Architectural Technologies Studies

Physical Components of Workspaces and Employees’ Sense of Attachment: The Role of Environmental Experience and Perception in Tabriz Municipality

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ahmad Mirza Mohammadi 1
Roshanak Sakhinia 2
Siroos Jamali 2

1 PhD Student in Architecture, Ares Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.

10.22034/ats.2026.2104559.1109
Abstract
Aims: The quality of office environments cannot be understood solely in terms of functional efficiency or the provision of appropriate physical conditions. Employees spend a considerable part of their daily lives in workplaces, and the spatial characteristics of these environments can influence how they move, interact, concentrate, perceive environmental quality, and develop psychological relationships with their workplace. In this context, workplace attachment represents an important outcome of the continuous interaction between employees and the built environment. Previous studies have generally examined particular aspects of office environments, such as spatial configuration, privacy, territoriality, environmental comfort, flexibility, density, or personalization, while fewer studies have simultaneously investigated the relationships among physical characteristics, employees’ environmental experience and perception, and workplace attachment within an integrated framework. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to analyze the effects of the physical components of functional spaces on employees’ workplace attachment, with particular emphasis on the mediating role of environmental experience and perception in Tabriz Municipality buildings. The study conceptualized the relationship between employees and office environments through three interconnected levels: the designed physical environment, the environment as experienced and perceived by employees, and the resulting attachment to the workplace. Accordingly, the study examined whether physical components directly influence workplace attachment and whether a substantial part of this relationship is transmitted through employees’ experience and perception of their working environment.
Materials & Methods: This applied study adopted a quantitative approach and was conducted using a survey-based correlational design. The statistical population consisted of 17,852 employees of Tabriz Municipality. Based on Cochran’s formula, the required sample size was determined to be 376 employees. To compensate for possible non-response and incomplete questionnaires, 420 questionnaires were distributed, of which 376 complete and usable questionnaires were ultimately included in the statistical analyses. The research instrument consisted of 46 items measured on a five-point Likert scale and organized into 15 dimensions under three main constructs. The physical components of functional spaces included 23 items and six dimensions: spatial organization and configuration; flexibility, adaptation, and layout; privacy, control, and territoriality; density and shared spaces; connection with nature and outdoor environments; and indoor environmental quality. Environmental experience and perception consisted of 11 items and four dimensions: perceived comfort, privacy, and control; environmental evaluation and fit; concentration, interaction, and autonomy; and overall environmental experience and quality. Workplace attachment was assessed through 12 items and five dimensions: emotional bond and feeling at home; place identity and pride; functional dependence; continuity of relationship with the workplace; and psychological ownership and social bonds. Preliminary analyses included descriptive statistics, assessment of data normality, examination of common method bias using Harman’s single-factor test, and Pearson correlation analysis among the three main constructs. The measurement model was subsequently assessed through first-order confirmatory factor analysis, in which the 46 observed items were evaluated in relation to the 15 dimensions, followed by second-order confirmatory factor analysis linking the 15 dimensions to the three principal constructs. Reliability and convergent validity were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted. Model fit was evaluated using χ²/df, GFI, AGFI, CFI, TLI, IFI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Finally, the structural relationships were tested using covariance-based structural equation modeling in AMOS 24. The mediating role of environmental experience and perception was evaluated through bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples and a 95% confidence interval.
Findings: The results supported the adequacy of both the measurement and structural models. All 46 observed items were retained in the first-order confirmatory factor analysis, with standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.65 to 0.88 and critical ratio values exceeding the acceptable threshold. The first-order measurement model demonstrated satisfactory fit, with χ²/df equal to 2.05, GFI equal to 0.91, AGFI equal to 0.89, CFI equal to 0.94, TLI equal to 0.93, IFI equal to 0.94, RMSEA equal to 0.053, and SRMR equal to 0.047. The second-order confirmatory factor analysis also confirmed the hierarchical organization of the 15 dimensions under the three main constructs. Among the physical dimensions, spatial organization and configuration had the strongest loading. Overall environmental experience and quality showed the strongest loading within environmental experience and perception, while emotional bond and feeling at home had the strongest loading within workplace attachment. The second-order model also demonstrated satisfactory fit, with χ²/df equal to 2.02, GFI equal to 0.92, AGFI equal to 0.90, CFI equal to 0.95, TLI equal to 0.94, IFI equal to 0.95, RMSEA equal to 0.052, and SRMR equal to 0.045. Pearson correlations indicated positive and significant relationships among all three constructs. Structural equation modeling showed that physical components of functional spaces had a positive and significant effect on environmental experience and perception, with a standardized coefficient of 0.68. Environmental experience and perception, in turn, had a positive and significant effect on workplace attachment, with a standardized coefficient of 0.57. The direct effect of physical components on workplace attachment remained positive and significant, with a coefficient of 0.27. Physical components explained 46% of the variance in environmental experience and perception, while physical components together with environmental experience and perception explained 60% of the variance in workplace attachment. Bootstrapping further demonstrated a significant indirect effect of physical components on workplace attachment through environmental experience and perception, with a standardized coefficient of 0.39 and a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.29 to 0.48. Since both the direct and indirect effects remained significant, environmental experience and perception played a partial mediating role. The total effect of physical components on workplace attachment was 0.66. These results indicate that the indirect pathway through employees’ environmental experience and perception is stronger than the remaining direct relationship between physical conditions and workplace attachment.
Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that the relationship between office architecture and employees’ workplace attachment cannot be explained merely through the direct effects of physical characteristics. Physical qualities acquire greater psychological and behavioral significance when they are translated into positive everyday experiences of comfort, legibility, functional fit, autonomy, interaction, privacy, and environmental quality. Thus, environmental experience and perception constitute a key connecting mechanism between the built workplace and employees’ attachment to it. The principal scientific contribution of the study is the empirical confirmation of an integrated three-level framework connecting observed physical characteristics, employees’ environmental experience and perception, and workplace attachment. This framework suggests a conceptual sequence from the designed space to the experienced space and ultimately to the attached space. Accordingly, improving office environments should not be restricted to physical interventions alone. Spatial organization and legibility, flexibility, privacy and individual control, opportunities for social interaction, access to nature and outdoor environments, and indoor environmental quality should be designed and evaluated according to how employees actually experience them in everyday work. The findings therefore provide an evidence-based basis for evaluating and improving existing municipal office buildings and for developing more human-centered approaches to the design of future administrative workplaces.

Keywords

Physical Components
Functional Spaces
Environmental Experience and Perception
Workplace Attachment
Office Environment
Subjects
1-    Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4
2-    Aram, E., Elham, N., & Roozbeh, R. (2026). Explaining the effects of space syntax parameters on physical transformations in Tehran's office spaces. Studies of Behavior and Environment in Architecture, 2(2), 1–17. https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/1211624. [Persian]
3-    Arghiani, M., & Mir Hashemi, S. M. (2023). Evaluating components affecting sense of community in office spaces. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 15(41), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22034/aaud.2023.220702.2139.  [Persian]
4-    Azimi, M., Rezaipour, F., Bashari, S., & Raeisi, N. (2025). Explaining and evaluation of users' preferences in office spaces in Iran in order to improve environmental quality. Manzar, 15(42), 2. https://doi.org/10.52547/mmi.566.1 [Persian]
5-    Bannazadeh, B., Heidari, S., & Hadinafard, H. (2022). Identification and assessment of the effect of environmental, personal, and social components on thermal comfort in office buildings. Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism (JIAU), 13(1), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2021.222582.1371 [Persian]
6-    Bonfanti, R. C., Billeci, N., Platania, S., & Ruggieri, S. (2026). Place matters at work: A systematic review of workplace attachment and environmental factors. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.70087
7-    Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person–environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X
8-    Colenberg, S., Jylhä, T., & Arkesteijn, M. (2021). The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being A literature review. Building Research & Information, 49(3), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098
9-    Dastahanin,B , Faramarzi Asli,M and Moosavi,M . (2025). Analysis and Study of Physical Changes with Emphasis on the Physical Dimension of Sustainable Development in the City of Tabriz from 2000-2020. Urban Economics and Planning, 5(4), 172-185. https://doi.org/10.22034/uep.2025.495467.1573. [Persian]
10-    Eftekhari, S. F., Shahcheraghi, A., & Dolat Abadi, F. (2026). The net effect of environmental factors on employee health behavior: The mediating role of emotions (pleasantness, calmness, and belonging, …) and workplace design prioritization Architecture and Humanistic Environments, 2(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.82229/jahe.2025.1225690 [Persian]
11-    Frankó, L., Erdélyi, A., & Dúll, A. (2023). Transformation of the office: Territorial behaviour and place attachment in shared desk design. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2021-0043
12-    Fukawa, Y., Ohba, M., Akamatsu, N., Onoda, R., Ikeuchi, K., Minami, K., Takahashi, N., Watanabe, F., Iida, T., Kaneko, Y., & Tanabe, S. (2024). Influence analysis of environmental factors on the subjective well-being of office workers in Japan: A structural equation modeling approach. Building and Environment, 262, 111827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111827
13-    Gath-Morad, M., Egli, S., Grübel, J., Steemers, K., Hölscher, C., & Aguilar, L. (2024). Designing affective workplace environments: The impact of typology, contour, ceiling and partition height on cognitive and aesthetic appraisal. Building and Environment, 265, 111928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111928
14-    Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
15-    Kazlauskaitė, R., Martinaitytė, I., Lyubovnikova, J., & Augutytė-Kvedaravičienė, I. (2023). The physical office work environment and employee wellbeing: Current state of research and future research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(3), 413–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12315
16-    Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.03.003.  
17-    Kropman, D. J., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Bergefurt, L., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2023). The business case for a healthy office: A holistic overview of relations between office workspace design and mental health. Ergonomics, 66(5), 658–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2108905
18-    Mojtabaei, S. M., & Izadpanah, H. (2023). Investigating the physical factors of user satisfaction in coworking spaces (Case study: Nitek’s Creative House and Digital Content Innovation). Interdisciplinary Studies of Arts and Humanities, 2(14), 43–63. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/2123580. [Persian]
19-    Mura, A. L., Insalata, L. A., & Bonaiuto, M. (2024). My home is my new office: The relationship between environmental comfort, workplace attachment, and psychological needs in the context of remote working. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98, 102378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102378
20-    Mura, A. L., Nonnis, M., Scrima, F., & Fornara, F. (2023). Promoting the work engagement of the health worker: The role of secure workplace attachment, perceived spatial-physical comfort, and relationship with patients. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 101937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101937
21-    Pan, J., Chen, S., & Bardhan, R. (2024). Reinventing hybrid office design through a people-centric adaptive approach. Building and Environment, 252, 111219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111219
22-    Pan, J., Cho, T. Y., Sun, M., Steemers, K., & Bardhan, R. (2025). Environmental and spatial dynamics in a flexible workspace for hybrid work: A data-driven design framework. Building and Environment, 270, 112544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112544
23-    Panyukova, J. G., & Alexandrova, E. S. (2025). Psychological well-being of office employees and workplace space organization: A review of theoretical approaches. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 14(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2025140214
24-    Poncelet, S., Balci, O., Vande Moere, A., & Godderis, L. (2025). Promoting the health of workers through office layout: A scoping literature review. Building and Environment, 272, 112645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112645
25-    Rebillon, J., Codou, O., Hamel, J.-F., Moffat, E., & Scrima, F. (2023). The mediating role of perceived comfort between workplace attachment style and perceived stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(7), 5377. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075377
26-    Sardari, H., Kalantari Khalilabad, H., & Khanmohammadi, M. (2025). Explaining the visual characteristics of workplace architecture and their impact on the creative atmosphere and performance of employees in private banks of Rafsanjan. Hoviatshahr, 19(3), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.71793/hoviatshahr.2025.1203320 [Persian]
27-    Scrima, F., Garofalo, A., Rioux, L., & Bouzid, D. (2025). Spatial density, basic psychological needs satisfaction and workplace attachment styles: A multigroup mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 107, 102757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102757
28-    Scrima, F., Mura, A. L., Nonnis, M., & Fornara, F. (2021). The relation between workplace attachment style, design satisfaction, privacy and exhaustion in office employees: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101693
29-    Sharifi, S., Bokharaei, S., & Mazaheri Tehrani, M. (2022). Wayfinding and architectural design: Analytical study of the effects of visual accessibility on wayfinding. Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies, 11(21), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.22052/jias.2022.246540.1066 [Persian]
30-    Zeynali Azim, A., & Karami, I. (2023). An integrated assessment of city residents' attachment and belonging to functional components of urban livability and social relations of neighbors (Case study: District 8 of Tabriz). Researches in Earth Sciences, 14(3), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.48308/esrj.2023.103547 [Persian]
31-    Zeynali Azim,A and Salimi,M . (2025). Application of metaverse and artificial intelligence in monitoring and participatory education of the natural environment with a new perspective on security and smart urban governance in Karaj. Journal of Natural Environment, 78(3), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.22059/jne.2025.403153.2844. [Persian]
Architectural Technologies Studies

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 13 September 2026

  • Receive Date 31 August 2026
  • Accept Date 11 September 2026
  • First Publish Date 13 September 2026
  • Publish Date 13 September 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us