Workplace

natural materials show the strongest link to focus and creativity

Exact: r = 0.261

Use of natural materials has the strongest positive association with focus and creativity among Egyptian working women

Pearson correlation analysis across 12 biophilic design elements found that natural materials and adequate natural lighting produced the strongest positive associations with focus and creativity (r ranging from 0.203 to 0.261). These were statistically significant, indicating that workplaces with more of these elements were perceived by women as supporting better cognitive performance and creative output.

There were moderate positive correlations between several elements and focus and creativity, ranked in descending order: use of natural materials, reliance on adequate natural lighting, enhancement of overall job experience, and support for comfort and calm. The correlation coefficients for these elements ranged from r = 0.261 to r = 0.203, indicating that a higher presence of these elements was associated with better focus and creativity.
Heba M. Abdou et al., 2025, Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture

Machine-extracted, quote-verified. Report an error

Related findings

Read more in

Empty open-plan office with light-wood planted partitions and task chairs Workplace

What your office costs

Four design variables that move cognitive performance and who pays for them

22 May 2026 · 14 min · 25 sources
Empty classroom with wooden chair-desks and a full-height window onto trees Education

What school spaces do to children

Where the evidence on classroom air, acoustics, light and green is robust, where it is thin, and what to measure before the build.

12 May 2026 · 13 min · 18 sources

More from The Built Review

Silhouette of a person sitting at a floor-to-ceiling window with a view over Potsdamer Platz in Berlin Workplace

Germany's missing indoor-air bill

France, Britain and Australia have priced bad indoor air. Germany's missing number is a political choice, not a methodological limit.

10 Jun 2026 · 12 min · 14 sources
All reports

← All findings