Salutogenic parameters in the environment of a university: a pilot study

Context and relevance. The influence of the environment on psychological well-being has been studied in a wide variety of contexts, including workplaces, schools, healthcare facilities, and digital spaces. However, the psychological well-being of university faculty, particularly in relation to their connection to the university environment in the wide sense, remains virtually unrepresented in psychological research. Objective: to study the parameters of the salutogenic environment of the university within the framework of a staged study as the basis for psychological questionnaire in future research. Research question. What aspects of the university environment are most significant for university faculty and potentially for their psychological well-being and stress reduction? Methods and materials. The study was conducted in two stages. In the first, quantitative stage, 196 respondents (aged 18 to 70, 76% women) completed a 46-question questionnaire designed by the authors. The questionnaire focused on the physical aspects of the university environment and was divided into five sections: “Way to and from Work”, “At the University”, “Interacting with Online Systems and the Remote Work Environment”, “Biophilic Design and Nature”, and “Social Environment and Interacting with Colleagues”. The results were further compared with the results of semi-structured interviews conducted in the second stage of the study (N = 12). Results. The results showed that the most important parameters for lectures were the university's physical environment, primarily noise levels, temperature, air quality, and cleanliness. Interaction with online systems was the least significant parameter. Conclusions. The significant and insignificant parameters of the university environment identified during the study will help in the creation of a psychological questionnaire dedicated to the parameters of the university environment in the wide sense. It is important for the university's psychological and administrative services to pay special attention to the quality of the university's physical environment, which can contribute to increased psychological well-being, loyalty, and, ultimately, the success of university faculty.

1. Бусыгина, Н.П. (2019). Качественные и количественные методы исследований в психологии. М.: Юрайт.
   Busygina, N.P. (2019). Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Psychology. Moscow: Yurait Publ. (In Russ.).
2. ВОЗ. (2010). Здоровые рабочие места: пример к действию. Женева: ВОЗ. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44307/9789244599310_rus.pdf;jsessionid=08239E909265C6111954CFE528543AFF?sequence=11
   (2010). Healthy jobs: an example to action. Genève: WHO. (In Russ.). URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44307/9789244599310_rus.pdf;jsessionid=08239E909265C6111954CFE528543AFF?sequence=11
3. Abraham, V., Meyer, J. C., Mokwena, K. E., Duncan, E. (2025). Workplace mental health status among academic staff: Psychological distress, burnout, and organisational culture at a South African university. Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), 1410. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101410
4. Al-Dmour, Y., Alqaralleh, H., Garaj, V., Clements-Croome, D. (2023). In the eye of the flourish wheel: an assessment of users’ health, well-being and productivity in university research rooms. Intelligent Buildings International, 15(3), 131—156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2023.2188158
5. Allen, J.G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., Spengler, J.D. (2016). Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: A controlled exposure study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(6), 805—812. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037
6. Aristizabal, S., Byun, K., Porter, P., Clements, N., Campanella, C., Li, L., Mullan, A., Ly, S., Senerat, A., Nenadic, I.Z., Browning, W.D., Loftness, V., Bauer, B. (2021). Biophilic office design: Exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 101682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101682
7. Bergefurt, L., Weijs-Perrée, M., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Arentze, T. (2022). The physical office workplace as a resource for mental health: A systematic scoping review. Building and Environment, 207, 108505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108505
8. Candido, C., Marzban, S., Haddad, S., Mackey, M., Loder, A. (2020). Designing healthy workspaces: results from Australian certified open-plan offices. Facilities, 39(5/6), 411—433. https:// doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2020-0018
9. Cao, B., Hassan, N.C., Omar, M.K. (2024). The impact of social support on burnout among lecturers: A systematic literature review. Behavioral Sciences, 14(8), 727. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080727
10. Ceylan, S. (2021). Healthy Workspaces: Strategies for Increasing the Indoor Environmental Quality at Call Centre Interiors for Employee Wellbeing and Productivity. Builder, 284, 60—63. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.7430
11. Chatterjee, K., Chng, S., Clark, B., Davis, A., De Vos, J., Ettema, D., Handy, S., Martin, A., Reardon, L. (2020). Commuting and wellbeing: A critical overview of the literature with implications for policy and future research. Transport Reviews, 40(1), 5—34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649317
12. 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
13. Delanoeije, J., Verbruggen, M. (2020). Between-person and within-person effects of telework: A quasi-field experiment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29, 795—808. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1774557
14. Fan, J., Zhang, X., Jia, X., Fan, Z., Yang, C., Wang, Y., Zhao, C., Wang, N., Shi, X., Yang, Y. (2025). Association of active commuting with incidence of depression and anxiety: Prospective cohort study. Translational Psychiatry, 15(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-03219-w
15. Frazier, M.L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R.L., Pezeshkan, A., Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113—165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
16. French, J.R.P., Caplan, R.D., Harrison, R.V. (1982). Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain. New York: John Wiley.
17. Golden, T.D. (2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 176—187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.003
18. Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134—1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134
19. Houston, D., Meyer, L.H., Paewai, S. (2006). Academic Staff Workloads and Job Satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28, 17—30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283734
20. Kiltz, L., Rinas, R., Daumiller, M., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., Jansen, E.W.P.A. (2020). ‘When they struggle: I cannot sleep well either’: perceptions and interactions surrounding university student and teacher well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/psyg.2020.578378
21. Liu, J., Ettema, D., Helbich, M. (2022). Systematic review of the association between commuting, subjective wellbeing and mental health. Travel Behaviour and Society, 28, 59—74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.02.006
22. Lyzwinski, L.-N. (2024). Organizational and occupational health issues with working remotely during the pandemic: A scoping review of remote work and health. Journal of Occupational Health, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiae005
23. MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Laurent, J.G.C., Flanigan, S., Vallarino, J., Coull, B., Spengler, J.D., Allen, J.G. (2017). The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health. Building and Environment, 114, 178—186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.041
24. Murphy, L.D., Cobb, H.R., Rudolph, C.W., Zacher, H. (2023). Commuting demands and appraisals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of strain and wellbeing outcomes. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1—43. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221131404
25. Naidoo-Chetty, M., Du Plessis, M. (2021). Job demands and job resources of academics in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631171
26. Nartova-Bochaver, S.K., Reznichenko, S.I., Severyanova, E.D., Valiullova, M.S., Vinogradov, I.V. (2026). The ambiguity of biophilia: It promotes personal authenticity but enhances distress. PsyEcology, 17(1), 101—117. https://doi.org/10.1177/21711976251413910
27. Olsson, L.E., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Fujii, S. (2013). Happiness and satisfaction with work commute. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 255—263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0003-2
28. Pace, F., D’Urso, G., Zappulla, C., Pace, U. (2021). The relation between workload and personal well-being among university professors. Current Psychology, 40, 1—8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00294-x
29. Pavlova, M.V, Reznichenko, S.I., Nartova-Bochaver, S.K. (2023). A new instrument to measure healthy workplace qualities: the People in the Office Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 14:1241555. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1241555
30. Ríos-Rodríguez, M.L., Testa Moreno, M., Moreno-Jiménez, P. (2023). Nature in the office: A systematic review of nature elements and their effects on worker stress response. Healthcare, 11(21), 2838. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11212838
31. Russell, H., O’Connell, P.J., McGinnity, F. (2009). The Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements on Work-Life Conflict and Work Pressure in Ireland. Gender, Work, and Organization, 16, 73—97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00431.x
32. Scrima, F., Mura, A.L., Nonnis, M., Rioux, L., Fornara, F. (2025). The relationship between secure workplace attachment and environmental satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 44, 7273—7282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07714-1
33. Shaholli, D., Manai, M.V., Iantorno, F., Di Giampaolo, L., Nieto, H.A., Greco, E., La Torre, G., De Sio, S. (2024). Teleworking and mental well-being: A systematic review on health effects and preventive measures. Sustainability, 16(18), 8278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188278
34. Shen, P., Slater, P. (2021). Occupational Stress, Coping Strategies, Health, and Well-Being Among University Academic Staff — An Integrative Review. International Education Studies, 14, 99—99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n12p99
35. Shimura, A., Yokoi, K., Ishibashi, Y., Akatsuka, Y., Inoue, T. (2021). Remote Work Decreases Psychological and Physical Stress Responses, but Full-Remote Work Increases Presenteeism. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 730969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730969
36. Turner, K., Garvis, S. (2023). Teacher Educator Wellbeing, Stress and Burnout: A Scoping Review. Education Sciences, 13, 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040351