Development of a Service Perception Scale for a Stress-Free Office Environment

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization(WHO) considers stress the epidemic of the 21st century. Although there are many causes of stress, “work” is often the main source(Awada et al., 2023). Previous research has shown that a stress-free workspace is critical to employee health, improves productivity, and significantly impacts long-term business growth(Rashid & Zimring, 2008). As a result, numerous companies are improving their physical office environments to reduce environmentally induced stress. The physical environment directly affects customers’ perceptions of the service experience, and research in environmental psychology and management has demonstrated that service scenarios are an effective means of improving the quality of customer experience(Bitner, 1992; Brown et al., 2018). Therefore, developing a servicescape perception scale for office environments can help companies assess their employees’ work environment experience, thereby promoting the continuous optimization of office space.

Although servicescape has been widely used in service environments such as hotels, airports and restaurants, more research needs to be done in office environments. This may be because the office environment is only sometimes considered a traditional place of service. Thus, this study aims to fill this gap. According to Baker (1987), the longer the stay in the physical environment, the more significant its effect on the individual. Studies have shown that an ergonomic design can lead to more physical and mental stress for employees. Conversely, an ergonomic design can significantly improve productivity and reduce human error, thereby enhancing employees’ safety, health and comfort(Chen et al., 2023). Therefore, incorporating ergonomic principles into the design of an office environment servicescape can ensure that the design meets the workers’ capabilities and achieves an optimal balance between health, safety and productivity(Diogo et al., 2024 ).

In summary, this study aimed to develop a comprehensive dimension of the servicescape in the office environment and to develop a reliable and valid service perception scale for assessing the quality of services in the office environment and promoting a stress-free work environment. Bitner(1992) stated that the servicescape dimensions are decisive for the customer’s overall perception, which in turn affects their cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses. After developing the scale, this study assessed the importance of these dimensions from an expert perspective to provide a basis for the next empirical research. To achieve the above aims, the application of ergonomics in the office environment was first reviewed, and then the research on servicescape in different service environments was organized. Next, the steps of scale development and the results of data analysis were elaborated. Finally, the theoretical and practical significance of the study was discussed, and the limitations and future research directions were outlined.

2. Literature review

2. 2. Servicescape

Bitner (1992) points out that the servicescape comprises carefully designed environmental elements, including ambient conditions, spatial/ functional layout, and three key elements: signs, symbols, and artefacts. Over time, the study of servicescape has gradually expanded from the tangible physical environment to include intangible elements. Baker et al. (1994) further expanded the definition of servicescape to include interpersonal and social elements, arguing that servicescape should include three aspects: atmosphere, design, and society, with the social element focusing on interpersonal interactions in the environment. Tombs & McColl(2003) proposed that the social environment and consumption scenarios jointly affect the social density of service venues, which further affects customers’ emotional and cognitive responses and their willingness to buy. Rosenbaum & Massiah(2011) added two dimensions to previous research: social symbolism and nature. They emphasized that social symbolism is particularly meaningful to specific groups, while the nature dimension focuses on restoring individuals’ physical and mental health. Pizam & Tasci(2019) proposed the concept of experience servicescape, which is defined as an environment that encompasses sensory, functional, social, natural and cultural stimuli and that not only provides a culture of hospitality but also influences the cognitive, emotional and behavior responses of consumers, employees and other stakeholders, thereby having a positive or negative impact on products, services, brands and companies.

Compared with the expansion of the concept of servicescape, many researchers have further refined and expanded the dimensions of servicescape based on the unique attributes of different service venues so that its application scope can be extended to more service environments. Table 1 lists the application of the previous servicescape in different service scenarios, including baseball stadiums, hotels, restaurants and so on. Through the review of previous studies, it is found that the dimensions of servicescape are diverse and change in different industries and product situations. However, a review of the existing literature shows that although the servicescape has been studied in depth in many fields, more research needs to be conducted on the servicescape of office spaces. This scarcity of research may be because the office environment is not considered a typical “service place” in traditional concepts. Therefore, the construction of the relevant servicescape has not been paid attention to. Given this, this study considers it an environment that provides employees with daily work services to expand the application of the servicescape theory. The development of a stress-free office environment servicescape perception scale is introduced in the next section.

Table 1

Review of servicescape in different service settings

3. Scale development process

In order to standardize the development process of the scale, this study refers to the best scale development guidelines proposed by Boateng et al.(2018) (as shown in Figure 1), which divides scale development into three main stages: item development, scale development, and scale evaluation, and subdivides them into nine steps.

Figure 1

Scale development procedure

3. 1. Item development

3. 1. 1. Domains identification

This study aims to achieve two main objectives: first, to identify the dimensions of office environment servicescape and their evaluation factors, and second, to develop a scale for measuring employees’ perceptions of office environment servicescape. Bitner(1992) suggests that the servicescape’s dimensions contribute to the customer’s overall perception, leading to cognitive, emotional, and physiological reactions and approach or avoidance behavior. However, an extensive literature review revealed that existing studies must pay more attention to the office environment servicescape. As Slavec and Drnovšek(2012) suggested, a review of the relevant literature is the basis for new conceptual theories. Therefore, this study provides a theoretical basis for developing an evaluation scale for servicescape in office environments by extensively reviewing previous literature on servicescape. In addition, Baker(1987) believes that the longer customers spend in a physical environment, the more susceptible they are to its influence. Therefore, this study also incorporates an ergonomic perspective, focusing on the requirements of office equipment (workstations, furniture, etc.) and physical conditions(environmental quality, layout, etc.), which are reflected in the relevant dimensions.

Through a review of previous studies on servicescapes, the office environment servicescape was initially divided into seven dimensions. The specific definitions and references are shown in Table 2. These dimensions are representative and important in previous servicescape studies and are easy to identify and distinguish, ensuring that the dimensions do not overlap and cover all potential research areas.

Table 2

Definition of stress-free office environment servicescape dimension

3. 1. 2. Item generation

This study used a deductive approach, which means that the initial evaluation elements of existing scales were directly generated or adapted based on the theoretical basis. Potential evaluation factors were extensively extracted through content analysis of previous literature, and a pool of items containing 49 evaluation factors was generated and transformed into appropriate declarative sentences. The specific extraction method for evaluation factors is as follows.

Ambient conditions are critical to the perceived quality of the servicescape(Robinson & Callan, 2005). This dimension builds on Kotler(1973) sensory dimensions(smell, touch, sound and sight) and Bitner(1992) ambient conditions(temperature, lighting, music, scent and air quality). It incorporates environmental ergonomics considerations (e.g. thermal environment, noise, lighting). It can influence the stress levels that employees experience, which in turn can affect their health and performance(Awada et al., 2023). For example, uncomfortable lighting(e.g. too bright) can increase self-reported annoyance and stress levels(Thach et al., 2020). Indoor air quality is also an important factor, as pollutants such as carbon monoxide can hurt health (Sim et al., 2016). In addition, cleanliness in service scenarios is an important influencing factor, especially in office environments (Lucas, 2003). Sârbu & Sebarchievici(2013) believe that color, humidity and ventilation also affect the comfort of the indoor space environment. In summary, ambient conditions in office scenarios include but are not limited to, temperature, humidity, ventilation, noise, odor, cleanliness, lighting, music, air quality and color.

Layout refers to the arrangement of furniture, equipment, service areas and passageways in an office environment, as well as the spatial relationships between these elements(Bitner, 1992). A well-designed layout meets the requirements of ease of use and increases employee satisfaction(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Aubert-Gamet(1997) showed that layout is closely related to feelings of congestion or spaciousness. A lack of personal space in the office environment can have a negative impact on employee morale and productivity(Murphy, 2001). From an ergonomic perspective, Margaritis & Marmaras(2007) propose layout requirements, including appropriate lighting, avoiding glare, optimizing air circulation, and maintaining clear access to workstations. In addition, Jahncke & Hallman(2020) emphasize that flexible office space layouts based on activities can improve employee satisfaction. Based on the above research, the layout of the office environment mainly consists of the following factors: spacious layout, reasonable lighting layout, convenient access facilities, layout for promotes air circulation, safe and unobstructed indoor passages, layout optimization workflow, flexible layout, layout in line with organizational structure, layout protects privacy, and layout for easy to operation and maintenance.

Functional concerns focus on how facilities, equipment and furniture support performance and goal achievement(Barker, 1984). The function of facilities is important to managers because customers closely observe and experience these environmental facilities(Siu et al., 2012). Bitner (1992) and Jeon & Kim(2012) both emphasize that spatial layout and functionality positively impact the perception of the service environment. For example, in airports, the function of information signs is crucial. The functionality and comfort of facilities also significantly affect customer experience(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Adjustable workstations can enhance teamwork and reduce stress (Robertson & O’Neill, 1999), while uncomfortable chairs and workstations are ergonomic stressors in the office environment(Awada et al., 2023). Providing indoor rest spaces helps restore personal resources (such as emotions and fatigue), thereby reducing stress levels(Sona et al., 2019). Therefore, this study believes that the functional of an office is reflected in adjustable functions of workstations, seat comfort, rest area, information function, and fully equipped(printer, etc.).

The aesthetic can influence the psychological state of customers. Jones & Paul(1985) point out that customers often evaluate the overall service experience based on their initial perception of the aesthetics of the physical environment. Jeon & Kim(2012) show that aesthetic factors are particularly important for promoting positive emotions due to their significant visual appeal. In addition, Lucas(2003) points out that the balance and harmony of interior decoration can significantly improve customer satisfaction, which should be coordinated with other elements in the work environment. The choice of colors in the office environment can also affect employees’ state. For example, Kwallek et al. (1988) showed that office workers in red rooms had higher levels of anxiety and stress than those in blue rooms. Lee & Lee (2015) believe that the appearance style, interior style, material decoration and facility style are the elements that constitute the aesthetics of the facility aesthetics. Ryu & Jang(2008) believe that the aesthetic components of a restaurant’s facilities are composed of architectural design, color, and interior design; Kim & Moon(2009) consider the external building, interior, decoration, color, and overall attractiveness to be the components of facility aesthetics. Based on the above research, this study believes that the aesthetic components of the office environment mainly include external architectural design, interior design style, color, interior decoration, decorative materials, and facility style.

Natural elements play an important role in relieving consumers’ psychological problems, such as fatigue, stress, burnout and depression, and help promote physical and mental health, thereby improving happiness(Ulrich et al., 1991; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011). Studies have shown that workplaces with plants and green window views can enhance brain wave activity and reduce anxiety(Hassan et al., 2020). In addition, Zhang et al.(2017) found that using wood for interior decoration in indoor environments positively impacts well-being, especially in relation to stress indicators. Natural materials were found to help employees recover their attention more quickly(Zhang et al., 2017). Pizam & Tasci(2019) incorporated natural dimensions into the experiential servicescape and proposed six measurement items: indoor landscape, natural materials, plants, natural elements enhancing environmental attractiveness, natural elements making the layout have different functions, and the balance between nature and the built environment. Because of these findings, this study believes that the measurement items proposed by Pizam & Tasci(2019) also apply to the composition of nature dimensions in the servicescape of the office environment.

According to the standards proposed by ISO 26000, the prevention of occupational risks and the protection of workers’ health and safety are the main concerns of organizations(Bautista et al., 2024). Employees are the most important resource of an organization, and the development of plans and measures to protect the health and safety of employees should be considered as one of the priorities (Fernández et al., 2009). Jeon & Kim(2012) emphasized the importance of firefighting equipment, safety signs, hazard detectors, and non-slip tools to maintain a safe environment for airport services. Choi & Hyun(2024) proposed design strategies for space improvement, traffic improvement, safety training, and safety signs for specific problems in industrial workspaces. In the office environment, not only should the safety of the environment be considered, but also the safety and health of employees. Factors such as long-term sedentary behavior, poor sitting posture, and long hours of computer work can have a negative impact on employee health, making ergonomic training particularly important (Tchir & Szafron, 2020). Based on the above research, the safety dimensions of the office environment include the accessibility of firefighting equipment, safety training, safety signs, maintenance of hazard detectors, necessary anti-slip tools, and ergonomic training.

Tombs & McColl(2003) argue that other customers in the servicescape play an integral role in successful service delivery. Therefore, based on Bitner’s(1992) servicescape, social factors are introduced and explore how the purchase occasion, social density, and emotions expressed by others affect customers’ emotional and cognitive responses to the consumption experience. Line and Hanks(2019) divided the social servicescape of a hotel into three parts: appearance, behavior, and the degree to which customers are perceived to be similar to each other (i.e., similarity) in order to predict consumer behavior in hotels. Jeon & Kim(2012) also found that social factors significantly affect positive emotions among the five servicescape elements and pointed out that the number of interactions between customers and service personnel, appearance, and behavior in the airport environment can all affect customers’ emotional responses. Pizam & Tasci(2019) divided the social dimensions of the experience servicescape into crowd-level comfort, people seem happy, people interact with each other, consumers are sociable, and employees are friendly. After reviewing previous research, this study includes the social dimensions of the office environment as the number of employees, employee attitude, employee interactions, employee behavior, employee appearance, and employee similarity.

3. 1. 3. Content validity test

In this study, 15 ergonomics and servicescape experts assessed the initial scale’s content validity using the Lawshe(1975) content validity ratio(CVR). They reached a consensus on the structure of the scale through two rounds of the Delphi method.

In the first round of the survey, 11 items were found to have a CVR value below 0.49, indicating that they may be deleted. These included: Ambient conditions(music, color), layout(air circulation, consistency with organizational structure, ease of maintenance of equipment), aesthetics(decorative materials), safety(non-slip tools), nature (enhancement of natural elements, functional diversity, balance with the built environment) and social factors(similarity of staff). In addition, 6 items were found to be redundant and therefore required content adjustment and reclassification: ventilation was classified under the functional dimension, and access safety was classified under safety. Following revisions based on this feedback, a second Delphi survey was conducted. All 33 revised items exceeded a CVR of 0.49, indicating expert consensus and confirming the scale’s content validity.

3. 2. Scale development

3. 2. 1. Pre-testing questions

Pre-testing helps to minimize misunderstandings and subsequent measurement errors(Boateng et al., 2018). In this study, we conducted focus group interviews with 10 office workers(target population) with more than 5 years of work experience to refine the items and assess the item interpretation using probing questions(Peterson et al., 2017). In addition, we reviewed the items that experts had suggested be deleted and asked the respondents if they agreed with these views. Based on their feedback, the respondents agreed with the experts. They made seven changes to the item descriptions of the scale, for example, changing “firefighting equipment is easily accessible” to “firefighting equipment is easily accessible and regularly inspected.” At the same time, one item was deleted because the respondents thought that “the need for employees to dress uniformly in the office environment is low,” so it should be considered for deletion. The initial scale included 32 items, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Initial stress-free office environment servicescape services perception scale

3. 2. 2. Pilot study and sample size

Although the scale was evaluated and revised several times during the development process, including content validity testing using the Delphi method and focus group interviews, a pilot study was still an indispensable step. The pilot study was conducted online at a listed company in Nanjing, China. 60 questionnaires were distributed, and 53 valid responses were received, with a response rate of 88.33%. The respondents all indicated that they did not find any inappropriate questions in the questionnaire. Therefore, no changes were made to the questionnaire during the pilot study, and it was finally confirmed.

The formal survey used a 5-point Likert scale and was conducted among high-tech enterprises in an industrial park in Nanjing. 500 paper questionnaires were distributed, and all were returned, with 450 valid questionnaires ultimately selected for an effective response rate of 90%. The survey was conducted over one week, and all participants expressed their consent before filling it out and received a small gift after filling it out. The demographic distribution of the questionnaire is as follows: Gender: 247 male(58.12%) and 178 female (41.88%); Age: 25.18% under 25, 51.53% 25-35, 17.88% 36-45, 5.41% over 45; Education: 14.35% below bachelor’s degree, 57.65% bachelor’s degree 57.65%, graduate and above 28%; years of work experience: less than 1 year 17.41%, 1 to 5 years 44.47%, 6 to 10 years 22.82%, more than 10 years 15.29%; Position: junior management or skills 38.82%, intermediate management or skills 32.47%, senior management or skills 15.76%, other 12.94%. The sample was randomly divided into two parts for factor analysis.

3. 2. 3. Item reduction analysis

After the sample was collected, we performed a total correlation analysis of the data to assess the correlation between the scores of all items and the total score. A Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.4 is considered a good criterion for discrimination. The analysis results show that except for Q14(Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.112, P value of 0.093), below 0.4, the Pearson correlation coefficients of the other items are all greater than 0.4, with scores ranging from 0.416 to 0.622. Therefore, we deleted Q14 from the scale and retained the other 31 items.

3. 2. 4. Exploratory factor analysis

Before conducting the exploratory factor analysis(EFA), we first used SPSS 29 to calculate the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) sampling adequacy measure and the Bartlett sphericity test on the collected sample data(n=225) to assess the suitability of factor analysis. The results showed that the KMO value was 0.875, much higher than the recommended threshold of 0.60. At the same time, the Bartlett sphericity test also showed a significant χ² value of 3852.253(p < .000), indicating that the data was very suitable for EFA.

We used principal factor analysis (PFA) to determine the factor structure and retained factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and located above the elbow of the scree plot. The results of the PFA showed that after factor extraction of the 31 items on the scale, 6 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, with a cumulative contribution rate of 65.742% (more than 60%). Through orthogonal rotation, the 31 items were classified into 6 factors. However, according to the recommendations of Boateng et al.(2018), the factor loadings of Q17 and Q28 were below 0.5 and should be deleted. After deleting Q17 and Q28, a second round of factor appropriateness analysis and EFA was performed on the remaining 29 items. The results showed that the KMO value was 0.877, and the approximate chi-square value was 3738.013. After orthogonal rotation, 6 factors were extracted from the 29 items, and the cumulative contribution rate increased to 69.110%. All rotated item factor loadings were greater than 0.5. In summary, the stress-free office environment service perception scale consists of 29 items divided into 6 dimensions(as shown in Table 4).

Table 4

Exploratory factor analysis results

The initial scale for a stress-free office environment included 7 aspects: ambient conditions, layout, functional, aesthetics, safety, nature and society. However, the EFA results showed only 6 factors, so we renamed the factors. Factor 1 was renamed “Aesthetics” and includes 6 items, accounting for 27.618% of the variance. Items originally related to nature, such as “pleasant interior natural landscape design” and “interior greenery and flowers,” were merged into aesthetics. Factor 2 was renamed “Ambient conditions” and includes six items, accounting for 11.927% of the variance. Factor 3 was renamed “Safety” and includes 5 items, accounting for 9.753% of the variance. Factor 4 was renamed “Functional” and includes five items, accounting for 7.702% of the variance. Factor 5, renamed “Layout,” includes four items and explains 7.005% of the variance. Finally, Factor 6 consists of 3 items, explains 5.105% of the total variance, and is related to the social environment, so it is named “Social”.

3. 3. Scale evaluation

3. 3. 1. Confirmatory factor analysis

This study used confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) and another sample (n=225) to confirm the scale structure identified in the EFA(as depicted in Figure 2). The evaluation of model fit includes several criteria: when the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom(X²/df) is less than 3, the comparative fit index(CFI) is close to or greater than 0.9, and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual(SRMR) is close to or less than 0.08, the model fit can be considered good. The results of this analysis show that the chi-square value is 475.216, the degrees of freedom are 362, X²/df is 1.313, RMSEA is 0.037, and SRMR is 0.486. The CFI value is 0.9 68, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) was 0.851, and the Tucker-Lewis index(TLI) was 0.964. These fit indices collectively confirmed the model’s validity and supported the scale structure’s stability and applicability.

Figure 2

Factor loadings of items and correlations between factors in the final CFA model

3. 3. 2. Reliability analysis

In this study, we used Cronbach’s α to evaluate the reliability of the developed scale. The scale’s reliability was analyzed in detail using the sample of the CFA. The results showed that the overall Cronbach’s α of the scale was 0.904, far exceeding the generally accepted threshold of 0.7. In addition, the Cronbach’s α values for the individual dimensions also exceeded 0.8, with ambient conditions at 0.877, layout at 0.859, functionality at 0.880, aesthetics at 0.897, safety at 0.884, and society at 0.874. These results clearly show that the scale developed in this study has a high internal consistency and is suitable for further scientific research and practical applications.

3. 3. 3. Validity analysis

This study assessed the validity of the stress-free office environment service perception scale, involving a review of content and structural validity. The scale was constructed based on a detailed literature review and approved by 15 domain experts, thus indicating good content validity. In terms of structural validity, we paid particular attention to the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity requires that the composite reliability(CR) is greater than 0.7 and higher than the average variance extracted (AVE). In contrast, discriminant validity requires that the square root of the AVE is greater than any inter-factor correlation coefficient, and these conditions have been met in this study.

The results in Table 5 show that the CR values of each dimension range from 0.861 to 0.897, all exceeding the benchmark requirement of 0.5; the AVE values range from 0.554 to 0.701, and the CR values of each dimension are greater than the corresponding AVE values. Therefore, the 6 dimensions have good convergent validity. In addition, by comparing the correlation coefficients between dimensions and the square roots of AVE values on the diagonal, it can be seen that the square roots of AVE for all dimensions are greater than the correlation coefficients between dimensions, indicating that the scale has good discriminant validity. In summary, the stress-free office environment service perception scale shows good structural validity.

Table 5

Results of scale validity analysis

3. 4. Relative importance analysis

The results of the EFA and CFA verified the reliability and validity of the stress-free office environment service perception scale. In order to further analyze the relative importance of each dimension and evaluation factor, the analytic hierarchy process(AHP) was used in this study. The results of the AHP not only provide a basis for subsequent work in this study, such as predicting which variables have a significant impact on the research subjects but also support managers in making decisions on optimizing office environment strategies and resource allocation. To ensure that the experts had a thorough understanding of the purpose of the study, 15 experts who had previously participated in the Delphi method were invited to participate in the AHP analysis. The results of the AHP are shown in Figure 3, with the relative importance of each dimension shown on the left and the relative importance within the dimension shown on the right.

Figure 3

AHP relative importance ranking

4. Discussion

In the development of the stress-free office environment service perception scale, we strictly followed the scientific process of “Item development -Scale development-Scale evaluation” (Boateng et al, 2018). In the item development phase, we adopted the deductive method of “top-down classification.” By comprehensively combing the servicescape and ergonomics literature in different scenarios, we provided a solid theoretical basis for the construction of the office environment servicescape perception scale. Based on this, we initially identified seven dimensions of the stress-free office environment servicescape and formed a project pool of 49 evaluation factors.

Through the Delphi method and pre-testing with the target population, we deleted redundant or unnecessary items. We revised the descriptive statements of the evaluation indicators to improve the content validity of the scale. The small-scale pilot survey that followed verified these revisions’ effectiveness and laid the formal survey’s foundation. After the formal survey, we conducted a total correlation analysis of the project based on the collected data and further screened the items. The results of the EFA showed that the scale’s structure differed from what was originally conceived. To verify the factor structure found by EFA, we conducted a CFA, the results of which confirmed the validity of EFA. Finally, through reliability and validity analysis, we determined the final composition of the scale. In short, the development process of the stress-free office environment service perception scale was rigorous and standardized, providing a scientific-practical example for the development of related scales.

The scale developed by this study consists of six dimensions, which is a different result from the structure originally envisioned. Although nature is usually classified as a dimension in most studies to highlight its importance, in the EFA phase of this study, the nature dimension items in the original scale “pleasant interior natural landscape design,” “use of natural materials such as wood (factor load below threshold and deleted),” and “indoor greenery and flowers” were classified as dimensions of aesthetics. As proposed by Gillis & Gatersleben(2015), the nature component(plants, natural landscape design) serves as a visual stimulus that contributes to the creation of biophilic office environments with stress recovery effects(Ulrich et al., 1991). Therefore, the nature component first affects the aesthetic environment of the office environment and then directly or indirectly affects the stress recovery level of office workers. Therefore, although nature dimensions are not independent, it is theoretically reasonable to classify them as aesthetic dimensions(Jeon & Kim, 2012). In addition, EFA extracted 6 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 69.110% of the total variance. The high factor loadings of the items on the 6 dimensions further support the rationality of the dimensional division of the scale.

The results of the CFA showed that the model fit index between the theoretical model derived from the EFA and the sample data reached a good or acceptable level, thus confirming the rationality of the 6 dimensional structure of the scale and showing good structural validity. In addition, the reliability analysis showed that Cronbach’s α value of the scale was at a high level, proving that the scale had excellent internal consistency. The validity analysis further confirmed that the scale’s content, convergent, and discriminant validity were all good. Therefore, the stress-free office environment service perception scale has good reliability and validity, ensuring the stability and reliability of the measurement results(Boateng et al., 2018). In summary, the scale developed in this study is suitable for assessing employees’ service perception of the office environment. It provides an effective and reliable measurement tool for future related empirical studies.

Based on the results of the AHP, we provide managers with a prioritized reference ranking of the key dimensions of the office environment. Ambient conditions are the first area of focus, with a weight of 28.16%, indicating that managers can consider prioritizing the improvement of the internal ambient conditions of the office, such as installing an air conditioning system that can adjust the temperature, using natural light, or high-quality artificial lighting. The second is the aesthetic dimension, with a weight of 24.46%, indicating that improving the visual and sensory appeal of the space is a useful direction for optimizing the office environment. Although the weights of layout and social are relatively low, at 4.48% and 3.49%, respectively, these factors should not be overlooked when creating a stress-free office environment(Margaritis & Marmaras, 2007; Bitner, 1992; Pizam & Tasci, 2019). These experts’ suggestions provide a reference for managers to create a stress-free work environment.

5. Conclusion

The scale developed in this study covers 6 dimensions: ambient conditions, layout, functional, aesthetics, safety, and society, with 29 items. The analysis shows that the scale can effectively measure employees’ perception of office environment services and has good application value. In addition, the results of the AHP provide managers with guidelines for optimizing the office environment to promote the creation of a stress-free office environment. However, the study also revealed some limitations. First, the research perspective is mainly based on employees and experts in related fields, and the views of managers and other stakeholders need to be fully considered, which may lead to an inadequate comprehensive assessment of office environment services. Second, since the sample was only collected in Nanjing, China, the universality of the scale may be affected by regional cultural differences. In addition, although the sample size met the basic statistical analysis requirements, a larger sample size would help to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the research results. Therefore, future research should be optimized to expand the perspective, increase the regional diversity of the sample, and increase the sample size to enhance the reliability of the research results and ensure the comprehensiveness of the assessment.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by BK21 Four Service Design based Glocal Social Innovation Educational Research Team in Dongseo University.

References

• Artime-Ríos, E., Suárez-Sánchez, A., Sánchez-Lasheras, F., & Seguí-Crespo, M. (2022). Computer vision syndrome in healthcare workers using video display terminals: an exploration of the risk factors. Journal of advanced nursing, 78(7), 2095-2110. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15140]
• Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: diversion of the physical environment in a re-appropriation process. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), 26-41. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239710161060]
• Awada, M., Becerik-Gerber, B., Liu, R., Seyedrezaei, M., Lu, Z., Xenakis. (2023). Ten questions concerning the impact of environmental stress on office workers. Building and Environment, 229, 109964. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109964]
• Baker, J. (1987). "The role of the environment in marketing services", Czepiel, J. A., Congram, C. A. and Shanahan, J. (Eds), The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, In American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp. 79-84.
• Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 22, 328-339. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394224002]
• Bautista-Bernal, I., Quintana-García, C., & Marchante-Lara, M. (2024). Safety culture, safety performance and financial performance. A longitudinal study. Safety science, 172, 106409. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106409]
• Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600205]
• Brown, S., Stevens, L., & Maclaran, P. (2018). Epic aspects of retail encounters: The Iliad of Hollister. Journal of Retailing, 94(1), 58-72. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2017.09.006]
• Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in public health, 6, 149. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149]
• Chen, D., Zhu, M., & Qiao, Y. (2023). An ergonomic design method of manned cabin driven by human operation performance. Advanced Design Research, 1(1), 12-20. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadr.2023.05.001]
• Chim, J. M. (2019). 6Ws in ergonomics workplace design. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VII: Ergonomics in Design, Design for All, Activity Theories for Work Analysis and Design, Affective Design 20(pp. 1282-1286). [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_129]
• Dianat, I., Vahedi, A., & Dehnavi, S. (2016). Association between objective and subjective assessments of environmental ergonomic factors in manufacturing plants. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 54, 26-31. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.12.004]
• Diogo R. Martins, Sara M. Cerqueira, Cristina P. Santos（2024). Combining inertial-based ergonomic assessment with biofeedback for posture correction: A narrative review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 190, 110037. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110037]
• Dong, P., & Siu, N. Y. M. (2013). Servicescape elements, customer predispositions and service experience: The case of theme park visitors. Tourism management, 36, 541-551. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.004]
• Dora, H. K. M., Krishna, L. S. R., & Reddy, P. R. (2022). Enhancement of safety and productivity all the way through function of ergonomics principles - A case study. Materials Today: Proceedings, 64, 212-219. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.444]
• Fernandez-Muniz, B., Montes-Peon, J. M., & Vazquez-Ordas, C. J. (2009). Core elements of safety culture and safety performance: literature review and exploratory results. International journal of society systems science, 1(3), 227-259. [https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSS.2009.022817]
• Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings, 5(3), 948-963. [https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948]
• Hassan, A., Chen, Q., Liu, Y., ... & Liu, S. (2020). Do plants affect brainwaves? Effect of indoor plants in work environment on mental stress. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci, 85(4), 279-283. [https://doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.2020/85.4.9]
• Huang, Y. H., Robertson, M. M., & Chang, K. I. (2004). The role of environmental control on environmental satisfaction, communication, and psychological stress: effects of office ergonomics training. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 617-637. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503262543]
• Jahncke, H., & Hallman, D. M. (2020). Objective measures of cognitive performance in activity based workplaces and traditional office types. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101503. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101503]
• Jain, R., Rana, K. B., & Meena, M. L. (2021). An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach for identifying the risk level of musculoskeletal disorders among handheld device users. Soft Computing, 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05592-w]
• Jeon, S., & Kim, M. S. (2012). The effect of the servicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in an international airport service environment. Service Business, 6, 279-295. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-012-0136-z]
• Jones, C., & Paul, V. (1985), Accommodation Management: A System Approach. Batsford Academic and Educational, London.
• Jun, D., Zoe, M., Johnston, V., & O'Leary, S. (2017). Physical risk factors for developing non-specific neck pain in office workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International archives of occupational and environmental health, 90, 373-410. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1205-3]
• Kearney, T., Coughlan, J., & Kennedy, A. (2013). An exploration of the effects of the servicescape on customer and employee responses in a grocery retail context. Irish Journal of Management, 32(2), 71-91.
• Kibria, M. G., & Rafiquzzaman, M. (2019). Ergonomic Computer Workstation Design for University Teachers in Bangladesh. Jordan Journal of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, 13(2).
• Kim, W. G., & Moon, Y. J. (2009). Customers' cognitive, emotional, and actionable response to the servicescape: A test of the moderating effect of the restaurant type. International journal of hospitality management, 28(1), 144-156. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.010]
• Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
• Kwallek, N., Lewis, C. M., & Robbins, A. S. (1988). Effects of office interior color on workers' mood and productivity. Perceptual and motor skills, 66(1), 123-128. [https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1988.66.1.123]
• Lam, L. W., Chan, K. W., Fong, D., & Lo, F. (2011). Does the look matter? The impact of casino servicescape on gaming customer satisfaction, intention to revisit, and desire to stay. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 558-567. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.10.003]
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY1. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
• Lee, S. H., & Lee, H. (2015). The design of servicescape based on benefit sought in hotel facilities: A survey study of hotel consumers in Seoul. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 14(3), 633-640. [https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.14.633]
• Line, N. D., & Hanks, L. (2019). The social servicescape: A multidimensional operationalization. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(2), 167-187. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348018767948]
• Line, N. D., Hanks, L., & Kim, W. G. (2018). An expanded servicescape framework as the driver of place attachment and word of mouth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(3), 476-499. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348015597035]
• Lockwood, A., & Pyun, K. (2020). Developing a scale measuring customers' servicescape perceptions in upscale hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 40-59. [https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0208]
• Lucas, A. F. (2003). The determinants and effects of slot Servicescape satisfaction in a Las Vegas hotel casino. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 7(1), 1-19.
• Lyu, J., Hu, L., Hung, K., & Mao, Z. (2017). Assessing servicescape of cruise tourism: the perception of Chinese tourists. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2556-2572. [https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2016-0216]
• Margaritis, S., & Marmaras, N. (2007). Supporting the design of office layout meeting ergonomics requirements. Applied Ergonomics, 38(6), 781-790. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.10.003]
• Muhammad, S. A., & Lee, S. P. (2019). Physical Environment of a Coffee Shop Analysis of Future Customers Expectation Views. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8, 692-697. [https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.F1135.0886S19]
• Murphy, T. M. (2001). The effects of a crowded workplace on morale and productivity. Journal of Histotechnology, 24(1), 9-15. [https://doi.org/10.1179/his.2001.24.1.9]
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2003). Computer workstations eTool. OSHA. gov.
• Parsons, K. C. (2000). Environmental ergonomics: a review of principles, methods and models. Applied ergonomics, 31(6), 581-594. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00044-2]
• Peterson, C. H., Peterson, N. A., & Powell, K. G. (2017). Cognitive interviewing for item development: Validity evidence based on content and response processes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 217-223. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1339564]
• Pizam, A., & Tasci, A. D. (2019). Experienscape: expanding the concept of servicescape with a multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary approach (invited paper for 'luminaries' special issue of International Journal of Hospitality Management). International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 25-37. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.010]
• Rashid, M., & Zimring, C. (2008). A review of the empirical literature on the relationships between indoor environment and stress in health care and office settings. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 151-190. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311550]
• Robertson, M. M., & O'Neill, M. (1999, September). Effects of environmental control on stress, performance and group effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 552-556. [https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129904300801]
• Rosenbaum, M. S., & Massiah, C. (2011). An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of service management, 22(4), 471-490. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111155088]
• Ryu, K., & Jang, S. (2008). RETRACTED ARTICLE: Influence of restaurants' physical environments on emotion and behavioral intention. The Service Industries Journal, 28(8), 1151-1165. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060802188023]
• Sârbu, I., & Sebarchievici, C. (2013). Aspects of indoor environmental quality assessment in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 60, 410-419. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.005]
• Seolyung Choi, & Eunryung Hyun. (2024). Creating a Safe Industrial Workspace: Service Design Strategies for Preventing Safety Issues. Archives of Design Research, 37(2), 227-246. [https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2024.05.37.2.227]
• Sim, J., Sim, J., & Park, C. (2016). The air emission assessment of a South Korean apartment building’s life cycle, along with environmental impact. Building and Environment, 95, 104-115. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.008]
• Siu, N. Y. M., Wan, P. Y. K., & Dong, P. (2012). The impact of the servicescape on the desire to stay in convention and exhibition centers: The case of Macao. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 236-246. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.06.011]
• Slavec, A., & Drnovšek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review, 14(1), 39-62. [https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1203]
• Sona, B., Dietl, E., & Steidle, A. (2019). Recovery in sensory-enriched break environments: integrating vision, sound and scent into simulated indoor and outdoor environments. Ergonomics, 62(4), 521-536. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1491643]
• Tchir, D. R., & Szafron, M. L. (2020). Occupational health needs and predicted well-being in office workers undergoing web-based health promotion training: cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), e14093. [https://doi.org/10.2196/14093]
• Thach, T. Q., Mahirah, ... & Car, J. (2020). Associations of perceived indoor environmental quality with stress in the workplace. Indoor air, 30(6), 1166-1177. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12696]
• Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual model. Marketing theory, 3(4), 447-475. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593103040785]
• Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), 201-230. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7]
• Vicente, I., Godina, R., & Gabriel, A. T. (2024). Applications and future perspectives of integrating Lean Six Sigma and Ergonomics. Safety science, 172, 106418. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106418]
• Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of services marketing, 10(6), 45-61. [https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049610148594]
• Wargocki, P. (2011). Productivity and health effects of high indoor air quality. In Encyclopedia of environmental health (pp. 688-693). [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00270-1]
• Zerguine, H., Johnston, V., Healy, G. N., Abbott, A., & Goode, A. D. (2021). Usasge of sit-stand workstations: benefits and barriers from decision makers' perspective in Australia. Applied Ergonomics, 94, 103426. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103426]
• Zhang, X., Lian, Z., & Wu, Y. (2017). Human physiological responses to wooden indoor environment. Physiology & behavior, 174, 27-34. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.02.043]
• Zheng, Y., Zhao, X., & Yao, L. (2022). Copula-based transformer in EEG to assess visual discomfort induced by stereoscopic 3D. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 77, 103803. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2022.103803]