Synergies between recovery from work and restorative environments for sustainable development: an integrative theoretical perspective

Most employees are familiar with the phenomenon of being drained of their affective and energetic resources after long working hours (Meijman and Mulder 1998). A growing body of research is showing that work-related stress leads to impaired health and well-being in employees, as indicated by various signs, such as bad mood, sleep disturbances, mental disorders (e.g., major depression, anxiety disorders), and psychosomatic complaints (e.g., gastrointestinal problems, headaches; Nixon et al. 2011; Ford et al. 2014). In the past two decades, research has shown that an important opponent to work-related stress is being able to recover from work. While stress depletes resources and energy, recovery reverses this process and replenishes the drained affective and energetic resources (Sonnentag et al. 2017).

The literature on recovery from work (abbr.: recovery) mostly refers to two complementary theories, namely the Effort Recovery Model (ERM; Meijman and Mulder 1998) and Conservation of Resources Theory (COR; Hobfoll 1989). According to ERM (Meijman and Mulder 1998), recovery is thought to occur passively when one is not being exposed to further work demands, like during breaks at work (i.e., on-job recovery), after or before work, during the weekend, and during vacations (i.e., off-job recovery; Sonnentag et al. 2017, 2022). Alternatively, according to COR (Hobfoll 1989), recovery is seen as an active process of building new personal resources. Thus, COR stipulates (Hobfoll 1989) that some resources might have to be invested in (e.g., spending time to see friends) as a first step toward eventually acquiring new resources (e.g., social support), resulting in an upward spiral (Halbesleben et al. 2014). As a result, recovery incorporates both passive and active dynamics (Sonnentag et al. 2022).

In the literature on restorative environments, similar recreational processes are referred to as restoration (Kaplan 1995). There are noticeable parallels between the concept of restoration from the field of environmental psychology and that of recovery from the occupational health literature, but also some distinctions (Rydstedt and Johnsen 2019). Similar to recovery, restoration is seen as an unwinding of the strain that builds from being exposed to demands (Hartig et al. 1996). The literature on restoration is predominantly based on the Attention Restoration Theory (ART; Kaplan 1995), which states that attentional and executive capabilities are finite resources that are drained by everyday demands, such as constantly directing attention and inhibiting distractions. Following ART (Kaplan 1995), restorative environments that have beneficial qualities, like the feeling of being away (i.e., escaping everyday life), extent (i.e., richness and expanse of an environment leading to immersion), fascination (i.e., effortless bottom-up attention), and compatibility (i.e., fit between the properties of the surroundings and personal needs) are suitable for fostering the restoration of such attentional resources. In contrast to studies on recovery, studies on restoration do not solely focus on counteracting demands from the work domain but instead focus on restoration of everyday demands in general. Moreover, instead of addressing the replenishment of energetic and affective resources as scholars on recovery mostly do (Sonnentag et al. 2008; Rydstedt and Johnsen 2019; Steed et al. 2021), environmental psychologist focus on the replenishment of attentional resources (Kaplan 1995). Necessarily, recovery and restoration are “understood as complementary, rather than conflicting” processes (Rydstedt and Johnsen 2019, p. 4). Therefore, we integrate the research line on restoration into the existing framework on recovery to give organizations guidance on promoting employees’ health “in a natural way” and, thereby, contribute to social, economic, and ecological SDGs.

In one of the first studies on recovery (for a broader review, see Sonnentag et al., 2017, 2022), Sonnentag (2001) examined the recreational potential of various recovery activities, namely physical (e.g., exercise), social (e.g., meeting friends), and low-effort activities (e.g., watching TV), which were found to be predictive of employees’ well-being before bedtime (Sonnentag et al. 2017). Work-related activities, in turn, were associated with poorer well-being before bedtime (Sonnentag 2001; Sonnentag et al. 2017). Although such recovery activities may be restorative for most people in most situations, this approach neglects the importance of subjective experiences in psychological processes. The concept of recovery experiences takes this problem into account: Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) postulated that it is not specific recovery activities that lead to recovery per se but that recovery comes about via the underlying recovery experiences at play, namely psychological detachment (i.e., forgetting about work), relaxation (i.e., positive state of low activation), mastery (i.e., mastering challenging goals), and control (i.e., control over schedule during recovery periods). Psychological detachment and relaxation are based on assumptions of the ERM (Meijman and Mulder 1998), whereas mastery and control refer to the COR (Hobfoll 1989). Empirical results have shown that recovery experiences function as antecedents of employees’ well-being (e.g., Sonnentag et al. 2008; Steed et al. 2021) and as mediators between recovery activities and well-being (e.g., Korpela and Kinnunen 2010; Sianoja et al. 2018). In sum, previous research on recovery underlines that it is important what employees do to recover and how they experience this. The question of where employees recover best has not been addressed within the organizational literature systematically, but it is found within environmental psychology research (Sonnentag et al. 2017).

Research on restoration has investigated the restorative qualities of physical environments, especially of unharmful natural environments like green spaces, such as parks and forests, and blue spaces, such as rivers and seas (Hartig et al. 2014; Sonnentag et al. 2017). We refer to the term physical environment as a spatial and physical entity in a given moment that simultaneously triggers perceptions in different sensory modalities (e.g., visual, auditive, haptic, olfactory perceptions). Meta-analytical results demonstrate the beneficial effects of nature on psychophysiological stress markers, somatic health (Twohig-Bennett and Jones 2018), and psychological well-being due to restoration (e.g., Bowler et al. 2010; McMahan and Estes 2015). Recently, scholars integrated these findings and introduced an environmental demands-resources approach (Roskams and Haynes 2021; Hilbert et al. 2023), suggesting that environments which contain no or just a few environmental demands (e.g., low noise, little crowding; Meijman and Mulder 1998) and many environmental resources, such as naturalness, light, and other attractive stimuli (Hobfoll 1989), are restorative for employees during on- and off-job periods.

In sum, previous research on restoration has shown that one’s physical environment influences a variety of health and well-being outcomes via restoration processes (Hartig et al. 2014; Weber and Trojan 2018). Yet, the impact of physical environments specifically on employees’ recovery and well-being is currently underexamined (for good exceptions, see Korpela and Kinnunen 2010; Sianoja et al. 2018) but is a promising approach for researchers and practitioners due to its frequent occurrence during everyday life: All recovery activities necessarily take place in any kind of physical environment, which we refer to as the Embeddedness Hypothesis. Therefore, we provide a theoretical link between the literature on recovery and restoration.

We argue that physical environments are indirectly linked to employees’ psycho-physical health and well-being due to recovery experiences (Embedded Recovery Framework (ERF), see Fig. 1). Health and well-being, in turn, are related to organizational outcomes, like work engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and job performance (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005; Binnewies et al. 2009; Steed et al. 2021). Therefore, the role of physical environments for recovery from work is of central importance for organizational research (Sonnentag et al. 2017). We postulate that the environmental component of recovery (i.e., physical environments; e.g., being in nature) can be distinct from the behavioral component (i.e., recovery activities; e.g., doing sports), and that physical environments, therefore, have incremental validity over recovery activities to predict employees’ recovery (experiences). Furthermore, we state that recovery experiences, similar to how they relate to recovery activities (Sonnentag et al. 2017), represent the mechanisms that explain the indirect links between physical environments and employees’ recovery outcomes in health and well-being (Korpela and Kinnunen 2010).

Following this reasoning, we propose that restorative physical environments (i.e., low-demand, high-resource environments) during on- and off-job periods foster recovery experiences as underlying psychological mechanisms (Sonnentag and Fritz 2007; Korpela and Kinnunen 2010), namely psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control: First, environments that attract attention in a soft way by containing many aesthetic and fascinating stimuli, that are not related to work and do not contain work-related stimuli, and, therefore, lead to an escape experience from everyday (work) life, should increase detachment (Kaplan 1995). Stereotypical examples of such an environment are fascinating natural (e.g., coast, mountains) and artificial environments, like a historic city center (Hilbert et al. 2023). However, even everyday nature (e.g., urban park; Kaplan 1995) or medial environments, such as images or (VR) videos, can elicit similar effects when real fascinating environments are not available (Browning et al. 2021).

Second, environments that contain no or just a few environmental demands, such that they create a feeling of safety and homeliness and, thus, activate the parasympathetic nervous system, should be associated with higher levels of relaxation (Hilbert et al. 2023). We argue that relaxation should be able to be fostered in calm natural (e.g., peaceful backyard; Korpela and Kinnunen 2010) and artificial environments (e.g., one’s own bed or living room).

Third, environments that incorporate intellectually (e.g., art; Kaplan et al. 1993) or physically challenging stimuli, like physical obstacles, that demand and enable new achievements and, thus, foster the replenishment of personal resources like self-efficacy, should be linked to mastery (Sonnentag and Fritz 2007). As a result, we propose that mastery experiences may be elicited in challenging but not overwhelming natural (e.g., mountains and seas for sport) and artificial environments, for instance cultural spaces like museums (Kaplan et al. 1993). It is noteworthy that the difference between a challenging versus an overwhelming experience depends on one’s abilities, such as intellectual and physical resources (Hobfoll 1989). Therefore, environmental challenges must match the individual’s skill level to be beneficial for recovery (i.e., compatibility; Kaplan 1995).

Fourth, environments suitable for eliciting control are those that do not contain uncontrollable environmental stimuli and demands and that are compatible with personal schedules and currents needs (i.e., compatibility; Kaplan 1995); hence, they enable self-determined recovery periods. We claim that self-chosen natural and artificial environments, like one’s own backyard or living space, can increase control if they are designed according to one’s own taste and needs. In addition, we theorize that circumstances that reduce one’s autonomy to select and/or create preferred environments, such as strict (design) rules (e.g., rules against planting trees near one’s neighbor’s backyard) or companions who behave contrary to one’s own ideas (e.g., one who defaces my space by littering), reduce the experience of control.

In sum, natural environments with few demands and many resources (Roskams and Haynes 2021; Hilbert et al. 2023) that are safe and perceived as attractive (Hartig et al. 2014) should raise the probability of experiencing more recovery experiences. This, in turn, has practical implications for diverse stakeholders and provides a way to synergistically achieve the SDGs.

Integrating the research on restorative environments into the theoretical framework on recovery has practical implications for organizations and policymakers (e.g., urban planners) to promote employees’ recovery during on- and off-job periods by decreasing demands (e.g., noise protection) and increasing resources (e.g., visual privacy) in the environment, mediated by recovery experiences (for more detailed ideas, see Roskams and Haynes 2021; Hilbert et al. 2023). Specifically, we recommend that natural environments are selected (e.g., HR managers chose natural environments for fitness and relaxation exercises), preserved (e.g., governments establish nature reserves), and created (e.g., companies “green” their roofs and facades; for an overview and more examples, see Table 1).

For organizations, our ERF has implications for measures to foster employees’ on-job (e.g., spatial design at work) and off-job recovery (e.g., HR development). Choosing a natural surrounding for an organization’s headquarters, incorporating biophilic design into the workplace (e.g., using natural materials like wood, adding plants to the office), and greening roofs and facades are ways to create healthy work environments (Gillis and Gatersleben 2015). Moreover, managers can move HR and break activities into nature or teach employees about restorative environments during HR development. In addition, organizations could offer exercise groups that provide physical activity in natural settings or provide flexible work schedules that allow employees to better balance work and recovery activities. For example, flexible work schedules would allow employees to engage in weather-dependent recovery activities (e.g., jogging, hiking, skiing, and surfing), which, in turn, would contribute to employees’ recovery off work. For policymakers, our theoretical approach has implications for the design of recreational space in and outside cities. People need space for recovery activities, and attractive natural environments play a special role here (Hartig et al. 2014). Adding natural design elements like greening and water elements to urban spaces as well as restoring and preserving (former) natural spaces inside and outside cities are good starting points for benefiting public health (SDG 3; Maller et al. 2006).

By proposing the ERF, we primarily contribute to SDG 3 (i.e., good health and well-being) and 8 (i.e., decent work and economic growth), but could also secondarily add to SDG 11 (i.e., sustainable cities and communities), 13 (i.e., climate action), and 15 (i.e., live on land): We contribute to SDG 3 by expanding our theoretical knowledge on predictors of employees’ recovery and well-being. Previous research has demonstrated that nature exposure is linked to restoration and higher levels of well-being (e.g., Kaplan 1995, Hartig et al. 2014). In addition, the ERF we present adds value to decent work conditions (i.e., SDG 8) by providing approaches for restorative spaces at work that are intended for recovery (e.g., break rooms). Furthermore, as shown in our ERF, recovery and well-being are, in turn, preconditions for organizational outcomes such as performance and engagement at work, which contribute to sustainable economic growth (i.e., SDG 8; Lyubomirsky et al. 2005; Binnewies et al. 2009; Steed et al. 2021). In addition, we have shown that biophilic design is a synergistic approach to follow the recommendations of our ERF (e.g., Gillis and Gatersleben 2015; Roskams and Haynes, 2021; Hilbert et al. 2023). In turn, biophilic design (i.e., incorporating natural materials and living plants into buildings) will contribute to sustainable cities with less air pollution, heat, and unhealthy architecture (i.e., SDG 11; Hartig et al. 2014; Hilbert et al. 2023) as well as reduced CO₂ due to increased greening, thus contributing to climate action (i.e., SDG 13; United Nations 2015b) and promoting biodiversity and, thus, life on land (i.e., SDG 15; United Nations 2015b).

Overall, we argue that integrating research findings on restorative environments into the existing recovery framework is a promising approach for organizations to promote employee recovery and synergistically achieve the SDGs. In particular, reducing environmental demands (e.g., noise, unpleasant temperatures, air pollution) and increasing environmental resources (e.g., naturalness and attractiveness of the environment), for example through biophilic design (Gillis and Gatersleben 2015) in organizational and public spaces, have great potential to contribute to both employees’ recovery and sustainable development. Future research should focus more specifically on distinct time periods for recovery (e.g., micro-break vs. lunch break vs. weekend), different work settings (e.g., regular office vs. home office), and accordingly different recommendations based on our ERF. Moreover, recovery is about more than just recovery activities and experiences, as it also includes factors such as social support from partners or employers, blurred boundaries between the domains of work and private life, and work demands, et cetera. (for a comprehensive review, see Sonnentag et al. 2017, 2022). Consequently, future research could examine these phenomena in light of our proposed Embeddedness Hypothesis. In addition, the theoretical links in our ERF between the environmental demands-resources approach and recovery experiences as underlying mechanisms are rather broad, and more specific theoretical work is needed. Finally, since biophilic design may not be an appropriate solution for all spaces (e.g., operating rooms), alternative implications of our ERF, such as noise control, may be tangible approaches for future studies.