The COVID-19 pandemic has produced an opportunity for urban planners, government decision-makers, health practitioners, and environmental psychologists to further understand human psychosocial wellbeing in cities. Given a growing base of evidence illustrating that interaction with nature positively affects mood and mental health, preserving access to green spaces in cities during this time of mandated social isolation should be considered imperative for as long as possible. This think-piece highlights that parks, community gardens, and other natural areas are essential to urban dwellers, especially if directives to physically distance from one another become longstanding or recurrent. Public decision-makers should aim to develop simple, relatively inexpensive strategies to augment the usability of nature in innovative ways that make it possible to enjoy them while respecting distance guidelines. Also discussed is the notion that a predominant goal for social scientists and urban practitioners during this crisis will be to learn how people view the ways in which public parks and wilder urban areas mitigate their response to worry, isolation, and an altered form of civic engagement. Research on the extent to which ‘sense of place’ changes for city dwellers during this global circumstance will be important for planners and social scientists alike.

Employees working in 15 public- and private-sector office buildings in a mid-sized Canadian city reported their level of work engagement (as measured by job satisfaction, perceived productivity and affective organizational commitment), environmental orientation, pro-environmental behaviour and opinions about the physical aspects of their buildings. The buildings’ green attributes were assessed on an objective 36-item scale. Neither engagement nor environmental attitudes were correlated with green design attributes. However, employees’ office impressions were significantly negatively correlated with the number of green design attributes. Surprisingly, the results suggest that green design in office buildings does not have a positive effect on employee engagement or on environmental attitudes and behaviours.

Purpose: This study differs in its methodological approach from previously published research by interpreting qualitative results against existing literature to understand how nurses conceptualize medical–surgical patient rooms as productive settings in relation to lighting, as well as the ways in which nurses believe these spaces could be enhanced for patient satisfaction. Methods: Content analysis was used to interpret themes emerging from nurses’ subjective responses to open-ended items. Three of the facilities had older, traditional lighting systems; one had a contemporary framework. Results: A theme of environmental control over both overhead and task lighting emerged from data from all items. Although controllability was among the “best” lighting attributes, more refinement is necessary for optimal staff productivity and patient satisfaction. Daylighting was also considered to be among the best attributes. Control over light level via additional dimming capability for patients, as well as additional light sources, was prominent across the four hospitals. Unique to the more modern facility, trespassing of light was problematic for nurses considering the experiences of patients—even where modern models exist, more attention can be paid to the ways in which window shades, and light sources outside of rooms, penetrate spaces and affect users. Conclusion: The finding that nurses and patients desire greater control over the lighting in patient rooms is consistent with Ulrich’s theory of supportive design for healthcare and coincides with advances in lighting technology. Despite differences in the level of sophistication in lighting among the four facilities, control continues to be a primary concern for nurses.

Purpose: The present study aims to contribute to current knowledge about nurses’ perceived importance of lighting in patient rooms and to compare these perceptions across different ages, work shifts, (day and night), and environments of care (traditional and contemporary). Background: Creating an environment of care in patient rooms that successfully balances energy efficiency concerns with the holistic needs of patients, families, and caregivers poses a major challenge for future lighting systems. This study adds to a growing evidence base on the effects of lighting on nurses’ job performance, job satisfaction, and overall perceptions of the environment. Method: Survey responses from 138 participants working in medical–surgical units in four hospitals were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach, with three of the hospitals having lighting systems characterized as providing a traditional environment of care (TEC) and the other hospital having lighting systems characterized as providing a contemporary environment of care (CEC). Results: No significant differences were found based on age or work shift, but several significant differences were found between participants working in the hospital with a CEC and those working in hospitals with a TEC. Participants from the hospital with a CEC lighting system consistently reported higher lighting quality, fewer patient complaints, and less need for supplemental lighting than the participants from the three hospitals with TEC lighting systems. Conclusion: The results of this study provide evidence that innovative lighting approaches and technologies are worth considering as an investment by hospital administrators looking to improve perceptions of the patient room environment.

Healthy building design guides are cogent and necessary. While elements that contribute to healthy buildings are multifactorial, the perception of sound versus noise is subjective and difficult to operationalize. To inform the commissioning process, the acoustics in an open office was examined following the first international building certification system that focuses on the well-being of occupants. Results highlight the role facility managers play in ensuring acoustical quality and offer suggestions to optimize healthy building rating systems. Mixed empirical evidence concerning the advantages of open office designs exists, as does evidence that noise, and a lack of privacy, affects workers’ levels of distraction and dissatisfaction. Sound masking systems can lower stress levels and augment performance. However, the sound produced by these systems can also be disruptive; conflicting information exists for facility managers to use when making decisions. The results suggest that, although objective measurements and healthy building guidelines for designing satisfactory indoor acoustic environments are important, changes to the physical environment, and acoustical systems, in particular, require iterative subjective assessments within the retrofit process to bolster occupant satisfaction. Mixed-methodologies used in this study may aid facilities managers in capturing and interpreting occupant data about physical stimuli in the workplace and improving the commissioning process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case study was to examine environmental variables that lead to staff error in acute care settings: noise; lighting; ergonomics, furniture, and equipment; and patient room design and unit layout. BACKGROUND: Chaudhury, Mahmood, & Valente (2009) reviewed a number of design considerations related to reducing errors by nursing staff in acute care settings. The Neurological Rehabilitation Unit (NRU) at one hospital served to further examine the design recommendations outlined by Chaudhury et al. (2009). METHODS: Based on photographs, a site tour, interviews with the NRU manager and with the son of a patient of 5 months, comparisons were made between the NRU and the acute care setting design considerations reviewed by Chaudhury et al. (2009). RESULTS: The NRU appeared to comply with many recommendations: enforced noise reduction was facilitated through limiting both the number of patients per room and the number of patients admitted to the unit. Distinct rooms were used for various tasks that helped to contain activity-based noise. A combination of daylighting and artificial lighting was in place, but efforts to control glare and thermal comfort were not integrated into the design. The ergonomic needs of employees were incorporated in the design of the NRU, and the layouts of patient rooms and the layout of the NRU in general also were compatible with the design recommendations reviewed by Chaudhury et al. (2009). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the design attributes advocated by Chaudhury et al. (2009) were included in the NRU. Supplemental research should be undertaken, however, to objectively measure nursing error, efficiency and staff satisfaction with respect to the comparisons and assumptions presented in this study.