Department of Architecture Architectural Design Programme ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL HEALTH-PROMOTING DESIGN OF SHARED WORK ENVIRONMENTS: A SALUTOGENIC APPROACH FOR COWORKING SPACES IN POST-COVID ERA Ph.D. THESIS Ebru BAYKAL ULUÖZ MAY 2025 Department of Architecture Architectural Design Programme ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL HEALTH-PROMOTING DESIGN OF SHARED WORK ENVIRONMENTS: A SALUTOGENIC APPROACH FOR COWORKING SPACES IN POST-COVID ERA Ph.D. THESIS Ebru BAYKAL ULUÖZ (502992039) Thesis Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Göksenin İNALHAN MAY 2025 Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı Mimari Tasarım Programı ISTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ  LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM ENSTİTÜSÜ ORTAK ÇALIŞMA ALANLARININ SAĞLIĞI GELIŞTIREN TASARIMI: COVID SONRASI DÖNEMDE ORTAK ÇALIŞMA ALANLARINA SALUTOJENİK BİR YAKLAŞIM DOKTORA TEZİ Ebru BAYKAL ULUÖZ (502992039) Tez Danışmanı: Doç. Dr. Göksenin İNALHAN MAYIS 2025 . v Ebru BAYKAL ULUÖZ, a Ph.D. student of İTU Graduate School student ID 502992039 successfully defended the thesis/dissertation entitled “HEALTH- PROMOTING DESIGN OF SHARED WORK ENVIRONMENTS: A SALUTOGENIC APPROACH FOR COWORKING SPACES IN POST-COVID ERA”, which she prepared after fulfilling the requirements specified in the associated legislations, before the jury whose signatures are below. Thesis Advisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Göksenin İNALHAN .............................. İstanbul Technical University Jury Members : Prof. Dr. Sinan Mert ŞENER .............................. Istanbul Technical University Prof. Dr. Rana KUTLU ............................... Istanbul Kültür University Date of Submission : 20 March 2025 Date of Defense : 27 May 2025 Prof. Dr. Banu GARİP .............................. Istanbul Technical University Prof. Dr. Aslı SUNGUR .............................. Yıldız Technical University vi vii To my father, viii ix FOREWORD I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Göksenin İNALHAN, for their invaluable guidance, continuous support, and patience throughout my PhD journey. Her expertise, encouragement, and insightful feedback have been instrumental in shaping this thesis and my growth as a researcher. She challenged me and comforted me when I needed it. I am also thankful to my committee members, Dr. Rana KUTLU and Dr. Sinan Mert ŞENER, for their constructive comments, thought-provoking discussions, and unwavering support during the various stages of this research. I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues and peers, who also became my friends along this journey, especially Denisse BELLINI, for their intellectual contributions, stimulating discussions, and creating a collaborative and supportive environment. To my family and friends, thank you for your unconditional love, encouragement, and understanding throughout this journey. Your presence has been a constant source of strength and motivation. Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my partner, Selim, for his unwavering support and patience and for being my rock during the challenging times. I am forever grateful for always believing in me. May 2025 Ebru BAYKAL ULUÖZ (Architect, MSc) x xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... xi ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xvii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xix SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. xxi ÖZET ....................................................................................................................... xxv 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Background ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Scope of the Thesis ............................................................................................ 4 1.4 Research Objectives and Questions ................................................................... 5 1.5 Method of the Thesis .......................................................................................... 8 1.6 Significance and Contributions of the Thesis .................................................... 9 1.7 Organization of the Thesis ............................................................................... 10 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 15 2.1 Work Environments and Health ....................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Historical perspectives on workplace health ............................................. 15 2.1.2 The impact of work environments on health............................................. 16 2.1.3 Salutogenic design and workplace well-Being ......................................... 16 2.1.4 Productivity, job Satisfaction, and health-supportive workplaces ............ 17 2.2 Design of Working Environments ................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Evolution of workplace design ................................................................. 17 2.2.2 Spatial attributes and health outcomes ...................................................... 18 2.2.3 Design challenges in shared workspaces .................................................. 18 2.3 Changes in Work Environments ...................................................................... 18 2.3.1 Definitions: Workplace vs. workspace ..................................................... 19 2.3.2 Historical shifts in work environments ..................................................... 19 2.3.3 Remote and hybrid work models .............................................................. 20 2.3.4 Coworking spaces and salutogenesis ........................................................ 20 2.4 Fundamentals of a Healthy Work Environment............................................... 24 2.4.1 Physical health and sensory comfort ......................................................... 24 2.4.2 Mental well-Being and restoration ............................................................ 25 2.4.3 Social health and workplace interaction ................................................... 25 2.4.4 Job satisfaction and well-Being ................................................................ 26 2.5 Healthy Building Certifications ....................................................................... 26 2.5.1 Overview of WELL and Fitwel certification systems............................... 27 2.5.2 Key differences between WELL and Fitwel ............................................. 27 2.5.3 Future directions in workplace design ...................................................... 29 2.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................ 30 xii 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 33 3.1 The Salutogenic Approach as an Epistemological and Theoretical Baseline .................................................................................................................. 34 3.2 Supportive Design Theories ............................................................................. 35 3.2.1 Supportive Design Theory ........................................................................ 35 3.2.2 Psychosocially Supportive Design (PSD) ................................................. 35 3.3 The Environmental Demands–Resources (ED-R) Model ................................ 36 3.4 Towards a Health-Promoting Shared Workspace ............................................ 36 3.5 Proposed Model of Analysis for Shared Work Environments ......................... 38 3.5.1 Scoping review findings and conceptual categories ................................. 39 3.5.2 Model of analysis and Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) ....................... 39 3.5.3 Key Components of the proposed model .................................................. 40 3.6 Spatial Categories and Attributes for Supportive and Healthy Workspaces …………………………………………………………………………….41 3.7 Practical Design Implications: Translating Salutogenic Principles into Shared Workspaces ............................................................................................................ 44 3.8 Discussion: Design Evaluation and the Margin of Environmental Resources. 45 3.8.1 POE as a tool for salutogenic workspace design....................................... 46 3.8.2 The margin of environmental resources .................................................... 47 3.8.3 A revised Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) toolkit ............................... 47 3.9 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 48 4. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND DESIGN ...................................... 51 4.1 Epistemological Framework: A Relational and Pragmatic Approach ............. 52 4.1.1 Why Epistemology matters in spatial research ......................................... 53 4.1.2 Relational Pragmatism and New Materialism as guiding frameworks ..... 53 4.1.3 Bridging theory and methodology............................................................. 54 4.2 Research Design and Justification.................................................................... 56 4.2.1 Research design type ................................................................................. 56 4.2.2 Case study selection: Shared workspaces ................................................. 57 4.2.3 Research scope and boundaries ................................................................. 58 4.3 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................. 60 4.3.1 Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as the primary method....................... 60 4.3.2 Other data collection techniques ............................................................... 62 Physical Measurements of Environmental Quality ............................................ 63 4.3.3 Mapping data collection methods for research questions ......................... 63 4.4 Existing Design Assessment Tools: Review and Gaps .................................... 64 4.4.1 Review of existing POE and workplace evaluation tools ......................... 64 4.4.2 Limitations of current methods in evaluating shared workspaces ............ 65 4.4.3 The need for a new POE model for coworking spaces ............................. 66 4.5 Proposed Model of Analysis for Shared Work Environments: Application in Methodology .......................................................................................................... 67 4.5.1 Conceptual foundation and its operationalization ..................................... 68 4.5.2 From theory to evidence: Practical application in methodology ............... 68 4.5.3 Justification for the methodological approach .......................................... 69 4.6 Implementation Strategy: Applying the Model to POE in Shared Workspaces …………………………………………………………………………….70 4.6.1 Operationalizing the five conceptual categories ....................................... 70 4.6.2 Pilot study and validation strategy ............................................................ 72 4.7 Data Analysis Approach................................................................................... 73 4.7.1 Qualitative analysis ................................................................................... 73 xiii 4.7.2 Quantitative analysis ................................................................................. 74 4.7.3 Triangulation strategy: Validating findings .............................................. 76 4.8 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................... 76 4.8.1 Informed consent and data privacy ........................................................... 77 4.8.2 Ethical considerations in POE and workplace research ............................ 77 4.8.3 Potential risks and mitigation strategies .................................................... 78 4.9 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................ 79 5. INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY: CCS COWORKING, BARCELONA ... 83 5.1 Fieldwork Results and Analysis: ...................................................................... 83 5.1.1 Site description: CCS Branches ................................................................ 84 5.1.2 Data collected through structured observation .......................................... 93 5.1.3 Further evaluation according to Fitwel standards ................................... 116 5.1.4 Data collected through interviews ........................................................... 122 5.1.5 Results of data collected through questionnaires .................................... 128 5.2 Salutogenic Priorities for CCS Users ............................................................. 159 5.3 Results in Terms of Demands and Resources ................................................ 161 5.4 Salutogenic Health Outcomes in CCS Coworking ........................................ 165 5.5 Dimensions of Salutogenic Interventions ...................................................... 168 5.5.1 Disease prevention .................................................................................. 169 5.5.2 Physical activity ...................................................................................... 170 5.5.3 Need for privacy ...................................................................................... 171 5.5.4 Environmental control ............................................................................. 172 5.5.5 Stimulation features ................................................................................ 173 5.5.6 Indoor environmental quality (based on observable standards) .............. 174 5.5.7 Designing for accessibility and inclusivity ............................................. 175 5.5.8 Aesthetics, maintenance, and care .......................................................... 176 5.5.9 Fostering social interaction and communication..................................... 177 5.6 Awareness and Education .............................................................................. 178 5.7 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 180 6. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 181 6.1 Implications Derived from Major Findings ................................................... 181 6.2 Theoretical and Practical Contributions ......................................................... 182 6.2.1 Advancing Salutogenesis in spatial design ............................................. 182 6.2.2 Healthy Coworking environments as a business strategy ....................... 183 6.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ............................... 183 6.4 Final Remarks ................................................................................................ 184 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 187 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 195 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 196 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................... 197 APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................... 206 APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................... 208 APPENDIX E ...................................................................................................... 209 CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................ 243 xiv xv ABBREVIATIONS ADA : Americans with Disabilities Act AEDET : Achieving Excellence Design Evaluation Toolkit ANOVA : Analysis of Variance ART : Attention Restoration Theory BIU : Building in Use BOSSA : Building Occupancy Survey System Australia BREEAM : Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method BUS : Building Use Studies CBE : Center for Built Environment CDC : Center for Disease Control CfAD : Centre for Active Design EBD : Evidence Based Design ED-R Model : Environmental Demands and Resources model GBCI : Green Business Certification Inc. GRR : Generalized Resistance Resources HVAC : Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IAQ : Indoor Air Quality IEQ : Indoor Environmental Quality IWBI : International WELL Building Institute JD-R Model : Job Demands and Resources Model LEED : Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design NABERS : National Australian Built Environment Rating System PE-Fit : Person-Environment Fit POE : Post Occupancy Evaluation PRISMA : The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses PSD : Psychosocial Supportive Design SDG : Sustainable Development Goals SDT : Supportive Design Theory xvi SOC : Sense of Coherence SPSS : Statistical Package for Social Sciences SRT : Stress Reduction Theory STARS : Society for Theory and Research on Salutogenesis WHO : World Health Organization xvii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1.1: Objectives of the study and evidence collection methods ......................... 7 Table 2.1: Certification Systems Comparison .......................................................... 28 Table 3.1: Linking Theory to Design Strategies ....................................................... 43 Table 4.1: Criteria for case study justification .......................................................... 58 Table 4.2: Overview of the key methodological decisions ....................................... 59 Table 4.3: Types of Post Occupancy Evaluation-POE ............................................. 61 Table 4.4: Structure of the survey questionnaire....................................................... 62 Table 4.5: Environmental quality measurements (Tools and standards) .................. 63 Table 4.6: Data collection method for the specific research questions ..................... 63 Table 4.7: Comparison of Major POE and Workplace Evaluation Tools................. 65 Table 4.8: Proposed Model of Analysis’ application in Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) ......................................................................................................... 71 Table 4.9: Example of the qualitative coding structure ............................................ 74 Table 4.10: Statistical analysis of survey responses ................................................. 75 Table 4.11: Triangulation strategy ............................................................................ 76 Table 4.12: Potential risks and mitigation strategies ................................................ 78 Table 5.1: Summary of the general characteristics of the three CCS branches ........ 85 Table 5.2: IEQ measurements taken from Eixample Branch .................................. 111 Table 5.3: IEQ measurements taken from Gracia Branch ...................................... 113 Table 5.4: IEQ measurements taken from the Poble Sec Branch ........................... 113 Table 5.5: Summary of data gathered through observation sheet 1 ........................ 114 Table 5.6: A comparative summary of the onsite evaluation of Fitwel strategies .. 121 Table 5.7: Summary of the data gathered through interviews ................................ 126 Table 5.8: Descriptive Statistics of Categorical Variables ...................................... 129 Table 5.9: To what extent are the following coworking characteristics important to you? (S11) ............................................................................................. 133 Table 5.10: Please indicate, to what extent you experience the following in this coworking? (S12) .................................................................................. 132 Table 5.11: Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements based on your experience. (S13) ......................................... 133 Table 5.12: Can you rate the quality of the following characteristics of CCS branch you use? (S14) ...................................................................................... 133 Table 5.13: Can you rate the quality of the following characteristics of the CCS branch you use? (S15) ........................................................................... 134 Table 5.14: Do you think that the physical environment of the coworking/CCS has any effect on the below health states? (S16) ......................................... 135 Table 5.15: Do you think that the physical environment of the coworking/CCS has any effect on the below health states? (S17) ......................................... 135 xviii Table 5.16: Please rate the following space characteristics(in any work environment) according to their influence on making you feel more fit, motivated, and willing to work. (S20) ......................................................................... 136 Table 5.17: Overall, how satisfied are you with the physical coworking environment in which you work? (S22) ..................................................................... 137 Table 5.18: Survey - Summary of the descriptive analysis ..................................... 137 Table 5.19 Cronbach Alpha Values of Measurement Instruments .......................... 147 Table 5.20. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................ 149 Table 5.21. Correlation Analysis Results ................................................................ 151 Table 5.22. Predictors of Positive Psychological Health......................................... 154 Table 5.23. Predictors of Positive Physical Health ................................................. 155 Table 5.24. Predictors of Negative Psychological Health ....................................... 155 Table 5.25. Correlation Table .................................................................................. 156 Table 5.26. Predictors of Physical Health ............................................................... 157 Table 5.27. Predictors of Psychological Health ...................................................... 158 Table 5.28. Predictors of Overall Perceived Health ................................................ 158 Table 5.29: Overview of the main results ............................................................... 164 xix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Organization schema .............................................................................. 10 Figure 1.2: Research Structure .................................................................................. 13 Figure 3.1: PRISMA flowchart summarizing scope approach (Baykal Uluoz and Inalhan, 2024). ...................................................................................... 38 Figure 3.2: Salutogenic model of analysis ................................................................ 41 Figure 3.3: Inspiring Theories for the determination of supportive spatial categories and attributes ........................................................................................... 42 Figure 4.1: Methodological levels of this research thesis ......................................... 56 Figure 5.1: Location of the three branches of CCS: Eixample, Gracia, and Poble Sec in downtown Barcelona........................................................................... 85 Figure 5.2: Zoning plan of the Eixample branch ..................................................... 86 Figure 5.3: Communal workspaces, Eixample ......................................................... 87 Figure 5.4: The zoning plans of the Gracia branch ................................................... 89 Figure 5.5 : Communal workspace, Gracia............................................................... 90 Figure 5.6: The zoning plans of the Poble Sec branch.............................................. 91 Figure 5.7: Communal workspace (Garage I), Poble Sec ......................................... 92 Figure 5.8: Lounge area, Eixample ........................................................................... 95 Figure 5.9: The lounge area, Gracia .......................................................................... 97 Figure 5.10: Stairs, Gracia. ...................................................................................... 98 Figure 5.11: Bicycle parked on the corridor, Gracia................................................ 99 Figure 5.12: Flowerpot, Eixample .......................................................................... 100 Figure 5.13: Roof terrace in Gracia ........................................................................ 100 Figure 5.14: Few indoor plants in the communal work area – Poble Sec .............. 101 Figure 5.15: Decorative features, Gracia ................................................................ 102 Figure 5.16: Some flooring damage, Gracia ........................................................... 104 Figure 5.17 : Fire extinguisher, Gracia. .................................................................. 105 Figure 5.18: Lounge area on the corridor, Gracia ................................................... 106 Figure 5.19: Kitchen area, Gracia. .......................................................................... 107 Figure 5.20: Mini golf training area on Floor -1, Eixample ................................... 108 Figure 5.21: Kitchen area, Poble Sec ...................................................................... 109 Figure 5.22: Privacy booths, Eixample. .................................................................. 109 Figure 5.23: Meeting room, Poble Sec ................................................................... 110 Figure 5.24: Eixample branch IEQ measurements- locations................................. 111 Figure 5.27: Proximity to transit, Gracia Branch .................................................... 116 Figures 5.28: The walking and bicycling trail in front of the Eixample branch and seating ............................................................................................... 118 Figures 5.29: Placa d’en Joanic with greenery and table tennis near Gracia branch .................................................................................................................................. 119 Figure 5.30: Gracia branch- proximity to public garden ........................................ 120 Figure A.1: Comparisons of existing evaluation tools and checklists .................... 196 Figure B.1: Observation sheet-checklist ................................................................. 197 xx Figure B.2: Interview questions .............................................................................. 198 Figure B.3: Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................... 200 Figure C.1: Ethical committee approval ................................................................. 206 Figure D.1: (a)Air quality (b)Air quality- negative (c)Illumination level (d)Flicker test (e) Color temperature (f) Noise level ........................................... 208 Figure E.1: Practical Guidelines…………………………………………………..209 xxi HEALTH PROMOTING DESIGN OF SHARED WORK ENVIRONMENTS: A SALUTOGENIC APPROACH FOR COWORKING SPACES IN POST- COVID ERA SUMMARY This PhD thesis holds at its core the triad: space, design, and health; it examines how shared work environments can offer a healthier experience to their users through space design. In order to achieve this, the study uses a ‘salutogenic’ approach to analyze the relationship between users’ health and the shared work environment design. With a comprehensive approach, health-promoting shared work environments (coworking spaces in this case) should be able to incorporate elements and strategies that enable physical, mental, and social activity and promote positive health outcomes. After the outburst of the Covid-19 pandemic, the world started a painstaking process of adaptation that led to what is being called a new normal in which all kinds of human activities are changing vision and practice. Work conditions have experienced significant changes too; technology has allowed the expansion of hybrid work, remote work, and home offices. Some companies reorganized their headquarters as flexible workspaces, and many others started using coworking spaces. Even though the onset of the pandemic produced a sudden jolt, the use of shared and flexible workspaces grew due to the above-mentioned work-related changes. However, this new way of working posed the challenge of re-evaluating the design of these spaces because the pandemic demonstrated once more how the built environment has a direct impact on physical and psychological health. Shared work environments should be planned, thinking about how spatial design elements can be selected and combined in order to create a healthy environment and a beneficial work experience. After all, a healthy workplace should be understood as an environment in which managers and coworkers cooperate continuously to ameliorate workers’ health, safety, and wellbeing; hence, maintaining productivity and engagement. In this context, Salutogenesis, a discipline mostly applied in health sciences, and more recently in other fields, is an appropriate approach for the investigation of healthy work experiences in shared work environments, as it addresses wellness, focusing on health and not on disease (pathogenesis). Applying this idea to shared workspaces is expected to contribute to their design and evaluation, especially if the notion of environmental demands and resources is complemented. The design of shared workspaces should xxii support physiological and psychological health and contribute to specific positive health outcomes through the evaluation of spatial resources that lead to better health for the users. Even if this study departs from the theoretical contributions of the salutogenic approach, it goes beyond through a comprehensive revision of related theories such as Supportive Design Theory, Psychosocial Supportive Design, Environmental Psychology, and the Environmental Demands and Resources Model. It also discusses notions and principles of Motivational Psychology and Indoor Environmental Standards. On the methodological side, after doing a scoping literature review covering different aspects of prior workspace design, evidence-based design in healthcare facilities, and other concepts and practices; a proposed model of analysis is created to scrutinize the main spatial design attributes that influence and produce the most relevant positive health outcomes. This model defines the essential elements for a healthy work experience, especially in shared workspaces. This model is also meant to constitute a theoretical element that assists in the elaboration of methodological tools and is thought to support architects, designers, workspace owners, and stakeholders in their new designs or to evaluate existing ones. After defining a fan of health-promoting spatial categories and their attributes in coworking spaces, this research used a mixed-method convergent, qualitative, and quantitative, case study design to examine the workplace elements that impacted the perceived health of the users of three different branches of a coworking in Barcelona, Spain. A Post Occupancy Evaluation was chosen as the preferred method for fieldwork investigation with the use of different tools: structured onsite observation checklists, semi-structured interviews, and online questionnaires. Therefore, the influence of coworking space elements on occupants’ perceived health was explored through different techniques to inquire about the space, the users, and the management. Key informants were interviewed about the coworking space and their approach to occupant health. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret the interviews. The survey questionnaire was distributed to 250-300 coworking users in total, and respondents were invited to complete a 22-item survey to determine the impact and importance of workplace attributes on perceived health. The quantitative survey data were analyzed using SPSS and R software. The data collected and their interpretation were a process that departed from a descriptive presentation and went through a more explanatory analysis that allowed the systematization of the results in terms of supportive design, demands, resources (objectively and subjectively), the margin of resources, and health outcomes. They demonstrated that specific interior elements, such as environmental control features, access to daylight, or greenery, to name some, should be prioritized as well as features enabling physical activity to support health and to maximize positive health impacts on occupants. Additionally, interview and survey results compared with site observation revealed shortcomings in current practice, including the lack of awareness about health promotion among users and the management, which limits the potential positive impact of the physical environment. With all the previous elements in mind, an expanded exploration was done to summarize and precise specific areas of intervention in spatial design that should be of concern when dealing with coworking spaces. These interventions are an opportunity to perform actions that disrupt patterns that may damage people’s health xxiii or do not produce a significant positive change. The suggested interventions are thought to considerably improve coworking users’ health outcomes. One of them is the need for education in terms of health awareness, as well as the importance of integrated workplace policies such as green purchasing or indoor air quality monitoring, among others. Finally, it has been confirmed that there is a need for a standard approach to measuring occupant health in the work environment to generate data to ensure future evidence- based solutions. A proactive multi-disciplinary salutogenic approach incorporating both policy-based and physical elements to coworking space design will advance current practice by placing workers’ health and well-being at the center of decision- making. xxiv xxv ORTAK ÇALIŞMA ALANLARININ SAĞLIĞI GELİŞTİREN TASARIMI: COVID SONRASI DÖNEMDE ORTAK ÇALIŞMA ALANLARINA SALUTOJENİK BİR YAKLAŞIM ÖZET Bu doktora tezi, üç temel kavram etrafında şekilleniyor: mekân, tasarım ve sağlık. Çalışmada, paylaşımlı çalışma ortamlarının mekân tasarımı aracılığıyla kullanıcılarına nasıl daha sağlıklı bir deneyim sunabileceği ele alınıyor. Tez, bu ilişkiyi analiz ederken “Salutojenik” yaklaşımı benimsiyor. Bu yaklaşıma göre, sağlığı destekleyen ortak çalışma alanları; fiziksel, zihinsel ve sosyal aktiviteyi mümkün kılan, olumlu sağlık sonuçlarını teşvik eden unsurları ve stratejileri içermelidir. Covid-19 salgınıyla birlikte tüm dünyada insan faaliyetlerinin pratikleri değişti ve “yeni normal” olarak adlandırılan bir uyum süreci başladı. Çalışma koşullarında da önemli değişimler yaşandı; teknoloji sayesinde hibrit ve uzaktan çalışma modelleri yaygınlaştı, ev ofisleri arttı. Bazı şirketler genel merkezlerini esnek çalışma alanlarına dönüştürürken, birçoğu ortak çalışma alanlarını tercih etmeye başladı. Pandemi, yapılı çevrenin fiziksel ve psikolojik sağlık üzerindeki doğrudan etkisini bir kez daha gözler önüne serdi. Pandemi, başlangıçta ani bir şok etkisi yaratsa da bu dönüşümle birlikte ortak ve esnek çalışma alanlarının kullanımı arttı. Ancak bu yeni çalışma şekli, ortak çalışma alanlarının mekân tasarımının yeniden değerlendirilmesi gerekliliğini de beraberinde getirdi. Bu nedenle, ortak çalışma ortamları sağlıklı bir ortam ve verimli bir iş deneyimi sunmak için, sağlık odaklı mekânsal tasarım öğeleri dikkate alınarak planlanmalıdır. Sağlıklı bir işyeri, yönetici ve çalışanların sağlığını, güvenliğini ve esenliğini artıran, böylece üretkenliği ve katılımı sürdüren bir ortam olarak anlaşılmalıdır. Bu bağlamda, özellikle sağlık bilimlerinde ve son yıllarda diğer alanlarda da kullanılmaya başlanan “Salutogenesis” kavramı öne çıkıyor. Hastalığa değil, sağlığa odaklanan bu yaklaşım, ortak çalışma ortamlarında sağlıklı iş deneyimlerinin araştırılması için uygun bir çerçeve sunuyor. Çevresel talepler ve kaynaklar kavramlarıyla desteklenen bu fikir, ortamdaki çevresel talepleri azaltıp, kaynakları arttırma anlayışı ile mekân tasarımı ve değerlendirmesine önemli katkılar sağlıyor. Bu bağlamda, ortak çalışma alanlarının tasarımı, kullanıcıların fizyolojik ve psikolojik sağlığını desteklemeli ve belirli olumlu sağlık sonuçlarına katkıda bulunmalıdır. Bu çalışmada, çevresel ve motivasyonel psikoloji, iç mekân çevre kalitesi ve işyeri çalışmaları gibi farklı disiplinlerden yaklaşımlar değerlendirildi. Salutojenik yaklaşımın teorik katkılarından yola çıkarak, Destekleyici Tasarım Kuramı, Psikososyal Destekleyici Tasarım, Çevresel Talepler ve Kaynaklar ve Kaynakların Marjı modelleri gibi ilgili teorileri kapsamlı bir şekilde inceliyor. Metodolojik olarak, önce çalışma alanı tasarımı, sağlık tesislerinde kanıta dayalı tasarım ve diğer ilgili kavram ve uygulamalar üzerine kapsamlı bir literatür taraması xxvi yapıldı. Ardından, olumlu sağlık sonuçlarını en çok etkileyen temel mekânsal tasarım niteliklerini incelemek ve kullanım sonrası değerlendirme araşlarını geliştirmek üzere sağlığı etkileyen mekânsal özniteliklerin beş ana kategori altında toplandığı bir analiz modeli geliştirildi. Konfor, fonksiyonellik, uyarıcı unsurlar, sosyal destek ve güvenlik olarak belirlenen kategoriler ve bunların ilgili öznitelikleri için önceki çalışmaların içgörülerinden yararlanıldı (Maslow’un ihtiyaçlar hiyerarşisi ve Destekleyici tasarım teorileri gibi). Bu model, özellikle ortak çalışma alanlarında sağlıklı bir iş deneyimi için gerekli unsurları tanımlıyor ve metodolojik araçların geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayan teorik bir çerçeve sunuyor. Aynı zamanda, mimarlara, tasarımcılara, çalışma alanı sahiplerine ve paydaşlara yeni tasarımlar ya da mevcut tasarımların değerlendirilmesi konusunda destek olmayı amaçlıyor. Analiz modeline bağlı olarak geliştirilen “Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme” araçları ile, Barselona’da bulunan ortak çalışma alanının üç farklı şubesinde, kullanıcıların algılanan sağlığını etkileyen işyeri unsurları incelendi. Bu değerlendirmede karma yöntemli bir araştırma tasarımı benimsendi ve bu kapsamda yapılandırılmış yerinde gözlem kontrol listeleri, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve çevrimiçi anketler gibi farklı araçlar kullanıldı. Bu süreçte, ortak çalışma alanı öğelerinin sakinlerin algılanan sağlığı üzerindeki etkisi alan, kullanıcılar ve yönetim hakkında bilgi edinmek için farklı tekniklerle araştırıldı. Yapılandırılmış gözlemler analiz modelinde belirlenen beş kategoriye ve bunlarla ilintili mekansal özniteliklere dayalı kontrol listeleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Ayrıca iç mekân çevre kalitesi ölçümleriyle de hava kalitesi, aydınlatma ve gürültü seviyeleri tespit edildi. Ortak çalışma alanları ve çalışanların sağlığına yaklaşımları hakkında katılımcılar ve yöneticiler ile görüşmeler yapıldı. Gözlemler betimsel analiz ile analiz edildi ve iç mekân çevre kalitesi standartlarla karşılaştırıldı. Görüşmelerin analizinde nitel içerik analizi yöntemi kullanıldı. Ankete ise toplamda 250-300 ortak çalışma kullanıcısı davet edildi ve katılımcılar, işyeri özelliklerinin algılanan sağlık üzerindeki etkisini ve önemini belirlemek için 22 maddelik bir anketi doldurdu. Nicel veriler SPSS ve R yazılımıyla analiz edildi. Toplanan veriler ve analizler, destekleyici tasarım, talepler, kaynaklar (nesnel ve öznel), kaynakların marjı ve sağlık sonuçları gibi temel kavramlar üzerinden yorumlandı. Sonuçlar, sağlığı desteklemek ve kullanıcılar üzerindeki olumlu sağlık etkilerini en üst düzeye çıkarmak için fiziksel aktiviteyi mümkün kılan özelliklerin yanı sıra, çevresel kontrol, gün ışığına erişim ve yeşillik gibi öncelik verilmesi gereken iç mekân unsurları belirlendi. Görüşme ve anket sonuçları saha gözlemleriyle karşılaştırıldığında, kullanıcılar arasında sağlığın teşviki ve geliştirilmesine yönelik farkındalık eksikliği ve fiziksel çevrenin olumlu etkisini sınırlayan yönetim uygulamaları gibi eksiklikler de tespit edildi. Tüm bu unsurlar göz önünde bulundurularak, ortak çalışma alanları için mekânsal tasarımda dikkat edilmesi gereken belirli müdahale alanları tanımlandı ve detaylandırıldı. Bu müdahalelerin, insan sağlığına zarar verebilecek veya olumlu bir değişim yaratmayacak kalıpları kırmak için önemli bir fırsat sunarak, ortak çalışma alanı kullanıcılarının sağlık sonuçlarını önemli ölçüde iyileştireceği düşünülüyor. Bu bağlamda, sağlık bilinci açısından eğitim ihtiyacının yanı sıra yeşil satın alma politikaları ve iç mekân hava kalitesinin izlenmesi gibi entegre işyeri politikalarının önemi vurgulanıyor. xxvii Son olarak, çalışma ortamı kullanıcılarının sağlığını ölçmek için standart bir yaklaşıma duyulan ihtiyaç ortaya koyularak, ortak çalışma alanı tasarımında, politikaya dayalı ve fiziksel unsurları birleştiren disiplinler arası ve proaktif bir yaklaşımın, çalışanların sağlığını ve esenliğini karar alma sürecinin merkezine alarak mevcut uygulamaları geliştireceği öngörülüyor. 1 1. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 provides an overview of the research's purpose, scope, and significance, setting the stage for studying health-promoting coworking spaces. It begins with a discussion of the relationship between built environments and human well-being, highlighting the evolution of this multidisciplinary field and its growing relevance in workspace design. The chapter introduces the salutogenic framework as the study's theoretical foundation, complemented by related theories such as Supportive Design Theory, Psychosocial Supportive Design, and the Environmental Demands and Resources Model. The research questions and objectives are articulated, emphasizing the need to evaluate coworking spaces as health-supportive environments through qualitative and quantitative methods, including Post Occupancy Evaluation. The chapter outlines the study's hypothesis, which posits a positive relationship between the perceived quality of coworking space design and users’ health perceptions. In addition to presenting the study's contributions, such as developing a salutogenic evaluation framework and practical design recommendations, the chapter concludes with an explanation of the thesis structure. This roadmap guides subsequent chapters, covering the historical context, literature review, methodological framework, empirical findings, and design recommendations. Overall, Chapter 1 establishes the groundwork for understanding the critical role of spatial design in promoting health and well-being in coworking spaces. 1.1 Research Background The relationship between built environments and their occupants has been a subject of multidisciplinary inquiry for over a century, attracting contributions from architecture, psychology, sociology, social ecology, and urban planning. This diverse body of research has given rise to various philosophical approaches, theoretical frameworks, and research methodologies to understand the complex interplay between humans and their environments. 2 Environmental psychology has been instrumental in advancing this understanding, providing insights into people-environment relationships. However, the sheer breadth of literature in this domain presents both opportunities and challenges for developing a comprehensive understanding of workspace dynamics. Recent advances in neuroscience have further enriched this field, introducing new dimensions to the study of built environments and their psychological and physiological impacts. As urbanization has led to individuals spending a significant portion of their lives in workspaces and office buildings, studying how these environments impact human behavior, health, and well-being has gained increasing importance. Since the 1980s, researchers have extensively explored the influence of spatial design and architectural environments on occupants, uncovering critical links between design features and user satisfaction, productivity, and overall health (Leaman, 2003; Bordass and Leaman, 2005). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally altered perceptions of work and the workplace, accelerating trends such as remote work, hybrid models, and coworking spaces. This rapid transformation has underscored the critical need to reevaluate workplace environments, shifting from mitigating negative impacts to promoting health and well-being. Salutogenesis, a paradigm developed by Antonovsky (1979), offers a promising theoretical foundation for this shift. Unlike traditional approaches focusing on preventing illness (pathogenesis), salutogenesis emphasizes factors supporting health and well-being. This perspective aligns well with the design of coworking spaces, which aim to foster collaboration, creativity, and community while accommodating diverse user needs. Despite its potential, the salutogenic approach remains underexplored in applied fields such as workspace design, particularly concerning shared work environments. The theoretical foundation of this study is rooted in Antonovsky's (1979) concept of Salutogenesis, which emphasizes factors that promote health and well-being rather than focusing solely on disease prevention. Salutogenesis offers a holistic perspective, encompassing physical, psychological, and social dimensions of health. To address the complexity of coworking spaces and their impact on user health, the research also integrates the following contemporary theories: 1. Supportive Design Theory (SDT) by Ulrich (1991), which highlights the role of physical environments in reducing stress and enhancing well-being. 3 2. Psychosocial Supportive Design (PSD) by Dilani (2001), emphasizing the importance of psychosocial factors in health-supportive environments. 3. The Environmental Demands and Resources Model by Roskam and Haynes (2021), which provides a flexible framework for understanding well-being in work environments. 4. The Margin of Environmental Resources, based on Charlton and White's (1995) salutogenic model, focusing on resource availability to support health. This thesis adopts a salutogenic framework to investigate how coworking spaces can be designed as health-promoting environments. By integrating related theories such as Supportive Design Theory (Ulrich, 1991), Psychosocial Supportive Design (Dilani, 2001), and the Environmental Demands and Resources Model (Roskam and Haynes, 2021), the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between spatial design and user health in coworking spaces. Methodologically, this study employs Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE), a tool widely used since the 2000s to assess physical environmental conditions such as lighting, privacy, and thermal comfort. POE has provided valuable insights into the effects of built environments on productivity and well-being (Leaman, 2003; Bordass and Leaman, 2005; Vischer, 2009). This research adapts POE to evaluate coworking spaces from a salutogenic perspective, focusing on spatial attributes contributing to health promotion. The empirical focus of this study is a renowned coworking chain in Barcelona, Spain. Three branches of this chain serve as instrumental case studies, allowing an in-depth examination of broader issues related to coworking space design and user health. While the case study approach forms the core of this research, it is informed by extensive exploratory work, including visits to ten coworking spaces across nineteen locations in three countries. The researcher also participated in national and international coworking conferences, gaining firsthand insights into coworking environments' diverse practices and challenges. 1.2 Purpose of the Thesis The rapid growth of coworking spaces presents an opportunity to redefine workplace design as a tool for promoting health and well-being. However, existing research 4 largely overlooks the potential of coworking environments to serve as health- promoting spaces. Furthermore, there is a lack of standardized methodologies for evaluating the impact of spatial design on user health, limiting the ability of architects and designers to create evidence-based solutions. This thesis investigates how coworking spaces can be designed to promote health and well-being. By developing and applying a salutogenic evaluation framework, the study seeks to identify spatial design attributes that contribute to positive health outcomes. The findings are intended to inform the design of coworking spaces that prioritize user well-being while supporting productivity and engagement. 1.3 Scope of the Thesis The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically reshaped our understanding of the relationship between built environments and human health. As remote and hybrid work models become increasingly prevalent, there is a pressing need to re-evaluate shared workspaces through a holistic, health-focused lens. This study's relevance lies in its application of the salutogenic perspective to coworking spaces, a relatively underexplored area in workplace design research. While previous studies have primarily focused on mitigating negative impacts of physical work environments, this research aims to identify and promote health-enhancing features of coworking spaces. The research focuses on coworking spaces as shared work environments that offer unique opportunities for health promotion. The geographical scope is limited to Barcelona, Spain, where three branches of a well-known coworking chain were selected as case studies. The analysis considers physical, psychological, and social aspects of the built environment, as well as complementary factors such as location, management style, and international building standards. The study employs a mixed- methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques to provide a comprehensive evaluation. Despite its potential contributions, this study faces several limitations: 1. Access constraints: As private commercial entities, coworking spaces are often reluctant to participate in academic research, limiting the diversity and quantity of data available. 5 2. Sample size: While the final sample exceeded 30 participants, ensuring reliable statistical analysis, a larger sample would have provided more robust results. 3. Time constraints: Observations and user interactions were limited to specific days, potentially missing temporal variations in space usage and user experiences. 4. Long-term impact assessment: The study lacks a longitudinal component to evaluate the sustained effects of salutogenic design interventions. Despite these limitations, this research provides valuable insights into the relationship between coworking space design and user health, laying the groundwork for future studies in this emerging field. 1.4 Research Objectives and Questions This research adopts a salutogenic perspective to examine the physical environment of coworking spaces and its impact on users' perceived health outcomes. While the primary focus is on health-related spatial attributes, the study also considers complementary factors such as location, management style, and international building standards. The following main research question guides the study: • To what extent does the physical environment of coworking spaces influence users' perception of work-related health outcomes? To address this overarching question, several secondary research questions have been formulated: 1. How can appropriate conditions for health promotion in a workspace be identified and analyzed? 2. What are the key environmental demands and resources that contribute to a salutogenic work experience in coworking spaces? 3. How can the spatial design elements be selected and integrated to create a healthy environment and a positive work experience? 4. What are the critical factors to consider in creating health-promoting coworking environments? 6 The general objective of this study is: To investigate the relationship between the physical environment of coworking spaces and users' perceived health conditions, through an evaluation of environmental demands and resources, and to determine how spatial design attributes contribute to users' health. To achieve this general objective, the following specific objectives have been established: 1. Develop and adapt Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) tools to assess spatial design attributes from a salutogenic perspective. 2. Identify users' environmental demands and resources to optimize health conditions in coworking environments. 3. Analyze users' perceptions of environmental design in relation to their health. 4. Evaluate the extent to which existing coworking design supports users' health. 5. Explore the integration of coworking business models and stakeholder interests into salutogenic environmental design. 6. Assess the importance of coworking spatial evaluation for future design and develop recommendations for health-promoting coworking environments. These objectives will be achieved through a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques: - Objectives 1 and 2: Development of an analytical model based on expert opinions, literature review, and application of qualitative and quantitative tools. - Objective 3: Application of surveys and interviews to understand users' perceptions. - Objective 4: Utilization of specially designed observation sheets for space evaluation. - Objectives 5 and 6: Interviews with key informants, document analysis, and deductive reasoning. 7 Table 1.1: Objectives of the study and evidence collection methods Objectives Evidence Collection Methods 1. Develop and adapt POE tools to assess spatial design attributes from a salutogenic perspective. Expert opinions, literature review, qualitative and quantitative tools. 2. Identify users' environmental demands and resources to optimize health conditions in coworking environments. Surveys and interviews to understand user demands and resources. 3. Analyze users' perceptions of environmental design in relation to their health. Surveys and interviews to capture user perceptions. 4. Evaluate the extent to which existing coworking design supports users' health. Observation sheets and field visits for space evaluation. 5. Explore the integration of coworking business models and stakeholder interests into salutogenic environmental design. Key informant interviews and document analysis. 6. Develop recommendations for health- promoting coworking environments. Key informant interviews and document analysis. Deductive reasoning and qualitative synthesis. This research aims to enhance our understanding of the environmental impact on human health within coworking spaces. The findings are expected to inform the development of more efficient operations and improve occupant satisfaction in the coworking industry. Hypothesis: The formulation of a hypothesis is a crucial step in scientific research, providing a testable proposition that guides the investigation. In this study, the hypothesis emerges from the recognition of a gap in our understanding of how coworking space design influences users' health perceptions. General Hypothesis: H1: A high perception of the quality of spatial factors in coworking spaces significantly affects users' perception of health. This hypothesis posits a relationship between two key variables: 1. Independent Variable: Perceived quality of spatial characteristics in coworking spaces 2. Dependent Variable: Users' perception of their health The hypothesis suggests that if the perceived quality of the coworking space design is high, users are more likely to report more significant health effects. This relationship 8 allows us to explore how variations in coworking space design may be associated with changes in users' health outcomes. Operationalization: To test these hypotheses, we will need to operationalize our key concepts: 1. "Perceived quality of spatial characteristics" will be measured through a standardized survey instrument assessing various aspects of the coworking space design, such as lighting, acoustics, ergonomics, and aesthetic appeal. 2. "Users' perception of their health" will be evaluated using validated health assessment tools, focusing on both physical and mental health indicators relevant to the workplace context. By clearly defining these variables and their measurement, we ensure that our hypothesis is testable and our results are replicable. This hypothesis-driven approach allows us to systematically investigate the relationship between coworking space design and user health perceptions. It provides a framework for our data collection and analysis, guiding us towards meaningful insights that can inform both theory and practice in the field of health-promoting workspace design. 1.5 Method of the Thesis This thesis employs a systematic, interdisciplinary, and evidence-based methodological framework to evaluate coworking environments, focusing on their impact on user well-being. The study is grounded in Relational Pragmatism and New Materialism, emphasizing a user-centered approach that integrates spatial, environmental, and experiential insights. To achieve a comprehensive assessment, a mixed-method research design is adopted, combining quantitative (environmental measurements, spatial analysis) and qualitative (user surveys, interviews) methods. The core of this approach is a customized Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) model, developed to assess key spatial attributes such as comfort, stimulation, functionality, social support, and safety. This model bridges theoretical and practical perspectives, providing a structured framework for evaluating shared workspaces. 9 Data collection methods include structured site observations, behavioral observations, and physical measurements to capture objective environmental conditions such as air quality, lighting, temperature, and noise levels. Additionally, user surveys and semi- structured interviews are conducted to gather subjective experiences related to well- being, and workplace satisfaction. The methodology also incorporates triangulation techniques, cross-referencing spatial performance, environmental quality, and user feedback to ensure a holistic and reliable evaluation. The research is applied to an instrumental case study of CCS Coworking in Barcelona, Spain, where the POE model is tested and validated. This case study approach allows for an in-depth, context- sensitive assessment, highlighting the strengths and limitations of current coworking space design strategies. The study adheres to Istanbul Technical University’s ethical research guidelines, ensuring informed consent, data privacy, and participant well-being. By integrating spatial analysis, health outcome evaluations, and workplace performance assessments, the research contributes to workplace design, architecture, and health-promoting environments. The findings aim to enhance the applicability of POE models, providing a replicable framework for evaluating shared workspaces. Furthermore, the study generates practical recommendations for coworking space operators, designers, and policymakers, emphasizing health-centered design principles that improve physical, mental, and social well-being in flexible work environments. 1.6 Significance and Contributions of the Thesis This research makes several significant contributions to the field of workspace design and occupational health: 1. Methodological innovation: The study introduces a novel analytical model for evaluating coworking spaces from a salutogenic perspective, which can be adapted for various settings and user groups. 2. Practical design recommendations: The research culminates in the identification of nine dimensions of intervention for salutogenic coworking design, providing actionable insights for industry professionals. Providing evidence-based recommendations for health-promoting workspace design. 10 3. Awareness promotion: By highlighting the role of coworking spaces as potential health-promoting environments, this study encourages a shift in design practices and user expectations. 4. Interdisciplinary approach: The research bridges gaps between architecture, environmental psychology, and public health, fostering a more holistic understanding of workspace design. 5. Educational impact: The study's findings can inform curriculum development in architecture, interior design, and workplace management programs. They highlight the role of coworking spaces in raising awareness about the relationship between spatial design and health. These contributions aim to advance both the theoretical understanding and practical implementation of health-promoting design in shared work environments. The findings have practical implications for improving user well-being in coworking spaces and influencing policies and educational programs in health-supportive design. 1.7 Organization of the Thesis This dissertation is organized into six chapters, each addressing a specific aspect of the research, progressing from theoretical foundations to empirical analysis and final conclusions. Figure 1.1: Organization schema 11 The first chapter (Chapter 1) introduces the research by outlining the background, problem statement, research objectives, and significance of the study. It establishes the context of coworking environments within the broader discourse on workplace health, spatial design, and user well-being. Additionally, the chapter provides an overview of the research methodology, highlighting the Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) framework and the mixed-methods approach used to assess shared workspaces. Finally, the chapter presents the structure of the dissertation, offering a roadmap for subsequent discussions. Chapter Two provides a comprehensive review of existing research related to workplace environments, health-supportive design, and coworking spaces. It synthesizes findings from architecture, environmental psychology, and workplace studies to explore how spatial attributes influence user well-being, productivity, and social interactions. The literature review identifies key theoretical perspectives, including Salutogenic Design, Environmental Comfort, and Activity-Based Workspaces, and highlights research gaps in current coworking space evaluations. These insights lay the groundwork for developing a new POE model tailored for shared work environments. Chapter Three establishes the conceptual foundation of the study, drawing from Salutogenic Design Theory. It explores how these frameworks inform a user-centered approach to coworking space evaluation, integrating spatial, environmental, and social dimensions of workplace well-being. The chapter also justifies the inclusion of Post- Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as an analytical tool, emphasizing its role in bridging theoretical insights with practical applications in workplace design. It introduces the model of analysis; determination of categories, and their related attributes that will help the preparation of a revised POE toolkit. This chapter identifies key research gaps and justifies the study’s interdisciplinary approach to evaluating coworking spaces. Chapter Four details the research design and methodological framework, explaining the mixed-methods approach used to evaluate coworking spaces. It describes the development and application of a customized POE model, which assesses coworking environments through five key attributes: comfort, stimulation, functionality, social support, and safety. The chapter outlines the data collection methods, including structured site observations, user surveys, semi-structured interviews, and environmental measurements. It overviews fieldwork preparation, describing the 12 sampling strategy, site selection, and logistical considerations. Ethical considerations, including informed consent, data privacy, and participant well-being, are also addressed to ensure the study’s integrity. Chapter Five presents the case study findings, applying the POE model to CCS Coworking in Barcelona, Spain. The results section synthesizes quantitative data from environmental measurements and spatial analysis alongside qualitative insights from user surveys and interviews. The findings are then analyzed in relation to existing literature and theoretical frameworks, identifying key spatial design strengths and limitations in coworking environments. The discussion highlights the implications for workplace well-being, user satisfaction, and coworking space effectiveness, providing evidence-based insights for design improvements. The final chapter (Chapter 6) summarizes the key contributions of the research, emphasizing how the POE model enhances coworking space evaluation by integrating health, spatial design, and user experience insights. It reflects on the study’s theoretical and practical implications, discussing how coworking space design can be optimized to support physical, mental, and social well-being. The chapter also acknowledges the limitations of the study, such as context-specific constraints and methodological challenges, and suggests directions for future research, including the expansion of the POE model to other shared workspaces and the potential integration of digital tools for real-time workspace evaluation. Additionally, the dissertation includes supplementary materials, such as an extensive bibliography, appendices, and practical guidelines for implementing salutogenic design strategies in coworking spaces. These resources provide further depth and support for the study’s conclusions and recommendations. 13 Figure 1.2: Research Structure 14 15 2. LITERATURE REVIEW The relationship between workplace design and human well-being has been a growing area of research, particularly in the context of evolving work environments such as coworking spaces. As work culture shifts towards more flexible, shared, and adaptive models, the role of spatial design in supporting physical comfort, mental well-being, social interaction, and privacy has become increasingly significant. This chapter provides a comprehensive review of existing literature, examining key theoretical perspectives, empirical studies, and workplace evaluation frameworks that inform the design and assessment of coworking spaces. It traces the historical evolution of work environments, discusses the impact of spatial attributes on user experience, and explores emerging concepts such as salutogenic design, biophilic elements, and environmental ergonomics. By synthesizing findings from architecture, environmental psychology, and workplace studies, this chapter identifies critical gaps in current research and establishes the foundation for the development of a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) model tailored for coworking spaces. 2.1 Work Environments and Health The relationship between the built environment and human health has been a significant research focus, demonstrating the effects of architectural design on well- being, productivity, and behavior. Over time, research has expanded to consider the physical, mental, and social dimensions of health in workplace settings. A well- designed work environment enhances productivity and mitigates health risks, leading to long-term benefits for employees and organizations. 2.1.1 Historical perspectives on workplace health The impact of the built environment on health has long been recognized. Florence Nightingale emphasized clean air, sunlight, and hygiene in healthcare settings, linking environmental conditions to recovery (Cohen, 1984). The Lalonde Report (1974) later 16 introduced a "health field model" recognizing lifestyle, environment, healthcare, and biology as key health determinants, laying the groundwork for workplace health strategies. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) further expanded on these principles, advocating for environments that actively support well-being. During the 20th century, workplace health research increasingly focused on the adverse effects of poorly designed environments. Studies linked factors such as poor ventilation, inadequate lighting, and excessive noise to reduced cognitive function and increased stress levels among workers (Cohen, 1984; Vischer, 2008). This led to policy interventions to improve occupational health and safety, emphasizing ergonomic design and environmental comfort. 2.1.2 The impact of work environments on health Research in environmental psychology highlights that indoor environmental quality— lighting, thermal comfort, noise, and ergonomics—affects stress, mood, and productivity (Vischer, 2008). Poorly designed workspaces can increase stress and anxiety, whereas access to natural light and biophilic elements supports mental restoration and job satisfaction (Kaplan, 1992; Veitch et al., 2003). Moreover, prolonged exposure to suboptimal workplace conditions can lead to chronic health issues. For example, inadequate air quality has been associated with respiratory problems, while excessive noise exposure contributes to increased cortisol levels and stress-related illnesses (Evans, McCoy, 1998). Conversely, workplaces designed with acoustic control, proper ventilation, and ergonomic furniture significantly reduce health risks and enhance employee well-being (Veitch et al., 2003). 2.1.3 Salutogenic design and workplace well-Being Salutogenic design, rooted in Antonovsky’s (1996) theory of salutogenesis, emphasizes factors that promote health and well-being rather than merely reducing risk. Initially applied in healthcare settings, this approach has gained traction in workplace design by fostering resilience, comfort, and mental health through strategic spatial planning (Ulrich et al., 2008; Dilani, 2001). Salutogenic workspaces incorporate environmental stimuli that improve cognitive function, encourage movement, and promote social interaction. 17 For instance, workplace design strategies that integrate greenery, open layouts, and communal areas have fostered a sense of control and community among employees. Such environments boost morale and improve long-term job satisfaction and engagement (Kellert et al., 2008). However, applying salutogenic principles in diverse cultural and organizational contexts remains underexplored, presenting a gap for further research. 2.1.4 Productivity, job Satisfaction, and health-supportive workplaces Supportive workplaces enhance productivity by optimizing environmental factors such as air quality, ergonomics, and social interaction (Roskam and Haynes, 2021). Research suggests that employees in well-designed work environments report higher job satisfaction, lower absenteeism, and increased cognitive performance and productivity (Stokols, 1992; Heerwagen et al., 1995). Building certification systems like WELL and Fitwel align workplace design with health-promoting strategies, reinforcing the connection between environmental quality and employee satisfaction. These systems provide frameworks for integrating optimal lighting, improved acoustics, and flexible workspaces that accommodate diverse needs. 2.2 Design of Working Environments The evolution of workplace design integrates ergonomic solutions, biophilic elements, and adaptable spatial arrangements to enhance productivity and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the necessity of flexible, health-conscious design strategies in shared workspaces. 2.2.1 Evolution of workplace design Workplace environments have evolved from early ergonomic principles to contemporary biophilic design to balance functionality with well-being. Open-plan offices facilitate collaboration but often compromise privacy, leading to a preference for hybrid models combining private and shared spaces (Vischer, 2008; Oseland, 2009). As organizations have adopted new technologies, workplace design has shifted toward flexibility and personalization. Modern workspaces now incorporate modular 18 furniture, soundproof booths, and adaptive lighting systems that cater to the dynamic needs of employees. The trend of activity-based working (ABW) encourages workers to move between different spaces designed for specific tasks, improving overall efficiency and engagement. 2.2.2 Spatial attributes and health outcomes Research consistently links workplace design with physical and mental health outcomes. Optimized air circulation, adequate lighting, and thermal comfort reduce fatigue, while access to nature and quiet zones improves concentration and reduces stress (Kaplan, 1992; Ulrich et al., 2008). Flexible layouts that allow for movement and interaction have also been associated with increased job satisfaction. Employees who can adjust their workspaces to their needs report higher levels of well-being and creativity (Spence, 2020). Additionally, spaces incorporating standing desks, staircases, and open collaboration areas encourage physical activity, reducing the risks associated with sedentary behavior. 2.2.3 Design challenges in shared workspaces Shared work environments challenge balancing safety, functionality, and social interaction. Post-pandemic workplace adaptations include improved air circulation, touchless technologies, and modular layouts that allow for distancing while maintaining collaborative potential (Navaratnam et al., 2022). Hybrid work models have introduced further complexities, as employees now split their time between remote and office settings. Organizations are experimenting with "hub-and-spoke" (a central hub connecting various spokes) workplace models to address this, where smaller, decentralized offices support a more flexible workforce. 2.3 Changes in Work Environments Work environments have undergone significant transformations due to technological advancements, societal shifts, and the COVID-19 pandemic, reshaping how and where work is conducted. The emergence of digital tools, shifting corporate cultures, and evolving worker expectations have driven the demand for more flexible, adaptable, and health-conscious workspaces. The transition from traditional office settings to 19 hybrid and remote models has also necessitated rethinking workplace design to align with these new dynamics. 2.3.1 Definitions: Workplace vs. workspace The terms “workplace” and “workspace” are often used interchangeably, yet they represent distinct concepts critical to understanding modern work environments. A workplace is a communal setting where employees engage in tasks, encompassing entire office buildings, coworking spaces, and even home offices. In contrast, a workspace refers to an individual's designated area within the workplace, such as a personal desk, cubicle, or workstation. Coworking spaces, as a subset of shared workspaces, provide flexible environments where professionals from different organizations can work independently or collaboratively. These spaces offer shared amenities such as meeting rooms, common areas, and technology infrastructure, catering to the diverse needs of freelancers, remote employees, and corporate teams. The increasing adoption of coworking models highlights the growing preference for adaptable work arrangements that prioritize convenience and well-being. 2.3.2 Historical shifts in work environments Economic, technological, and cultural shifts have shaped the transformation of work environments. The Industrial Revolution marked the transition from agricultural-based labor to factory-based production, introducing structured workplaces and specialized tasks. Over time, the rise of office jobs in the 20th century shifted work environments toward administrative settings, emphasizing efficiency, organization, and standardized office layouts. The late 20th-century digital revolution facilitated new ways of working, enabling employees to perform tasks remotely and reducing dependency on physical office spaces. The advent of the internet, mobile communication, and cloud-based computing further enabled decentralization, allowing companies to embrace telecommuting and flexible work arrangements (Daniels et al., 2000). The rise of knowledge-based economies placed greater emphasis on creativity, collaboration, and workplace autonomy, reshaping expectations around office culture and design. 20 Today, the hybrid work model has become a dominant trend, blending in-person and remote work to provide employees with greater flexibility while maintaining opportunities for collaboration and team engagement (Felstead and Henseke, 2017). Organizations now strive to create work environments that balance productivity with employee well-being, integrating technology, ergonomics, and social interaction into workspace design. 2.3.3 Remote and hybrid work models The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote work, forcing businesses to rethink how work is conducted. Many employees experienced the benefits of working from home, including increased flexibility, reduced commuting stress, and improved work-life balance. However, challenges such as social isolation, lack of ergonomic infrastructure, and difficulties in team collaboration also emerged (Galanti et al., 2021). To address these challenges, organizations began implementing hybrid work models, which combine remote and in-office work to provide greater flexibility. Hybrid models allow employees to split their time between home and office environments, fostering a balance between autonomy and team engagement. Research suggests hybrid work can enhance productivity and job satisfaction while reducing operational costs for employers (Gratton, 2021). Despite its benefits, hybrid work presents challenges, such as ensuring equitable access to resources, maintaining company culture, and preventing digital fatigue. To address these issues, organizations invest in digital collaboration tools, redesign office spaces to accommodate hybrid teams, and implement wellness programs that support remote and in-office workers. 2.3.4 Coworking spaces and salutogenesis Coworking spaces have transitioned from niche environments serving freelancers and entrepreneurs to mainstream alternatives accommodating corporate teams and remote employees. These spaces provide a unique blend of flexibility, networking opportunities, and a sense of community, making them an appealing choice for professionals seeking a balance between autonomy and social interaction (Capdevila, 21 2014). The rapid expansion of coworking spaces reflects broader shifts in workplace culture, emphasizing adaptability, collaboration, and well-being. 2.3.4.1 Evolution and growth of coworking spaces The coworking movement is a product of the collaborative economy, where individuals share resources, knowledge, and services to foster innovation and economic efficiency (Mitev et al., 2019). The first modern coworking spaces emerged in the early 2000s, with pioneering examples such as Schraubenfabrik in Vienna (2002), St. Oberholz in Berlin (2005), and the Spiral Muse Coworking Group in San Francisco (2005), which is widely considered the birthplace of the coworking movement. The 2007 global financial crisis accelerated the expansion of coworking spaces, particularly in urban centers, as workers sought more flexible and cost-effective alternatives to traditional office environments. By 2010, approximately 600 coworking spaces existed worldwide, supporting around 21,000 users. This figure grew exponentially, reaching 8,900 coworking spaces and 545,000 coworkers by 2015. In 2020, the number of coworking spaces worldwide reached approximately 19,400, with nearly 2 million individuals utilizing these spaces. By 2024, projections suggest a further increase to around 41,974 coworking spaces, serving nearly 5 million users (Bernhardt, 2023; Lindler, 2023). 2.3.4.2 Coworking spaces in Europe Europe has been at the forefront of coworking space expansion, with an estimated 6,850 coworking spaces and 148 major coworking operators concentrated in key metropolitan areas. Between 2014 and 2018, the number of flexible workspace sites expanded by over 205%, with an annual growth rate of 4.7% (Statista Research Department, 2022). The UK remains the most developed market, while international coworking chains have struggled to establish a strong presence in other European countries, except for IWG (formerly Regus), which has expanded across multiple markets (Social Workplaces, 2021). Academic interest in coworking spaces has increased, leading to interdisciplinary research exploring various dimensions of the coworking phenomenon. Spinuzzi (2012) coined the term “working alone together”, emphasizing coworking spaces' 22 unique blend of independence and collaboration. Scholars have examined coworking environments through diverse lenses, including knowledge creation, entrepreneurship models, and user experience (Spinuzzi, 2012; Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2021; Weijs- Perree et al., 2019; Bouncken et al., 2018; Butcher, 2018). However, further research is needed to assess the role of spatial attributes in supporting coworking users' health, and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic transformed coworking demographics, shifting the primary user base from freelancers to corporate employees and managers in hybrid work models. Organizations have increasingly adopted coworking spaces as a solution to workplace flexibility, enabling employees to mitigate isolation, enhance social engagement, and access professional resources. As hybrid work arrangements become more prevalent, coworking spaces play an integral role in employee retention, collaboration, and productivity enhancement. Coworking environments support informal learning, networking, and knowledge exchange, fostering professional development and innovation (Bouncken and Reuschl, 2018). Users benefit from casual interactions, collaborative brainstorming sessions, and access to multidisciplinary expertise, which contribute to a more engaging and productive work experience (Gandini, 2015; Spinuzzi, 2012). 2.3.4.3 Coworking spaces in Spain Spain ranks fourth globally in terms of the number and capacity of coworking spaces, with Barcelona and Madrid leading the sector. Barcelona, a central creative and technological hub, has been identified as a high-potential growth area for coworking spaces, while Madrid continues to expand its coworking infrastructure. The high density of coworking spaces in urban areas reflects their strategic economic advantages, such as proximity to clients, suppliers, and urban amenities, as well as the reputation and branding associated with prime coworking locations. Beyond urban areas, coworking spaces are emerging as solutions to rural depopulation, offering remote workers and freelancers collaborative environments closer to home (Coll-Martinez and Mendez-Ortega, 2024). Between 2019 and 2020, Spain hosted approximately 2,300 coworking spaces, though the second year of the pandemic saw a decline, with only 1,175 spaces reporting active operations (Mariotti et al., 2022). According to the 2022-2023 Coworking Spain report, there are now around 1,100 23 active coworking spaces, with Barcelona leading with 315 spaces and Madrid following with 225 (Zea, 2023). According to coworkingspain.es, 80% of coworking spaces in Spain are located in city centers, catering to entrepreneurs, startups, and small businesses. In Barcelona, coworking spaces have also attracted digital nomads or professionals employed elsewhere who choose to work remotely from Spain. Large coworking providers dominate the Spanish market, expanding their footprint through multi-location strategies and strategic partnerships (Zea, 2023). In the post-COVID-19 era, coworking spaces have seen rising demand from large enterprises seeking decentralized work solutions. Many corporations are now integrating coworking spaces into their real estate strategies, decentralizing operations into smaller, more flexible office hubs. This shift reflects the growing appeal of on- demand workspace solutions that enhance employee mobility and support hybrid work models. Despite the challenges of 2020, coworking spaces continue to experience strong demand, driven by trends such as rural coworking expansion, increased academic interest, and the adaptable nature of coworking models (Bernhardt, 2023). 2.3.4.4 Salutogenic design in coworking spaces The growing emphasis on health, well-being, and workplace satisfaction has led to the adoption of salutogenic design principles in coworking spaces. Salutogenesis, a concept developed by Antonovsky (1996), focuses on promoting health and resilience rather than merely preventing illness. In coworking environments, salutogenic design strategies aim to create physically and psychologically supportive spaces that enhance user experience and well-being. Key salutogenic elements in coworking design include: Biophilic features: Natural lighting, indoor greenery, and access to outdoor spaces promote mental restoration and stress reduction (Kellert et al., 2008). Ergonomic furniture: Adjustable desks, supportive chairs, and flexible workstations enhance physical comfort and prevent musculoskeletal issues (Morelli and Dilani, 2007). Flexible spatial arrangements: A mix of quiet zones, collaboration areas, and social spaces supports diverse work styles and user needs (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2021). 24 Cognitive and emotional well-being: Access to restorative environments, social interaction, and autonomy in workspace customization contributes to higher job satisfaction and motivation (Kaplan, 1993; Bouncken and Reuschl, 2018). While coworking spaces have been extensively studied from the perspectives of entrepreneurship, knowledge creation, and user behavior, there is a notable lack of research on coworking users' physical design preferences and requirements. Understanding how spatial design influences user well-being could provide valuable insights for improving coworking environments. Additionally, more research is needed to explore the role of coworking spaces in addressing rural depopulation and promoting economic decentralization, particularly in regions like Spain. Integrating salutogenic design principles into coworking spaces represents another promising area for future research. Coworking spaces can enhance user well-being and productivity by incorporating elements such as natural light, biophilic features, and ergonomic furniture. However, applying these principles in diverse cultural and organizational contexts remains underexplored, highlighting a need for further investigation. Integrating salutogenic principles in coworking design highlights a broader shift toward health-conscious workspaces. Companies and coworking operators prioritize workplace well-being as a strategic goal, ensuring that physical and psychological health considerations are embedded into workspace planning and design. The continued adoption of salutogenic strategies will be crucial in shaping the future of coworking environments and their role in supporting modern workforce needs. 2.4 Fundamentals of a Healthy Work Environment A healthy workplace promotes physical, mental, and social well-being through environmental quality, ergonomic support, and opportunities for restoration. As modern workspaces evolve, a comprehensive approach to workplace design is required to ensure employee health and long-term engagement. 2.4.1 Physical health and sensory comfort Optimized environmental conditions, including temperature regulation, air quality, lighting, and acoustics, ensure physical health and sensory comfort in workplaces. 25 Poor indoor air quality can contribute to respiratory issues and fatigue, whereas well- ventilated spaces with clean air circulation support cognitive function and energy levels (Spence, 2020). Additionally, ergonomic workstations featuring adjustable chairs, sit-stand desks, and screen height optimization help prevent musculoskeletal disorders and reduce physical strain (Morelli and Dilani, 2007). Noise levels also play a key role in physical comfort, with excessive background noise linked to stress and concentration difficulties. Acoustic treatments, such as sound- absorbing materials and designated quiet zones, are effective strategies to mitigate distractions and enhance focus. 2.4.2 Mental well-Being and restoration Restorative workplace design promotes cognitive performance and emotional resilience. Exposure to natural elements, such as greenery, daylight, and views of nature, has been shown to reduce stress and support mental restoration (Kaplan, 1993). Additionally, providing break areas that allow employees to disengage from work temporarily fosters creativity and reduces burnout. Incorporating dynamic work settings that offer stimulating and flexible spaces helps workers engage in different types of tasks effectively. For example, creative zones for brainstorming and quiet rooms for focused work ensure that employees can tailor their environment to suit their needs. Positive stress (eustress) is an essential aspect of motivation, and environments that provide challenges and rewards without overwhelming workers can enhance engagement (Kupriyanov et al., 2014). 2.4.3 Social health and workplace interaction The workplace is a social ecosystem where collaboration, teamwork, and informal interactions shape employee experiences. Socially supportive work environments enhance engagement, morale, and professional development. Communal areas, such as lounges and shared dining spaces, facilitate casual interactions that foster relationships and teamwork (Heerwagen et al., 1995). Additionally, office layouts that encourage structured meetings and spontaneous conversations contribute to knowledge sharing and innovation. Flexible seating arrangements, open floor plans, and hybrid meeting spaces support collaborative efforts while accommodating the need for privacy and focused work. 26 2.4.4 Job satisfaction and well-Being The physical, mental, and social dimensions of workplace design strongly influence job satisfaction. Ergonomic comfort, opportunities for social interaction, and access to restorative spaces collectively enhance employee happiness and retention (Stokols, 1992). Organizations that prioritize employee well-being through workplace policies, flexible scheduling, and wellness initiatives create a culture of support that leads to improved job satisfaction and performance (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2018). Ensuring a healthy built environment becomes critical as workplaces continue to evolve to support physical, mental, and social well-being. Various building certification systems have been developed to systematically assess and enhance these environments, providing structured frameworks to integrate health-promoting and sustainable design principles into workplace settings. 2.5 Healthy Building Certifications Over the past 25 years, various building rating systems have been developed to assess and certify the performance of buildings concerning sustainability, environmental impact, and occupant health. Studies indicate that green-rated buildings provide superior indoor environmental conditions to conventional structures, fostering healthier environments (Doan et al., 2017; Vischer, 2007). Globally recognized tools, such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), primarily focus on sustainability and environmental performance. In Australia, Green Star and NABERS dominate the certification landscape. Additionally, post-occupancy evaluation (POE) surveys, such as BOSSA and BUS methodologies, are employed to gauge occupant satisfaction and enhance indoor environmental quality across diverse work environments. In 2017, the International WELL Building Institute (IWBI) explicitly linked sustainable building design with occupant health, reinforcing the demand for health- focused certifications. This shift led to the development of WELL Building Standard (WELL) and Fitwel, two certification systems that integrate user well-being and sustainability. These standards align with LEED and BREEAM to facilitate multi- system certification (Callway et al., 2020). While each program varies in scope, 27 complexity, and cost, its objective is to enhance occupant well-being through better building design and operational strategies. 2.5.1 Overview of WELL and Fitwel certification systems The WELL Building Standard was established in 2014 through Delos and the International WELL Building Institute (IWBI) collaboration. IWBI oversees the system's administration, while Green Business Certification Inc. (GBCI) independently evaluates submissions for compliance. GBCI also certifies other sustainability frameworks, such as LEED. In contrast, Fitwel, developed in 2016 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S. General Services Administration, and the Center for Active Design, is managed and reviewed solely by the Center for Active Design, (CfAD) a non-profit organization based in New York City. WELL and Fitwel apply to various building types, including offices, residential spaces,