have shown negative and non-
inclusive impacts: less pleasant co-operation and increased uncertainty and mistrust [26–
29].
Promisingly, serious considerations of different student learning styles have begun
to influence the interior design of libraries [30], creating comfortable, quiet, and safe
environments for self-regulated learning activities [31]. This is representative of the recent
considerations of designing quiet spaces in building design, which aim to tackle stress
and sensory overload. Sadia’s study exploring the design preferences of neurodivergent
populations for quiet spaces [17] found that there are contradictory user needs; this aligns
with the College of Estate Management (2010):
‘For example, dropped kerbs, essential for wheelchair users, can confuse visually
impaired people unless tactile surfaces or audio signals are incorporated’. —CEM
[1]
Sadia’s report is driven by the mentality of designing with a specific end user (people
with autism), whereas the CEM speaks to the broader picture (with examples such as the
one above).
When considering the goal of inclusion and effective work performance, individuality
must be noted; every person works and studies at different speeds. Understanding how we
work could reinforce inclusion in the workspace: for example, understanding the
human need for concentration and the physical and mental conditions required for
knowledge management and absorption [32–35]. An important physical takeaway from
this research is the importance of ‘zoning’ and its relevance to individual workspace
and play [36].
One way of developing our understanding of people and space is through working
with people with a disability. For example, a phenomenological inquiry into how people
with a visual impairment use their space highlighted key details that may not have been
reached by someone without this condition [37]. Familiarity of a space is also a need
for many people with dementia [38], hence the transferability of inclusive design. It
is important to understand and recognise that achieving optimum inclusion and work
performance is achieved through individuality and adaptability.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many bedrooms and living rooms have been adapted
to be home offices and study spaces. From a business perspective, home-based ‘telework-
ing’ (remote working using technology) has become an urgent solution with minimal
cost [39]. Many offices and universities are beginning to propose flexibility [40,41] in work
environments; over 87% of people stated their desire to work from home for at least part of
the working week [42]. Furthermore, from a spatial design perspective, the post-pandemic
office and home space may adapt, with the increased demand for more garden spaces and
internal partitions [43].
Looking forward at the ways in which inclusive design and accessibility are
changing in the digital world provides an interesting exploration into the mentality of
the design process. This will update the design process to actively promote inclusive
design and reframe how disabilities are displayed.

2.4. Designing for a Spectrum of Needs

The concept of the ‘persona spectrum’ is commonly used in digital design and
could lead to a positive impact that aligns with the design of physical spaces. In
summary, the persona spectrum is a mentality and method of considering a range of
users to inform solutions. Microsoft’s Inclusive Design Toolkit [44] reinforces the idea
that ‘points of exclusion’ (i.e., where users may find difficulty in using a product) help
designers to generate new ideas and design inclusively, mentioning that:
‘Designing with constraints in mind is simply designing well’. Shum et al.
[44].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6 of 30
3337

This focuses on mapping human abilities on a spectrum to inform solutions that

inevitably benefit everyone, as shown in Figure 3 [44].

Figure 3. Persona spectrum—Microsoft’s Inclusive Design Toolkit [44].

This focus on studying user interaction is replicated in community consultations that

take place in the design of physical spaces [45,46]. The aspect that seems to demand im-
provement in consultations is this understanding that studying the strategies and solutions
developed by people with disabilities can stimulate the design process and is vital in
promoting innovative and effective spaces [1]; conclusively, what we design is a result of
how we design [44].

3.Methodology
3.1. Overview and Goals
The aim of this study is to better understand our demands of our work/study spaces,
and how we can independently adapt them. Given the prolonged period people are
spending within their remote working spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic, this provides
an abundance of information regarding how we independently adapt our spaces. This
method is similar to a study carried out in 2018 titled ‘How do you work? Understanding
user needs for responsive study space design’ [47]. The researchers sent out a survey
with a mix of open-ended and multiple choice questions, to aid the design of a library.
However, the analysis was largely quantitative, reaching the conclusion that their library
could be anywhere, although this was contradictory to the greater separation/zoning effect
presented by a library.
In this study, a mix of qualitative and quantitative survey questions was sent to
various members of staff and students at a large university in the UK, to allow for
further understanding of attitudes and drivers. From this, a sequence of coding was
carried out, i.e., the process in which words and/or themes are taken from the
qualitative data and used as ‘codes’ or labels to categorise and organise data, using
Microsoft Excel and Word. Themes and quotes were extracted, which were then
analysed and compared with the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7 of 30
3337

literature. Conclusions were then presented as prescriptive and performance design factors,
to aid the design of inclusive workspaces.

3.2. Method of Data Collection

3.2.1. Survey Overview
The full survey, created in Google Forms, can be seen in Appendix A, and the
survey received institutional ethics approval. A summary of the survey can be seen
below in Table 1.

Table 1. Survey overview.

Category/Key Theme Description

Spatial Context and Context regarding location, what draws the user to this space.
Overall Use For example, Which space do you mostly work/study in?
Regarding specific changes within their space, whether barriers
Spatial Changes and exist that they cannot change.
Individual Use For example, Have you changed any below? Are they any specific
barriers you continue to experience?
Identifying what contributes the most to the wellbeing of the users.
Wellbeing For example, What contributes the most to your wellbeing within
your space?
Extending on the barrier question, identifying whether the user can
Flexibility/Adaptability change their space.
For example, Would you describe your space as flexible/adaptable?
Finding out limitations experienced by the user, e.g., being in
Control student accommodation.
For example, How much control do you have over adapting your
space by yourself?
Conclusive questions and any final comments.
Miscellaneous
For example, What works well in your work/study space and why?
Could be relevant to previous control and adaptability questions.
Demographics For example, Which age range are you in? Do you have any of the
conditions below?

As mentioned in the overview, the main goal was to increase the understanding of
users. A mixed methods approach was taken, with both quantitative and qualitative results.
This is due to the likelihood that many parts of the results will contradict themselves
[48], and thus having the original thoughts and text aids the quantitative results.
Two samples were collected; both consist of people either working or studying mostly
remotely (as opposed to on campus) as per UK government guidelines.
Sample A consisted of 60 students and staff within the same department (approxi-
mately 88% student). Although the abundance of data may risk generalising experiences,
by limiting the attention each respondent receives [49], this can be mitigated through ex-
tracting key quotes and optimising the analysis time [50,51]. The nonhomogeneous nature
of staff and students grouped together should provide overarching design considerations
within the two remote settings; they also represent the ‘working-age adult’ as identified in
the FRS survey described above. Discrepancies may occur from the differences between
‘working’ and ‘studying’, potentially related to work schedules and resources; however,
they will be assumed to be minimal for this study. Sample A’s relevance to the main
goal applies to understanding users and their work/study setting; this sample provides a
representation of the general population.
Sample B consisted of 15 members of staff at UCL, who are part of the Neurodivergent
Staff Network (the members of the network identify as autistic or dyslexic or have Tourette
syndrome or ADHD) and Enable@UCL (a staff network open to any disabled person
working at UCL as well as non-disabled persons with an interest in promoting disability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8 of 30
3337

equality at UCL). Choosing a variety of networks allows a larger scope for identifying
conflicts between disabilities and user needs; there is also a noticeable gap surrounding
research of neurodivergence and the built environment. Due to data protection and the lack
of student-run neurodivergent groups, students were not included in this sample. Sample
B is representative of experts, with personal experience within this gap.
The survey was circulated via the course administrator and the individual network
contacts listed on the university page. The survey was sent via email once and closed
after three weeks, to reduce the risk of fatigue and prevent duplicates (although these
were removed in the first stage before assembling results). All responses were submitted
through Google Forms anonymously by each respondent.

3.2.2. Method Strengths

The mixed methods approach should prove effective at ensuring answers are thorough
and relevant to the question; the quantitative results (e.g., lighting impacting wellbeing the
most) will be compared to the qualitative results (e.g., how certain levels of lighting keep the
respondent feeling awake and alert), allowing more succinct user understanding. Similarly,
the method of cross-evaluating these responses with the literature should highlight key
factors going forward into the design of workspaces and understanding how we work. The
questions focus more on attitudes as opposed to physical design features as these are largely
covered within the literature. Although this makes it more difficult to find alignment in the
abundance of literature surrounding these features, it explores a relatively new angle to the
overall design of workspaces (focusing on performance as opposed to prescriptive goals).
The two samples also have a diverse set of expected activities: ranging from
working to studying to creative tasks. Although this increases complexity and potentially
decreases consistency in the research, it provides a more realistic outlook on
workspaces, and the reality of expecting changing tasks and demands [52], which has
been exacerbated by working remotely [53]. This additional information provided by
recognising the value in individual responses is new, due to the limited exposure to this
level and intensity of remote working.

3.2.3. Survey Questions

As mentioned, the full list of survey questions can be seen in Appendix A; a sum-
marised version is presented in Table 1 above. The survey questions were aligned to the
goals of the methodology.
When creating the survey, it was also important to consider survey response fatigue, a
sense of overwhelm due to a growing demand for responses, and survey taking fatigue,
which occurs during the survey and is a result of very long surveys with little application
from the respondent [54–56]. To avoid this, shorter survey questions and mixed methods
are suggested to reduce the open-ended questions and ensure the survey is doable in five
minutes. From an inclusive design perspective, it is also important to be mindful about the
questions being asked and the language used and provide reasons regarding demographic
questions [57].
Appendix A Table A1 shows a breakdown of the questions regarding the overall theme
(with a brief reasoning), question details, and question type. As the table shows, there are
more multiple choice questions (to avoid fatigue) and they are also used to break up the
open-ended questions. Multiple choice questions are also used to ease the respondent into
the survey to understand the overall scope without unconsciously impacting their response;
later in the survey, specific spatial features such as acoustics, furniture, and thermal comfort
are used to generate more ideas and space evaluation. The specific questions were inspired
by the survey carried out by Hedge et al., in their 2018 study of learning spaces [47], asking
participants about the best and worst elements of their spaces, what inspires and leads
them to use these spaces, and the attributes that would improve their experiences. Similarly,
the demographic questions were placed at the end as this is in line with the social model
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9 of 30
3337

of disability; this information is additional to the main understanding of their space as

opposed to being the focus.

3.3. Method of Analysis

As a mixed methods approach, two overarching methods of analysis were used, one for
the quantitative questions and one for the qualitative questions. The quantitative analysis
method encompasses the multiple choice and checkbox questions, and the qualitative
analysis method focuses on the open-ended questions. Microsoft Excel and Word were
used for the analysis, due to their capabilities in visualising, rearranging, and commenting
on the data.
The quantitative analysis method largely focuses on demographics and identifying
extremities regarding user preference, e.g., their age and highlighting what aspects of their
space contributes the most to their wellbeing. This method quantifies the responses, to
show whether there is correlation in what features respondents want most in their spaces
or the overall adaptability of their space; these are then graphically presented to see trends
(see Section 6, Results).
The qualitative method focuses on the open-ended questions; using ‘coding’, also
known as labelling the data, to identify key repeated themes [48]. Through labelling the
data, key mutual themes are identified that describe relationships between the survey
responses. There are multiple ways to do this: either quantifying repeated words across all
responses, or intuitively reading and extracting themes [48].
The first cycle of coding (i.e., the researcher’s first level of reading and analysing
the data) was to typically quantify the repetition of themes or words, although this may
have been more time-efficient for the larger sample; this risks limiting users to numbers as
opposed to specific experiences and thoughts. Thus, it was more beneficial, especially for
sample B, to keep the original content and search for alignment in addition to quantification;
this was carried out by counting and providing corresponding examples. This is known as
‘in vivo coding’, using the participant’s own language as the code [48]. The second cycle of
coding aimed to identify key conclusions and more critical evaluation, by reconsidering
new themes and alignment from the quantitative results. This was conducted by comparing
codes from the first cycle and condensing into smaller units such as themes and concepts,
focusing on questioning the results of the first cycle to aid explanations or patterns. The
data were also compared to the literature to identify whether there is clear alignment with
previous research and reinforce conclusions.
Furthermore, there will be significant overlaps and contradictions between data due
to the overlapping themes mentioned in the survey [58], hence the importance of the mixed
methods approach and considering the responses from both quantitative and qualitative
analyses [59]. The qualitative data are presented as explanations or patterns, whereas the
quantitative data are visually represented through graphs and figures; ultimately, when
analysis takes place and the methods are integrated, one takes slight priority over the
other (likely qualitative data for a more user-focused approach) [60]. The mixing of the
approaches occurs in the study design stage at the start, and during the interpretation of
the outcomes of the entire study during the discussion [60].

4.Results
The results present the demographics first, to further highlight the context of the
samples, before further design-related questions. The response rate for sample A was
30%, and for sample B, it was approximately 15%. Furthermore, the chart formatting
has additional labels and outlines, and different levels of bar darkness in the charts,
with clear section themes, for improved clarity. Discrepancies in total percentages are
due to a ±1% rounding error.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10 of 30
3337

4.1. Demographics
Firstly, a few details regarding the demographics for each of the samples are presented
(Figures 4 and 5); these reconfirm the original participant information and sample descrip-
tions. Sample A was predominately 18–24 (88%) with fewer conditions (82%), whereas
sample B was more varied across age, with a majority of neurodivergent respondents.
As sample A consisted of mostly 18–24-year-olds, based on the circulation of the
sample, they were assumed to be students in family homes (as many universities have
switched to remote learning) [61]; hence, 88% of the sample should be assumed to be
students.

Figure 4. Demographics (sample A).

Figure 5. Demographics (sample B).

4.2. Spatial Context and Overall Use

The survey then interrogated where the participant worked and if they worked at
home; they were then asked where in the home they worked. As shown in Figures 6
and 7, most respondents in sample A worked in a bedroom at home, whereas in sample B,
there was more diversity in where they would work; this is representative of the sample
type and circulation. The quantitative data are missing information regarding overall
room availability; however, participant responses to ‘why have you chosen this area?’
(Tables 2 and 3) should highlight personal availability. These responses were split into a
variety of themes (‘codes’ as described in Section 5), the most common being ‘convenience’
amongst sample A, and the ‘location of furniture’ for sample B. This begins to answer the
questions of availability raised earlier, and raises questions regarding design drivers within
workspaces, i.e., quiet space, natural light, and views. Furthermore, comparing the left and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11 of 30
3337

right graphs shows that regardless of available space (i.e., multiple rooms in a house), most
participants in sample A work/study in their room, representative of the assumed 88%
student response. Overall, the location is less the focus of this study than understanding
how the space, even if limited, is used.

Figure 6. Location of work/study amongst respondents (sample A).

Figure 7. Location of work/study amongst respondents (sample B).

Table 2. Why have you chosen this space? (Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

Only free space in the house
Convenience 14 The only big enough space in the house, don’t like being in a small room
It’s my only choice at the moment
Little other choice
Good natural lighting
Lighting 11 It has a desk and some natural light
Larger room, big window: natural light
Because of the view, natural light and privacy
Quietness and comfort
Sound 10
It’s the only quiet space that is not shared’
well ventilation and lighting with low noise
It has a large desk with a monitor to work at
Furniture 9
nice desk set up with extra monitor and mechanical keyboard
It has a desk and some natural light
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12 of 30
3337

Table 2. Cont.

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

most private space there is
Solitude 7 It’s the only room in the house where I can be alone (no other people/pets to
distract me). When I’m in London I work in my student accom bedroom as
well.
It’s a room not used by other people in the house
4 quiet and large space
Size of space larger room
it was a room not occupied by someone else. It also gives a lot of daylight and is
spacious enough to work in.

space for desk, well lit, I prefer to be around others not alone
Not being alone 2
Struggle to work alone so it’s nice to be in the kitchen where people come and go.
Also struggle to keep still so always moving between rooms

Table 3. Why have you chosen this space? (Sample B).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

it has a table to work at—nowhere else does
Furniture 6 it has my enlarged monitor (I have a visual impairment)
the living room is the only room in my flat with space to set up a desk
already has a desk in it
control over lighting
Lighting 4
natural light and no
distractions
it is at the top of the house, quiet with lots of natural light

Most of the participants did not vary where they work (Figures 8 and 9), i.e., they
remained in the same space for most of the day; again, this may link to limited
availability. In the ‘other’ category, a respondent mentioned occasionally working in the
library if available. Most also did not share this space with anyone, highlighting a desire
for privacy and solitude.

Figure 8. Further context regarding overall space (sample A).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13 of 30
3337

Figure 9. Further context regarding overall space (sample B).

4.3. Spatial Changes and Individual Use

Once easing the participant into contemplating their workspace, further questions
were asked regarding their overall use. The respondents were asked whether any changes
had been made over the past year (Figure 10); this identifies specific categories that
hold barriers to the use of their space. By asking this, we also begin to learn the
priorities of the user, identifying what they can physically change by themselves and
what matters the most to them to change. A total of 60% of respondents from sample A
selected furniture, with 87% from sample B.

Figure 10. Recent changes made by respondents.

In light of the previous question, respondents were then asked why they carried
out these changes (Tables 4 and 5). The most common driver from sample A was mood,
with the aim of becoming ‘more motivated and concentrated to study’ and improving
their overall work efficiency. For sample B, furniture, room decoration, and mood acted as
larger factors in why they carried out changes. From this and the previous results, we
begin to understand the user’s beliefs in what generates a positive work environment,
and how they have created this for themselves.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14 of 30
3337

Table 4. Regarding the previous question, why did you carry out these changes? (Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

more positive work environment
improve work efficiency and health
Mood 28 more motivated and concentrated to study
to make it feel more like home
furniture was added to accommodate ergonomic working conditions
Furniture 14 when I get bored I tend to rearrange my room
less seating because no guests

Lighting with online university, light was important for the camera
9 lighting because it used to make me sleepy

it was freezing
Thermal Comfort 7 a winter garden the room is not designed to sit still in all day during winter months,
so a heater has been added to make up for that

Table 5. Regarding the previous question, why did you carry out these changes? (Sample B).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

Laptop stand to relieve neck and shoulder pain
Furniture 3 I changed my chair as I was very uncomfortable
new office chair to help with back
Painted walls for a change in scenery and to brighten room up
Room Decoration 3
being able to see houseplants
to make the space more friendly and able to stay and work for longer periods
Mood 3
to handle better the ‘work in prison’ setting (12 m2)
Lighting 2 tend to only work with angle-poised lamp on next to me now, no overhead light
Thermal Comfort 2 Needed to buy a heater as it was freezing
Sound 2 noise-cancelling headphones to block out noisy neighbours either side

The respondents were also asked whether any barriers continue to exist within their
space (Tables 6 and 7). This question reiterates the social model of disability but also
blatantly requests areas of improvement from the participant. The most common response
for sample A was the separation aspect: ‘can’t seem to relax as my home is also where I
work’. Sample B reiterated the previous answer with a focus on furniture.

Table 6. Similarly, are there any specific barriers you continue to experience in your space?
(Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

distinction between work and relaxation
staying in a single space makes me feel a bit constrained
Mood 13 loneliness
can’t seem to relax as my home is also where I work
motivating yourself to do work in the same space you sleep
not a separate space where I can detach myself from others
not enough space for me to be organised as I would want to be (additional
cupboards, shelves, bigger bookcase)
Furniture
tiny desk
chair is not very comfortable
10
could use more desk space
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15 of 30
3337

Table 6. Cont.

Category/Key Count Examples

Theme still freezing
6
Thermal Comfort no heating get quite cold
systems so can
lack of complete quiet for studying (I live with other people)
Sound 5 noise anywhere in the house
sound clashes if me and my roommate are both in calls

Lighting direct sun in eyes in the

4 mornings too much daylight
at times

Table 7. Similarly, are there any specific barriers you continue to experience in your
space? (Sample B).

Count Examples
Chair is uncomfortable and no room for proper office chair
Furniture 3 desk height isn’t ideal either
limited desk space

Lighting There are also issues with the light from the window in my room at certain
3 times of the [day]

Thermal Comfort On the few cold days, we had there was the issue of heating coming off during
2 a short window
Sound 2 noise, at home I have the three kids, 2 dogs and 2 cats making noise.

Mood It’s my bedroom so I sleep and work in the same space—it has a negative effect
1 on my mental health

4.4. Wellbeing
The respondents were also asked about wellbeing within their space (Figures 11 and
12). Again, this aims to identify key personal drivers in improving wellbeing within
workspaces. Lighting appeared to be the most influential within sample A’s space; however,
for sample B, furniture prevailed, and lighting was one of the least influential. This
contradiction refers to the previous raised question of priority; many of the qualitative
responses from sample B focused on ergonomic work conditions as opposed to daylight.
Members of sample B were also asked which contributes the least, where room decoration
was the most common. The data lack a comparison of both samples regarding the barriers to
positive wellbeing due to the question only being offered to sample B. In ‘other’, both
samples made references to having a ‘fixed place to work’ and having family around.

Figure 11. Most impact on wellbeing (sample A).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16 of 30
3337

Figure 12. Most and least impact on wellbeing (sample B).

4.5. Flexibility/Adaptability
Respondents were then asked about the adaptability and flexibility of their spaces
(Figures 13 and 14). This was varied across all results; largely, both samples did not
describe their space as adaptable; however, sample A appeared to be more in favour of more
adaptability than sample B. This is contradictory, and Tables 8–11 aim to further analyse
this. The next question asked the respondent to expand on this, asking why they thought
their space was flexible/inflexible (Tables 8–11). This was largely related to the furniture
within this space, and the moveability amongst a fixed room size: ‘limited
configurations’, using furniture to ‘compartmentalise’, ‘restrictive space for moving
furniture’. Although these results do not reaffirm the previous question, they begin to
highlight innovative spatial considerations that improve flexibility (such as furniture
with wheels) as well as further determining barriers in achieving adaptability (such as
room size or furniture weight).

Figure 13. Adaptability within their space (sample A).

Figure 14. Adaptability within their space (sample B).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 17 of 30
3337

Table 8. If yes, what makes it flexible/adaptable? (Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

desk can be altered, moved
the fact that the room has a rectangular size and
23
Furniture not a squared one helps much more to make it
more flexible/adaptable
I can push my furniture to the corners
move the desk as it’s quite portable
three walls are openable glazing . . . for an
Mood 2 indoor/outdoor feeling
it’s personal so I can make more changes to it
Lighting 1 can add more lights

Table 9. If no, what makes it inflexible/unadaptable? (Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

heavy and large furniture
bed and desk and shelves are all fixed
20
Furniture I can’t really move the desk around as there’s
limited space
limit configurations of furniture in the space
desk must stay close to the window in order to
Lighting 2
get enough daylight
Mood 1 simple/minimalist design

Table 10. If yes, what makes it flexible/adaptable? (Sample B).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

it is technically very open plan so I use furniture
to compartmentalise
Furniture 6 wheels and ability to move the table
sometimes I sit on the other side of my (centrally
located) table just for a change!

Table 11. If no, what makes it inflexible/unadaptable? (Sample B).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

the table and chair cannot realistically be moved
restrictive space for moving furniture around
and there’s quite a few pieces of furniture that
Furniture 8 would need to be moved including a double bed
had repetitive injury and eyesight problem
because there was not enough space for a
monitor, office chair, larger desk.
Lighting 1 Lights are not dimmable
Sound 1 No door to room so cannot shut out noise

4.6. Control
A limitation of the previous questions regarding adaptability is the assumption re-
garding personal control over space. The respondents were then asked about the levels
of control they had within their space (Figure 15). There appeared to be a consensus from
both samples, identifying lots of control over their spaces, hence confirming the
assumption.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 18 of 30
3337

Figure 15. Levels of control.

4.7. Miscellaneous
The last few overarching questions focus on what works well and overall
comments (Tables 12–15). Furniture was the most common answer from both
samples: ‘height adjustable chair’, ‘nice setup easy to connect to my laptop’, ‘dedicated
space for certain tasks’. At this point in the survey, we notice more repetition in
responses; although this is beneficial in strengthening key design drivers, it may also
be a sign of fatigue from respondents.

Table 12. What works well in your work/study space and why? (Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

Height adjustable chair makes things feel different when it’s not
Everything I need—bathroom, kitchen
Can work in different locations, desk, floor, bed etc. which is nicer than sitting
Furniture 40 in one spot all day
curtains to reduce distraction and lift up for relaxation
room divider is used around my desk
two tables between which I like to move around
lights at night are warm coloured creating a beautiful atmosphere
daylighting and privacy create a good study environment
control over the thermal and lighting conditions in my space because I don’t
Lighting 28 have to share the space with anyone else
lamps . . . since they were put in different places on purpose . . . windows are
double glazed and let a lot of light come in
lots of natural light for day and lots of lamps for night
clear boundaries with others in shared spaces and quiet time when I have it to
myself allows me to do work

Mood 10 fixed and personal workspace . . . having everything set up exactly how I
need/want it
works well since it is a personal space and less distractions
well-being: plants, bird sounds from outside, nature view from my window
good comfortable temperature
Thermal Comfort 10
once the heating is up it is a pleasant space to inhabit
own control over the thermal and lighting conditions
Sound 3 quiet enough to focus
Sustainability 2022, 14, 19 of 30
3337

Table 13. What works well in your work/study space and why? (Sample B).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

a nice setup easy to connect to my laptop
large desk space is vital. I also have another desk area for creative work so I
can split my brain! It is hard to break tasks down as a dyslexic so dedicated
Furniture 9 space for certain tasks is key for me. As is two large screens. I need the
desktop space for organisation.
Desk arrangement by window—enables taking visual rest breaks and
changing focus from screen to distance.
Having raised monitor screens
French doors to one side that allows natural light in
Lighting 4 lack of windows (it is a basement room) means daylight doesn’t create glare
I have natural light which helps my conditions
dark wall colour cuts down on glare in space
Room Decoration 2 plants nearby which bring me moments of joy
Having art and and inspiration
I can control the temperature
2
Thermal Comfort Being close to heater for the draught for
when it’s very cold which counteracts
the window at the same time.
My resilience and positivity and capacity not to focus on material
Mood circumstances. I have a lot of creative activities in the same space when I am
2 off. Being on my own rather than coping with the nuisance of colleagues
around me works definitely well.
Sound 1 I have the room to myself so I can control the noise levels

Table 14. Any other comments about your space? (Sample A).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

I do not find a need to adapt it since it has been well-designed and optimised
for this configuration (e.g., outlets and lights/light switches in correct places)
I find desk height makes quite a big difference on comfort as my desk is really

Furniture 3 quite low and so I’m always leaning forward and for hours at a time, so often
have an achy back from it.
developed RSI in hands, arms, elbows due to lots of computer works so had
the desk, mouse and keyboard adapted to reduce pain when working online
(which is always!)
would be improved with more natural daylight
online lectures.........Better when light is coming from the side or in front than
Lighting behind me.......quite a lot of glare on my computer screen
not too much sunlight, it’s very bothering specially when spending all this
3 time in it
having too much control has made me change things more often than
necessary to procrastinate from work
very cosy and positive to be at home compared with at uni
Mood 3

Table 15. Any other comments about your space? (Sample B).

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

I have recently made ergonomic changes like getting an external keyboard and
mouse so I can position my laptop screen more effectively and that has been helpful.
Biggest
Furniture 2 issue has been limited internet bandwidth available in my area and when my partner
and I both have meetings so one of us has to move to a different space.
I’ve been thinking about adapting the desk in my office to become a standing
height worktable
Sustainability 2022, 14, 20 of 30
3337

Table 15. Cont.

Category/Key Theme Count Examples

Other issue has been figuring out how to adjust lighting and computer screens to avoid
Lighting 1 triggering migraines—benefit of more flexibility but there is less lighting in general than
on campus spaces which makes it harder for me to work in the evenings
It’s not very nice working where you sleep
Mood 2 I didn’t choose to work here (i.e., only because of pandemic). I would prefer to be in my
office so that I can have more separation between my personal and professional life

The overall comments presented in Tables 14 and 15 provide a bit more clarity on the
rest of the responses, highlighting key features such as ‘desk height’ and the impact of
‘online lectures’ and ‘ergonomic changes’ in their remote working space.

5.Analysis and Discussion

5.1. Interior Design
5.1.1. Furniture
The relevance of furniture within inclusive design lies heavily in the study of er-
gonomics, i.e., the interaction of people and elements of a system [62]. For example, a good
ergonomic chair would have an adjustable seat and armrest that aids comfort and pro-
motes wellbeing [63–65]. These features are important when considering the intersection
of disabilities and designing for adaptability (adjustability and independence).
The responses from sample B heavily align with the literature findings; the most
frequent responses regarding recent changes were related to furniture and specifically the
repetition of ergonomic chairs and desks. This confirms Helander’s studies describing the
aid in comfort and wellbeing provided by adjustable seats and armrests [63]. Furthermore,
furniture appears to work the best in most respondents’ work/study spaces, with many
creative solutions such as ‘curtains to reduce distraction and lift up for relaxation’ and ‘two
tables between which I move around’.
Having an additional desk for a different purpose suggests a positive solution to
hot-desking, rather than creating limitless options, perhaps allowing employees the option
of switching occasionally. A respondent in sample B mentioned, ‘I also have another
desk area for creative work so I can split my brain! It is hard to break tasks down as a
dyslexic so dedicated space for certain tasks is key for me.’ In terms of neurodiversity,
research shows higher levels of creativity amongst neurodivergent individuals; creating
this separation along with dedicated quiet and private spaces encourages and supports
more comfortable working environments [66,67].
As the students in sample A appear to work on a variety of different activities that
require a lot of material and space, the repetition of desk size is prominent.
Furniture contributed the most to the self-reported wellbeing of sample B. It does
appear that although many positive responses were reported for the furniture within their
spaces, it was one of the most common barriers experienced, regarding the comments
‘limited desk space’, ‘desk height isn’t ideal’, and ‘not enough space for me to be
organised as I would want to be’.

5.1.2. Room Decoration

Calming images and artwork can influence wellbeing. A study in 2003 of
chemother- apy patients who were exposed to rotating art exhibitions showed
reductions of 20% in anxiety levels and 34% in depression [68]. It should be noted that
people could experience sensory overload depending on the colours and contrast used in
the artwork [69]; hence, involving users in these decisions is vital.
Overall, how their rooms were decorated contributed the least to both samples’ well-
being within their spaces (13% for sample A, and 7% for sample B, with 47% of sample B
also stating it contributes the least). Additionally, most of the responses directly related to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 21 of 30
3337

room decoration were from sample B. One respondent mentioned how they ‘painted walls
for a change in scenery and to brighten room up’; although a creative solution to this sense
of ‘captivity’, it could be a temporary solution requiring additional planning and mobility.
However, there are a few mentions of plants, largely from sample B: ‘the plant allows
me to feel a sense of freshness’, ‘being able to see houseplants while I’m working makes me
happy’, ‘having art and plants nearby which brings me moments of joy and inspiration’.
Overall, the impact of plants does appear positive, aligning with biophilic research [5,70,71];
however, the lack of specific questions regarding this may have potentially prevented the
respondents from delving into this ‘joy and inspiration’. Sadia’s study of quiet spaces as
mentioned earlier also shows preferences for nature-orientated quiet spaces for people with
autism [17], reiterating the calming impact of biophilic design.
Nevertheless, compared to the ergonomics of their furniture, the decoration of
their room did not appear to influence their overall positivity as much, although it did
appear most acknowledgeable by sample B (potentially relating to the higher levels of
creativity mentioned above).

5.1.3. Layout
As mentioned earlier, the familiarity of a space is vital for certain user needs. People
with dementia are known to benefit from a sense of familiarity [72,73]. This is similar for
those without dementia—a familiar environment filled with physical memories ‘promotes
a sense of coherence . . . supporting the continuation of self’ (73). This importance of
familiarity with physical memories (such as photos and memorabilia) reiterates the earlier
mentions of the value of personalisation in a space.
There were frequent mentions across both samples of the lack of separation from
work and rest; this confirms the influence of ‘zoning’ and its importance in achieving
concentration and knowledge absorption [31,32]. It was the most frequent response to
barriers experienced within the respondents’ workspaces, regarding the lack of ‘distinction
between work and relaxation’ or the difficulty in ‘motivating yourself to do work in the
same space you sleep’, and this creating ‘a negative effect on my mental health’.
There appeared to be a few creative solutions such as the curtain idea, in the sense
of optimising all corners of a space to create a different environment: ‘my height
adjustable chair makes things feel different’, ‘the room is divided up into different
sections through furniture allowing one part to be adapted easily into a workspace
whilst retaining its original purpose as well’. This use of furniture to stimulate different
environments is conflicting as this could impact wayfinding, preventing clear routes
through spaces and creating trip hazards which could increase stress when travelling
around. Colours or signage could be used to encourage separation [74]. However,
creating this semi-open boundary provides safety and increases concentration [75]; this
separation barrier demands creative solutions due to its shared response across both
samples.

5.2. Environmental Design

5.2.1. Lighting
Lighting contributed the most to the wellbeing of sample A. It was also one of the
most common drivers across both samples for choosing a space: ‘good natural lighting’,
‘natural light and no distractions’, ‘control over lighting’.
Replicating the typical daylight rhythms proves to be most effective in creating pro-
ductive environments by regulating the circadian rhythm [76]. The survey reported lots
of conflicting comments regarding daylight: ‘there are also issues with the light from the
window in my room at certain times of the [day]’, ‘less lighting in general than on
campus spaces which makes it harder for me to work in the evenings’. The second
comment is interesting because although it is good to prevent long work hours due to
the impact on wellbeing [75,77], it suggests their ‘flow’ period is much later in the day.
However, poten- tially more detail regarding work/study schedules would be required
to align daylighting and ‘flow’ periods.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 22 of 30
3337

Many mentioned conflicting opinions regarding workspace placement in relation

to windows: ‘glare into my eyes because it’s next to the window’, ‘direct sun in eyes in
the mornings’. One respondent suggested a holistic solution to glare by using a ‘dark
wall colour [to cut] down on glare in the space’; this could also provide a clear visual
contrast between lighter furniture/flooring, supporting clearer wayfinding.
Lighting was also used to increase motivation and prevent tiredness: ‘daylight really
increases motivation at times’, and one respondent mentioned changing their lighting
‘because it used to make me sleepy’, and ‘daylight is very important to feel fresh and ready
to work’. However, a conflicting comment, ‘not too much sunlight [as] it’s very bothering
especially when spending all this time in it’, refers back to the external lack of control and
prolonged exposure. Furthermore, this comment does contradict the literature that states
the positive impacts on wellbeing from bright light [78,79], highlighting the individuality
of workspace design, and lack of inclusion considerations in previous research.
Control over lighting was extremely important. Many respondents enjoyed having
‘control over lighting’ using ‘lamps... put in different places on purpose’: ‘lamps were
installed to make it usable after dark’, aligning with the literature stating improvements in
productivity from control over lighting [80,81]. Furthermore, one respondent
mentioned ‘the lights at night are warm coloured creating a beautiful atmosphere’.
Overall, lighting preferences and needs were related to individual factors, as opposed
to the separate samples (i.e., daylight, workspace placement, motivation, and control).

5.2.2. Thermal Comfort

The largest influence on thermal comfort across both samples was the increased levels
of control; when asked what works well within their workspace, one respondent
replied, ‘I can control the temperature’, similar to another stating, ‘I can control the
heating so that it doesn’t get too cold or warm which is useful as it keeps me awake and
alert’. This confirms Grigoriou’s suggestions that control produces positive impacts on
productivity; however, this may only work well in an individual setting. Within a larger
workplace, shared with others, this could cause conflict [76,81]. Furthermore, a study
carried out in 2013 showed that the majority of women working through menopausal
symptoms found hot flushes particularly difficult, which impacted their work
performance, as well as feeling a sense of discomfort when disclosing this to managers [82].
This provides evidence for improving independence and control within the workplace,
whilst also improving perceptions of conditions.
Furthermore, across both samples, thermal comfort proved a large contributor to
wellbeing: ‘once the heating is up it is a pleasant space to inhabit’. Overall, both samples
appeared homogenous in the impact of thermal comfort.

5.2.3. Acoustics
Quietness was prevalent through two respondents in sample B purchasing noise-
cancelling headphones, with one mentioning ‘to block out noisy neighbours either side’.
However, like thermal comfort and lighting, one respondent mentioned, ‘I have the room
to myself so I can control the noise levels’; this suggests limited background noise and
reiterates the demands of ‘solitude’. Although silence appears to prevail regarding acoustic
design, recent research into the idea of ‘sound masking’ poses a second option to ‘mask’ the
typical murmur of HVAC systems with calming sounds to also increase sound privacy [83].
This is confirmed by a study into the restorative quality of nature, by highlighting the im-
proved wellbeing of enjoying biophonic sounds [84]. However, this can be distracting and
confusing for people with a visual impairment or who rely on their hearing for wayfinding.
A respondent (from sample A) mentioned a barrier that ‘sound clashes if me and my
roommate are both in calls’, similar to respondents (across samples A and B) mentioning
family members at home. This is similarly representative of the ‘open-plan’ office and
could contribute to sensory overload. The idea of the semi-open cubicle to provide physical
boundaries could be a feature integrated with additional acoustic panels, preventing sound
Sustainability 2022, 14, 23 of 30
3337

clashing [85,86]. Overall, the impact of acoustic design across both samples emphasises the
improvements in workspace design as improvements for all.

5.3. Summary and Implications

The survey within this research encouraged the respondents to personally
consider their own workspace (due to the demand of remote working); the data from
the survey allowed more succinct and individual responses, understanding the user.
Overall, the aggregation of both qualitative and quantitative data did prove contradic-
tory but resulted in more indicative conclusions, such as the innovative solutions that arose
from respondents who had optimised their space across both samples. Many suggested
creative solutions to the issue of zoning, suggesting adding curtains to separate the space, or
using different desks for different activities. This reinforces the effective practice of learning
from the user, identifying what can be incorporated/removed from existing workspaces
to productively remove barriers, improve perceptions, and achieve comfortable
working conditions. This also enhances a balanced relationship between user and designer;
through mutual understanding and influence, a long-term, supportive, and comfortable
space can be created and improve the sustainability of the project.
Figure 16 below was created considering the responses and literature, in order to
identify the prescriptive and performance needs emerging from this research. Prescriptive
relates to key design features, many of which were provided by respondents to the
survey alongside the literature, and performance relates to the demands mentioned in the
survey and overall drivers for workspace design. This map can act as a guide to
reducing barriers and designing workspaces more inclusively, additional to a focus on
and dedication to understanding user needs.

5.4. Data Limitations and Bias

During the analysis of the data, it was important to identify potential areas of bias.
In the feedback question for the survey, one respondent mentioned that some of the
questions seemed similar; this is noticeable from the repetition of the ‘why’ questions.
This could lead to habituation bias, where respondents provide similar answers worded
in similar ways [87]. This effect was mitigated by shortening the survey to reduce
fatigue while making it stimulating enough to prevent the respondent from running out
of energy. Nevertheless, this bias can lead to repetition of some of the results—
providing further confirmation but an extended analysis time.
There appeared to be wording bias [88], where the wording of a question impacts how
a respondent replies. This is likely the case in the examples provided in this survey: e.g.,
mentioning the movement of furniture with respect to flexibility in the room did appear to
impact the responses (see Appendix A for the whole survey). Although the intention was to
provide clarity to the question, this appeared to sway the answers. One improvement could
be to provide images of typical ‘adaptable spaces’ and allow the respondent to be more
visually stimulated (to prevent fatigue) and less influenced by specific words. Some of the
questions were also broad; although this prevents survey fatigue, the responses are limited
by the restraint implied by the question. For example, having a more response-based
survey may be more effective, i.e., if the respondent states lighting as most impactful on
their wellbeing, asking more questions specifically related to this. This also suggests a focus
group approach; however, this would require more time from the participant.
An alternative method would be the multicriteria decision analysis approach (MCDA)
used by Mosca and Capologo in developing a universal design-based framework [10]. This
suggests research to be carried out in phases (involving a literature review and workshops
with users and experts) that consider social, physical, sensorial, and cognitive design
factors. This framework could be used and adapted to the design of workspaces, providing
key design factors that can be used by designers to provide applicable and descriptive
information [11].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 24 of 30
3337

Figure 16. Conclusion map.

Overall, the stress of the global pandemic swayed many of the responses. This restric-
tion is prominent amongst sample A, and there are many mentions of limited options:
‘no other space’, ‘only place I have’, ‘there’s nowhere else’. Similarly, one respondent
men- tioned that they would ‘prefer to work at their office . . . but this is not allowed’.
Regardless
Sustainability 2022, 14, 25 of 30
3337

of spatial barriers, the overall influential factor appears to be a lack of external control
of their space. This is reinforced by studies conducted throughout the pandemic
surrounding the mental health of students living at home [89,90], showing a strong
relationship between poor housing and depressive symptoms, reinstating the
importance of interdisciplinary design to achieve better spaces. Furthermore, the
following is another limitation of the data: the survey focused on a selection of design
features and users, inspired by the literature review; however, questions regarding
apartment size, views, and access to open space should also be included, to provide
further evidence for the design features [91].

6.Conclusions
Standards and guidance on the design of workspaces include methods to improve
productivity and overall comfort but contain limited information on inclusivity.
The social model of disability holds designers responsible for creating or removing
the barriers experienced by the user.
Quantitative data from the surveys confirm that lighting and furniture (specifically the
ergonomics of furniture) made the greatest contribution to the wellbeing of participants,
providing alignment with the literature.
The qualitative survey data present more specific personal needs in relation to
indi- vidual workspaces, such as the relationship between mobility disabilities and
ergonomics, and between neurodivergence and zoning/partitioning. The data also
suggest positive responses to room decorations and layout, related to creativity in
neurodiversity.
The mixed methods approach highlighted homogeneous responses between both sam-
ples and the data; design features such as thermal comfort and acoustics require improve-
ments that would benefit all: e.g., added thermal comfort control and acoustic panelling.
A major factor influencing workplace satisfaction across both samples was the control
over one’s environment. Participants used lamps and blinds to control lighting and adjusted
the heating to keep them awake and alert. This reinforces the effective method of learning
from the user, by identifying user needs and balancing prescriptive and performance factors
with thorough inclusion considerations.
The accessibility prominence of this research has been generalised by stopping short of
a specific deeper analysis of neurodiversity and disability user needs; this is also due to the
limited research surrounding neurodiversity. This lends itself to further research specific to
‘non-mobility’ conditions using focus groups and interviews. Similarly, a thorough case
study analysis of responsive workspace design alongside inclusive work environments
could be carried out, potentially using a more thorough multi-factor analysis. Furthermore,
this research highlights more drivers for workspace design, and thus further research
regarding specific design features and their individual impact on zoning or productivity, as
well as relevant studies corresponding to neurodivergence, would be beneficial for physical
implementation into workspaces.
Overall, the importance of interacting with users and understanding the drivers
behind workspace design can provide clear solutions that actively include all users.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, M.W. and O.P.N.; methodology, O.P.N.; formal

analysis, O.P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, O.P.N.; writing—review and editing, M.W.,
J.T., and O.P.N.; visualisation, O.P.N.; supervision, M.W. and J.T. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this
study due to the study considered low risk.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request
from the corresponding author.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 26 of 30
3337

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the
manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Overview of survey questions and types.

Theme Survey Question Question Type

In which space listed below does most
of your working/studying take place? Multiple choice
Do you vary where you work? Multiple choice
Spatial Context and Overall Use If you are at home, which space do
Multiple choice
(Context regarding location, what draws them you mostly work/study in?
to
this space) Is this space shared with others? Multiple choice
How long have you been
Multiple choice
working/studying in this space?
Why have you chosen this space? Open-ended question
Have you changed any of the below
within your work/study space over the Checkbox
Spatial Changes and Individual Use past year?
(Regarding specific changes within their space, Regarding the previous question, why
whether barriers exist that they cannot change) Open-ended question
did you carry out these changes?
Similarly, are there any specific barriers
Open-ended question
you continue to experience in your space?
Wellbeing Which contributes the most to your

(Identifying what brings them the most joy Multiple choice

wellbeing within your space?
and happiness)
Would you describe your space as
flexible/adaptable? i.e., can you adapt it Multiple choice
Flexibility/Adaptability to suit your needs?
(Extending on the barriers question, identifying If yes, what makes it flexible/adaptable? Open-ended question
whether they can change their space based on If no, what makes it
Open-ended question
their needs) inflexible/unadaptable?
Would you benefit from more
Multiple choice
adaptability in your space?
Control How much control do you have over

(Limitations include being in student Multiple choice

adapting your space by yourself?
accommodation, or mobility conditions)

Miscellaneous
(Conclusive questions, any final comments) What works well in your work/study
Open-ended question
space and why?
Any other comments about your space? Open-ended question
Demographics Do you have any of the below? (This is to

(Could be relevant to previous questions further understand any previous

Checkbox
regarding control and adaptability) preferences mentioned) (relating to
specific conditions)
Which age range are you in? Multiple choice
Feedback Any feedback on the survey? Open-ended question

References
1. CEM. Inclusive Access, Sustainability and the Built Environment; College of Estate Management: Reading, UK, 2010.
2. John Clarkson, P.; Coleman, R. History of inclusive design in the UK. Appl. Ergon. 2015, 46, 235–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Menezes, K.; de Oliveria Smith, P.; Woodworth, A.V. Programming for Health and Wellbeing in Architecture;
Menezes, K., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; Volume 37, ISBN 9780367758844.
4. Channon, B. Happy by Design; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 9781000726725.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 27 of 30
3337

5. IWBI. WELL Building Standard Version 1. Delos International Well Building Institute. 2014. Available online: https://resources.
wellcertified.com/tools/well-building-standard-v1/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
6. Jean-Baptiste, A. Making Inclusive Design a Priority. 2020. Available online: https://www.porchlightbooks.com/blog/
changethis/2020/making-inclusive-design-a-priority (accessed on 11 April 2021).
7. Greco, A. Social sustainability: From accessibility to inclusive design. EGE Rev. Expresión Gráfica Edif. 2020, 12, 18–27.
[CrossRef]
8. Afacan, Y.; Afacan, S.O. Rethinking social inclusivity: Design strategies for cities. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban. Des.
Plan. 2011, 164, 93–105. [CrossRef]
9. Heylighen, A. Sustainable and inclusive design: A matter of knowledge? Local Environ. 2008, 13, 531–540. [CrossRef]
10. Mosca, E.I.; Capolongo, S. Universal Design-Based Framework to Assess Usability and Inclusion of Buildings. Lect. Notes
Comput. Sci. (Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinform.) 2020, 12253, 316–331. [CrossRef]
11. Mosca, E.I.; Herssens, J.; Rebecchi, A.; Capolongo, S. Inspiring architects in the application of design for all: Knowledge transfer
methods and tools. J. Access. Des. All 2019, 9, 1–24. [CrossRef]
12. Brambilla, A.; Lindahl, G.; Dell’Ovo, M.; Capolongo, S. Validation of a multiple criteria tool for healthcare facilities quality
evaluation. Facilities 2021, 39, 434–447. [CrossRef]
13. Bertram, T.; Pascal, C. Summary of Key Findings; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
14. Bonaccio, S.; Connelly, C.E.; Gellatly, I.R.; Jetha, A.; Martin Ginis, K.A. The Participation of People with Disabilities in the
Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence. J. Bus. Psychol. 2019, 35, 135–
158. [CrossRef]
15. Chandola, T.; Rouxel, P. The role of workplace accommodations in explaining the disability employment gap in the UK. Soc. Sci.
Med. 2021, 285, 114313. [CrossRef]
16. Waisman-Nitzan, M.; Gal, E.; Schreuer, N. “It’s like a ramp for a person in a wheelchair”: Workplace accessibility for
employees with autism. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2021, 114, 103959. [CrossRef]
17. Sadia, T. Exploring the Design Preferences of Neurodivergent Populations for Quiet Spaces. EngrXiv 2020. [CrossRef]
18. Soane, A. Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety—A damning report. Struct. Eng. J. Inst. Struct. Eng.
2018,
96, 20–21.
19. Wylde, M.A. Building for a Lifetime: The Design and Construction of Fully Accessible Homes/Margaret Wylde,
Adrian Baron-Robbins, and Sam Clark; Clark, S., Baron-Robbins, A., Eds.; Taunton Press: Newtown, CT, USA, 1994; ISBN
1561580368.
20. Imrie, R. The role of the building regulations in achieving housing quality. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004, 31, 419–437.
[CrossRef]
21. DWP Family Resources Survey: Financial Year 2019 to 2020. Gov.Uk. 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/
government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-
2020#disability-1 (accessed on 26 January 2022).
22. Bewley, H.; George, A. Research Paper: Neurodiversity at Work; ACAS: London, UK, 2016.
23. Dixon, S.; Smith, C.; Touchet, A. The Disability Perception Gap, Scope. 2018. Available online:
https://www.scope.org.uk/ campaigns/disability-perception-gap/ (accessed on 7 February 2022).
24. Salvendy, G. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4th ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2012;
ISBN 9780470528389.
25. Littlefield, D. Good Office Design, 1st ed.; Riba Publishing: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 9781000705171.
26. Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A.; Helenius, R.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V. Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office
rooms and open-plan offices—Longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1423–1444. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
27. Id, K.S.; Pachilova, R. Differential perceptions of teamwork, focused work and perceived productivity as an effect of desk
characteristics within a workplace layout. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250058. [CrossRef]
28. Hirst, A. Settlers, vagrants and mutual indifference: Unintended consequences of hot-desking. J. Organ. Chang. Manag.
2011, 24,
767–788. [CrossRef]
29. Morrison, R.L.; Macky, K.A. The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 60, 103–
115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Staines, G.M. Universal Design: A Practical Guide to Creating and Re-Creating Interiors of Academic Libraries
for Teaching, Learning, and Research, 1st ed.; Chandos Information Professional Series; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2012; ISBN 9781843346333.
31. Li, L.H.; Wu, F.; Su, B. Impacts of Library Space on Learning Satisfaction—An Empirical Study of University Library Design in
Guangzhou, China. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2018, 44, 724–737. [CrossRef]
32. Bossaller, J.; Oprean, D.; Urban, A.; Riedel, N. A happy ambience: Incorporating ba and flow in library design. J. Acad.
Librariansh.
2020, 46, 102228. [CrossRef]
33. Nonaka, I.; Konno, N. The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1998, 40,
40–54. [CrossRef]
34. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education: The Collected Works of Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014.
35. Csikszentmihalyi, M. The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. Optim. Exp. 2012, 15–35. [CrossRef]
36. Roberts, A.C.; Yap, H.S.; Kwok, K.W.; Car, J.; Soh, C.K.; Christopoulos, G.I. The cubicle deconstructed: Simple visual enclosure
Sustainability 2022, 14, 28 of 30
3337
improves perseverance. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 60–73. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 29 of 30
3337

37. Rooney, C.; Hadjri, K.; Mcallister, K.; Rooney, M.; Faith, V.; Craig, C. Experiencing visual impairment in a lifetime home: An
interpretative phenomenological inquiry. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2018, 33, 45–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Mitchell, L. Designing Dementia-Friendly Outdoor Environments. Qual. Ageing Older Adults 2004, 7, 26–33. [CrossRef]
39. Belzunegui-Eraso, A.; Erro-Garcés, A. Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3662.
[CrossRef]
40. Gibaldi, C.; McCreedy, R.T.W. The Observed Effects of Mass Virtual Adoption on Job Performance, Work Satisfaction, and
Collaboration. In Work from Home: Multi-Level Perspectives on the New Normal; Emerald Publishing Limited:
Bingley, UK, 2021;
pp. 3–20.
41. OECD The future of remote work: Opportunities and policy options for Trentino. OECD Local Econ. Employ. Dev. Pap.
2021,
9–10, 25. [CrossRef]
42. Atlas CLoud. AtlasCloud Survey: Get Hybrid Working Done Introduction; Atlas Cloud: Newcastle, UK, 2020.
43. Megahed, N.A.; Ghoneim, E.M. Antivirus-built environment: Lessons learned from Covid-19 pandemic. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2020,
61, 102350. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Shum, A.; Holmes, K.; Woolery, K.; Price, M.; Kim, D.; Dvorkina, E.; Malekzadeh, S. Inclusive: A Microsoft Design Toolkit. M.
Price etc. Microsoft Des. 2016, 32, 32.
45. Raine, K.D.; Muhajarine, N.; Spence, J.C.; Neary, N.E.; Nykiforuk, C.I.J. Coming to consensus on policy to create supportive built
environments and community design. Can. J. Public Health 2012, 103, S5–S8. [CrossRef]
46. Kerr, J.; Rosenberg, D.; Frank, L. The Role of the Built Environment in Healthy Aging: Community Design, Physical Activity, and
Health among Older Adults. J. Plan. Lit. 2012, 27, 43–60. [CrossRef]
47. Hegde, A.L.; Boucher, T.M.; Lavelle, A.D. How do you work? Understanding user needs for responsive study space design.
Coll. Res. Libr. 2018, 79, 895–915. [CrossRef]
48. Ridder, H.G.; Miles, M.B.; Michael Huberman, A.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis. A methods Sourcebook, 4th
ed.; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 28.
49. DelI˙ce, A. The sampling issues in quantitative research. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2001, 10, 2001–2019.
50. Morgan, D.L. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach. In Integrating Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
51. Walliman, N. The nature of data. In Research Methods: The Basics; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2010; pp.
201–218, ISBN 9781118280249.
52. Mark, G. Multitasking in the Digital Age. Synth. Lect. Human-Cent. Inform. 2015, 8, 1–113. [CrossRef]
53. Xu, S.; Kee, K.; Mao, C. Multitasking and Work-Life Balance: Explicating Multitasking When Working from Home. J.
Broadcast. Electron. Media 2021, 65, 397–425. [CrossRef]
54. O’Reilly-Shah, V.N. Factors influencing healthcare provider respondent fatigue answering a globally administered in-app survey.
PeerJ 2017, 2017, e3785. [CrossRef]
55. Stiles, K. Survey Fatigue 101: Everything You Should Know Before Creating Your Next Online Survey. Available online:
https://www.surveycrest.com/blog/survey-fatigue-101/ (accessed on 9 April 2021).
56. Schein, J. Finding a cure for headaches. RDH 1990, 10, 12–13.
57. Matsumoto, A. 6 Tips for Creating More Inclusive Surveys | Zendesk. 2020. Available online: https://www.zendesk.co.uk/blog/
creating-more-inclusive-surveys/ (accessed on 9 April 2021).
58. Shorten, A.; Smith, J. Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. Evid. Based. Nurs. 2017, 20, 74–75.
[CrossRef]
59. Yousefi Nooraie, R.; Sale, J.E.M.; Marin, A.; Ross, L.E. Social Network Analysis: An Example of Fusion Between Quantitative
and Qualitative Methods. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2020, 14, 110–124. [CrossRef]
60. Ivankova, N.V.; Creswell, J.W.; Stick, S.L. Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice.
Field Methods 2006, 18, 3–20. [CrossRef]
61. Tinsley, B. Coronavirus and the Impact on Students in Higher Education in England: September to December 2020. Office National
Statistics. 2020; pp. 1–16. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/
articles/coronavirusandtheimpactonstudentsinhighereducationinenglandseptembertodecember2020/2020-12-21 (accessed on 7
February 2022).
62. CIEHF. What is Ergonomics; Charted Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors: London, UK, 2015.
63. Helander, M.G. Forget about ergonomics in chair design? Focus on aesthetics and comfort! Ergonomics 2003, 46, 1306–
1319. [CrossRef]
64. Shikdar, A.A.; Al-Kindi, M.A. Office Ergonomics: Deficiencies in Computer Workstation Design. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon.
2007, 13, 215–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Woo, E.H.C.; White, P.; Lai, C.W.K. Ergonomics standards and guidelines for computer workstation design and the impact on
users’ health—A review. Ergonomics 2016, 59, 464–475. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Universal Music UK. Creative Differences: A Handbook for Embracing Neurodiversity in the Creative Industries;
Universal Music UK:
London, UK, 2019.
67. Cassidy, M.K. Neurodiversity in the Workplace: Architecture for Autism. Master's Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
OH, USA, 2019.
68. Staricoff, R.; Clift, S. Arts and Music in Healthcare; Chelsea and Westminster Health Charity: London, UK, 2011.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 30 of 30
3337

69. Küller, R.; Ballal, S.; Laike, T.; Mikellides, B.; Tonello, G. The impact of light and colour on psychological mood: A cross-
cultural study of indoor work environments. Ergonomics 2006, 49, 1496–1507. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Interface Human Spaces: The Global Impact of Biophilic Design in the Workspace. 2015. Available online: https:
//greenplantsforgreenbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Human-Spaces-Report-Biophilic-Global_Impact_
Biophilic_Design.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2021).
71. Yin, J.; Zhu, S.; MacNaughton, P.; Allen, J.G.; Spengler, J.D. Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic
indoor environment. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 255–262. [CrossRef]
72. Rapaport, P.; Burton, A.; Leverton, M.; Herat-Gunaratne, R.; Beresford-Dent, J.; Lord, K.; Downs, M.; Boex, S.; Horsley, R.;
Giebel, C.; et al. “i just keep thinking that i don’t want to rely on people.” a qualitative study of how people living with
dementia achieve and maintain independence at home: Stakeholder perspectives. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 5. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
73. Han, A.; Radel, J.; McDowd, J.M.; Sabata, D. Perspectives of People with Dementia about Meaningful Activities. Am. J.
Alzheimers.
Dis. Demen. 2016, 31, 115–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Palmer, L.; Preez, M.; Raeburn, C. Colour & Wayfinding; Trust Housing Association: Edinburgh, UK, 2016; pp. 1–52.
75. Space10. Can We Design Our Way Into Better Mental Health? SPACE10: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019.
76. Grigoriou, E. Wellbeing in Interiors; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2019.
77. Pencavel, J.H. Diminishing Returns at Work: The Consequences of Long Working Hours; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2018; ISBN 9780190876166.
78. Partonen, T.; Lönnqvist, J. Bright light improves vitality and alleviates distress in healthy people. J. Affect. Disord. 2000, 57,
55–61. [CrossRef]
79. Mills, P.R.; Tomkins, S.C.; Schlangen, L.J.M. The effect of high correlated colour temperature office lighting on employee wellbeing
and work performance. J. Circadian Rhythm. 2007, 5, 2. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Kroner, W.M. An intelligent and responsive architecture. Autom. Constr. 1997, 6, 381–393. [CrossRef]
81. Spence, C. Senses of place: Architectural design for the multisensory mind. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2020, 5, 46.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Griffiths, A.; MacLennan, S.J.; Hassard, J. Menopause and work: An electronic survey of employees’ attitudes in the UK. Maturitas
2013, 76, 155–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Zhang, Y.; Ou, D.; Kang, S. The effects of masking sound and signal-to-noise ratio on work performance in Chinese open-plan
offices. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 172, 107657. [CrossRef]
84. Fisher, J.C.; Irvine, K.N.; Bicknell, J.E.; Hayes, W.M.; Fernandes, D.; Mistry, J.; Davies, Z.G. Perceived biodiversity, sound,
naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city.
Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 143095. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Pillay, D.; Vieira, B.L. Noise, screaming and shouting: Classroom acoustics and teachers’ perceptions of their voice in a developing
country. S. Afr. J. Child. Educ. 2020, 10. [CrossRef]
86. Mak, C.M.; Lui, Y.P. The effect of sound on office productivity. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2012, 33, 339–345.
[CrossRef]
87. Vaney, N.; Dixit, A.; Ghosh, T.; Gupta, R.; Bhatia, M. Habituation of event related potentials: A tool for assessment of cognition
in headache patients. Delhi Psychiatry J. 2008, 11, 1.
88. Kahle, L.R.; Malhotra, N.K. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th ed.; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA; New York,
NY, USA,
1994; Volume 31, ISBN 9780136094234.
89. Amerio, A.; Brambilla, A.; Morganti, A.; Aguglia, A.; Bianchi, D.; Santi, F.; Costantini, L.; Odone, A.; Costanza, A.; Signorelli, C.;
et al. Covid-19 lockdown: Housing built environment’s effects on mental health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2020, 17, 5973. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. Amerio, A.; Bertuccio, P.; Santi, F.; Bianchi, D.; Brambilla, A.; Morganti, A.; Odone, A.; Costanza, A.; Signorelli, C.; Aguglia, A.;
et al. Gender Differences in COVID-19 Lockdown Impact on Mental Health of Undergraduate Students. Front. Psychiatry
2022, 12, 2421. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Ulrich, R.S.; Berry, L.L.; Quan, X.; Parish, J.T. A conceptual framework for the domain of evidence-based design. HERD
Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2011, 4, 95–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]