If Green Walls Could Talk: Interpreting Building Sustainability Through Atmospheric Cues

Abstract

Architectural design influences both environmental outcomes and occupant behaviors. Green buildings convey environmental responsibility through formal (e.g., signage, tours) and informal means, including natural materials, daylighting, and energy-efficient features. These choices contribute to overall building “atmospherics” that can foster occupant awareness of sustainability. To explore how atmospherics contribute to occupant perception of building sustainability, we surveyed (n = 250) and interviewed (n = 16) occupants of two LEED-certified university buildings—the Green Building and the Green and Biophilic Building—focusing on their awareness of sustainable features and sources of this awareness. The results showed that occupants of the Green and Biophilic Building were significantly more likely to recognize its sustainable features. The diversity and frequency of features identified varied significantly between buildings, with the broader range in the Green and Biophilic Building. Content analysis revealed occupant misconceptions about the sustainability of features like automatic toilets, aesthetic elements, and biophilic patterns, with some assumptions based solely on appearance. These findings highlight how occupants develop green building awareness without formal instruction, underscoring the value of visible design elements in fostering engagement. This study offers practical recommendations for architects and designers to enhance green messaging through non-verbal cues and interpretative educational features.

1. Introduction

Buildings are more than just structures; they are powerful symbols that reflect societal values and priorities [1]. In recent years, the global shift towards sustainable building design has underscored a growing awareness of environmental responsibility, as green architecture emerges not only as a practice of eco-friendly construction but also as a symbolic gesture of commitment to sustainability [2]. Buildings featuring solar panels, green roofs, and energy-efficient systems visually communicate the importance of minimizing environmental impact and promote a culture of conservation [3].

Globally, buildings have a significant environmental impact, accounting for a large proportion of energy consumption, resource use, and carbon emissions. The building and construction sector alone is responsible for approximately 37% of global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions [4]. Sustainable building practices aim to reduce this footprint, achieving notable savings in energy and water use. A post-occupancy evaluation of 22 green buildings found that, on average, green buildings emit 34% lower carbon dioxide emissions than typical commercial buildings [5]. The global green building market was valued at approximately USD 523.85 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to over USD 850 billion by 2030, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of around 8.2% [6]. The growth of the sustainable building industry, supported by certification systems such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program [7], signals a widespread commitment to environmentally responsible construction. LEED is a certification system in which buildings earn points for implementing sustainable strategies across key areas, including building location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation [8]. LEED and other certifications (e.g., BREEAM and Green Globes) have gained global prominence, setting a standard for sustainability and encouraging builders and designers to incorporate eco-friendly practices. In this paper, the terms “green” and “sustainable” are used interchangeably to encompass widely accepted strategies aimed at reducing environmental impact, conserving resources, and promoting ecological responsibility in the built environment. (See Cisek and Jaglarz [9] for an overview of sustainable development strategies.) These practices, outlined by systems such as LEED, are often adopted as minimum benchmarks among new construction and major renovation building projects on university campuses, even when official building certification is not required [10].

As the public increasingly encounters and inhabits green buildings, there is growing evidence to support the social impact of sustainable architecture. In addition to the focus on resource efficiency, carbon reduction, water conservation, and responsible material sourcing by systems like LEED and BREEAM [11], certifications like the WELL Building Standard [12], Fitwel [13], and the Living Building Challenge [14] place greater emphasis on occupant health, comfort, and well-being. Human health and well-being outcomes of inhabiting sustainable buildings are largely attributable to improved indoor environmental quality [15], characterized by healthier indoor air, access to natural light [16], thermal comfort, and views [17]. Environments containing these characteristics have been associated with improved occupant mood and mental health [17,18], enhanced employee productivity, and reduced absenteeism in work environments [19].

However, beyond serving human needs, positive psychology scholars and others have suggested that in order to sustain and expand green building practices into the future, sustainable environments must also cultivate a commitment to the conservation of both built and natural environments [20,21]. Fostering a deeper understanding of sustainable design could play a crucial role in encouraging environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs), as research has commonly identified knowledge as a key factor underlying pro-environmental attitudes and actions [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. By equipping individuals with knowledge about green building practices, we may not only influence more eco-friendly personal choices but also inspire broader public advocacy for sustainable development. Cole [29] proposes advocacy behaviors, like efforts supporting the adoption of green building practices, as one outcome of cultivating Green Building Literacy.

One promising avenue for fostering this awareness is through the direct experience of occupying a green building, which can serve as a setting for informal education that subtly reinforces sustainable behaviors and values in daily life. Previous research has demonstrated that recognizing and understanding a building’s sustainable design features can enhance occupant satisfaction [30], foster positive environmental attitudes [31], and encourage ERBs [21,32,33].

The potential for green buildings to function as settings for informal education is grounded in several theoretical frameworks. David Orr famously argued that the built environment serves as the “hidden curriculum” of educational spaces [34,35], teaching students implicitly through design choices, like resource use and sustainability practices. This concept underscores the idea that educational buildings can model environmental stewardship and sustainable living. Falk and Dierking’s Contextual Model of Learning [36] echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the physical context accompanies personal and social contexts among the domains that support learning. More recently, the Positive Sustainable Built Environments model [21], suggests green buildings may foster occupant ERBs through three domains. Green building features may prime ERBs through evoking a sustainable ethos or atmospherics and through environmental design that fosters cognitive clarity through attention restoration (e.g., views to nature are heavily cited components of restorative environments). In the second domain, green buildings may foster ERBs through the extent to which they afford opportunities or permit occupants to participate in eco-friendly behaviors, like stair taking or adjusting a thermostat to use less energy. Finally, green buildings might promote ERBs through features that actively encourage occupant participation in eco-behaviors through behavioral prompts, provision of feedback, or other educational interventions.

Cole’s Teaching Green Building Model for Learning [37] provides a framework for integrating environmental education into sustainable architecture, suggesting opportunities for design interventions to create learning opportunities within green buildings. It conceptualizes engagement along two axes: passive to active learning experiences and individual to social participation. Schools may leverage green buildings for their teaching potential, weaving the lessons of green architecture and engineering into formal STEM curricula [38]. However, outside of formal classroom instruction, occupants may explore the stories of green buildings independently and informally through educational signage, real-time energy feedback monitors, and interior features made from recycled materials. These elements serve as constant, accessible reminders of sustainability, encouraging spontaneous interactions that may foster awareness and curiosity about green design.

The means to effectively communicate sustainable design within green buildings to the public has become a growing area of research. In an early post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of occupants’ perceptions of sustainability in a LEED Platinum-certified hub for environmental action, Cranz et al. [1] suggest that occupants interpret building sustainability through a variety of cues. Despite the building’s high LEED certification, which was communicated through the website and through the required installation of the LEED seal, the LEED status and environmental significance of this certification were not obvious to occupants.

Simple awareness of a building’s “green status” can shape occupants’ ERBs. In a randomized control trial, participants who were assigned to a virtual environment that was branded as LEED-certified were significantly more likely to engage in eco-behaviors (e.g., use of natural light and recycling) than participants in the equivalent, but non-LEED-branded, virtual environment [39]. In addition to green branding, other overt cues, such as educational signage, foster informal learning within green buildings, much like the free-choice learning experiences found in museums [37]. In Cranz et al.’s [1] POE, installed signage was sometimes evaluated as even more sustainable than the features themselves (e.g., the signage about a dual-flush toilet was ranked as more sustainable than the image of the dual-flush toilet). However, occupants also overlooked overt signals within the environment; a digital energy dashboard received little occupant attention. The authors attribute this unsuccessful communication to unengaging graphics, small size, and discreet location. Digital communications like publicly visible dashboards in green buildings are often subject to “display blindness” due to occupants’ perception that the content contained within a digital frame is likely to be uninteresting or irrelevant to their daily lives [40].

Apart from overt educational features like signage and dashboards, occupants also rely on implicit cues to appraise building sustainability. The concept of “atmospherics” or “aesthetics” encompasses a range of sensory and visual elements—such as natural materials, daylighting, and visible sustainable features—that subtly communicate a building’s environmental ethos. Research from retail and merchandising sectors demonstrates the power of such cues, with shoppers in a store characterized by natural atmospherics perceiving both the store and its products as more sustainable, leading to increased green product purchasing intentions [41]. Similarly, in the hospitality and tourism industries, green indoor atmospherics have been linked to enhanced well-being and place attachment among guests and employees [42], as well as positive aesthetic appraisals of luxury hotels [43] and airports [44].

Despite these findings, there remains limited empirical evidence on how green building atmospherics influence occupants’ awareness of architectural sustainability and their environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs). Cranz et al. [1] argue that beyond explicit educational elements, aesthetic and ambient cues contribute to the perception of a building’s sustainability. Wu et al. [45] support this claim, showing that in the absence of direct prompts, architectural atmospherics can influence ERBs, with transient users in a green university building exhibiting higher recycling rates than those in a non-green counterpart. However, later studies [46] highlight a gap between increased recycling behavior and the accuracy of recycling practices, suggesting that while green design atmospherics may cue sustainability awareness, they may not provide the necessary functional knowledge for appropriate interaction with green features [47]. This distinction underscores the potential of green atmospherics as a tool for fostering environmental awareness while also suggesting the need for complementary educational interventions to ensure informed and effective occupant engagement with sustainable building systems.

Green building atmospherics encompass a range of sensory, material, and spatial qualities that collectively communicate sustainability to occupants. Taking a historical and theoretical perspective, Cooke [48] identifies ten principles of green design aesthetics, highlighting characteristics such as an “organic sensibility interdependent with place-based regional or local landscape features” and the “optimum use of sustainable materials and technologies related to the location of design” (p. 301). Cooke further emphasizes the importance of connectivity between human and environmental needs. Empirical studies reinforce these themes, defining green atmospherics through three primary domains: ambient conditions (e.g., air quality, natural light, scent), green elements (e.g., interior décor incorporating natural materials, living plants, trees), and green spaces (e.g., sustainable rest areas, landscaped leisure spaces) [42]. Similarly, the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design [49,50] categorize strategies for incorporating nature into built environments through direct integration of natural elements, the use of natural analogues and patterns, and spatial configurations that evoke natural experiences. Notably, Lee, Tao, and Douglas [43] use the terms green atmospherics and biophilic design interchangeably, reinforcing the connection between sustainable aesthetics and biophilic design practices.

Biophilic design, rooted in the biophilia hypothesis, asserts that humans have an innate affinity for nature and that integrating natural elements into the built environment fosters well-being and environmental awareness [51,52]. In contrast to conventional development that distances people from nature [53], the sustainable building industry has increasingly adopted strategies to restore ecological balance and reconnect occupants with natural systems. Green building certification systems such as LEED (to a limited extent), the WELL building standard, and Living Building Challenge reflect this shift by incentivizing access to daylight and views of nature, promoting circadian lighting design, and incorporating natural materials that echo organic forms, patterns, and sensory experiences. These efforts suggest that biophilic design may offer a compelling framework for shaping green atmospherics in ways that not only enhance environmental performance and positively impact the well-being of occupants but also communicate sustainability to building occupants.

This study explores how occupants perceive and interpret sustainable features in two academic buildings with varying levels of green and biophilic elements. Specifically, it examines how these features contribute to occupants’ awareness of the building’s green status and the role of biophilic design in enhancing this awareness. By focusing on how green building features—both formal and atmospheric—communicate environmental responsibility, this research has implications for environmental communication and conservation psychology and designers seeking to inspire sustainable behaviors through visible, integrative design elements.

The following research questions guide this investigation:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Are occupants in a Green and Biophilic Building significantly more likely to be aware that they are in an environmentally sustainable building compared to occupants in the Green Building?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What do occupants identify as the source of their awareness if they knew their building was green?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What features do building occupants identify as sustainable, and are there significant differences in the variety and number of features identified between occupants of the Green Building and the Green and Biophilic Building?

Research Question 4 (RQ4): How do patterns of biophilia contribute to occupant perception of sustainability?

This study aims to enhance understanding of how sustainable and biophilic architectural features shape occupants’ perceptions of sustainable buildings. By analyzing the ways in which occupants become aware of sustainable design elements and the elements that comprise their awareness, this research provides actionable insights for architects and designers aiming to amplify green messaging through both formal and non-verbal environmental cues.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine occupant awareness and perceptions of sustainable features in a case study and a control academic building on a public multi-university campus in the northeastern United States. The buildings serve similar functions, offering multifunctional spaces for social interaction, study, and food access. The key programmatic differences include a community-accessible dental clinic and student training facilities in the case study building, while the control building houses the campus library. Although both are LEED-certified, they differ in aesthetic impact due to varying degrees of biophilic design. The design team for the case study building drew on Terrapin Bright Green’s Patterns of Biophilic Design [43], aiming to incorporate all 14 patterns. In contrast, the control building reflects a more conventional design, consistent with the author’s prior research in university-based LEED buildings. For simplicity, the case study building is referred to as the Green and Biophilic Building (GBB) and the control as the Green Building (GB).

The case study building (GBB), constructed in 2016, is a 225,000-square-foot, LEED Platinum facility that was designed with a strong biophilic intent. Pedestrians access the GBB via two pathways—one passing under a cantilevered green roof and another leading through a boardwalk that crosses a wetland. Inside, the building converges around a central atrium illuminated by skylights and floor-to-ceiling glass curtain walls, allowing natural light to permeate both the atrium and surrounding enclosed spaces. The material palette is notably minimal and natural; structural components and polished concrete floors are left exposed, and wood can be seen on a variety of surfaces. Notable biophilic elements include the abundance of natural light, a live green wall spanning the basement and first floors, and moveable lounge furniture inspired by natural forms and colors. A distinctive circular lecture hall, clad in salvaged wood, extends into the atrium, reinforcing the building’s sustainable and biophilic design principles. At the time of this study, the building lacked any explicit environmental interpretation elements, besides the LEED seal, to communicate its sustainable design features.

The control building (GB), completed in 2009, is a 280,000-square-foot structure with a LEED Gold certification, located adjacent to the GBB. The GB is surrounded by a green lawn with intersecting paved walkways leading to the entrance. Upon entry, visitors encounter a central atrium with a prominent staircase, naturally lit by skylights and clerestory windows. While some informal social spaces feature potted plants, the building’s material palette is more conventional, with structural elements concealed behind drywall and drop acoustic ceilings. Educational signage about the building’s sustainable features is minimal, with the most prominent display being a four-foot-tall informational board near a visible green roof. Together, these buildings provide a comparative setting for examining the influence of biophilic design elements on occupant experience.

Participants included students and employees who spent time in either of these buildings. With the aid of university administrators, an online survey was distributed to all students with classes scheduled in the buildings, along with all building employees (including part-time and full-time faculty and staff). Transient building occupants were invited to participate via printed posters containing QR codes. A total of 250 individuals took the online survey (n = 145 in GBB, n = 105 in GB). Participants were randomly selected to receive one of ten USD 20 gift cards. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a random selection of GBB survey respondents who indicated they would be willing to participate in an interview (n = 16). Interviews lasted approximately 45 min, were conducted over Zoom, and were recorded for purposes of transcription. Interviewees were compensated with a USD 50 gift card.

The online survey was administered via Qualtrics and took approximately 20 min to complete. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they spent more time in the GB or GBB and to answer all survey questions based on that building. Participants who reported they did not spend time in either building were excluded from the survey. General and demographic questions included quantity and frequency of time spent in the building, role within the building, age, and gender. Occupants were first asked whether or not they knew if the building was green or sustainable. If they indicated yes, they were asked to identify how they knew.

To assess awareness of sustainable features, survey participants completed “Recall” and “Hotspot” tasks. In the Recall task, participants were asked to imagine they were giving a building tour to a friend and to identify up to five environmentally friendly features within the building in an open-response format. Following the Recall task, the Hotspot task displayed a collage of interior and exterior building images and asked respondents to click on up to five features within the images that they associated with sustainability. The images were selected to represent the overall visual experience of the publicly occupiable spaces within each building based on the researcher’s virtual building tours conducted with an expert from the campus facilities management team. Image content differences between the buildings were unavoidable. Nevertheless, the images conveyed similar purposes and spatial qualities, characterized by formal and informal lounge environments, public vertical circulation, access to food and drink, and exterior windows affording access to daylight. The difference in overall aesthetic experience of the buildings is evident through varying applications of natural materials and elements, both within and surrounding the buildings. The image collages used during the Hotspot task are provided in Figure 1. As the survey was administered online, participants were able to increase the size of the images according to their preferences and visual needs. Following the images, respondents were asked to identify the features or elements they had clicked on in an open-response question. Occupant awareness and understanding of sustainability features were further explored in interviews with a subset of GBB participants.

Quantitative survey data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, Version 29.0.2.0 [54], and R, Version 4.3.2 [55]. Qualitative analyses on open-ended survey responses and interview data were performed using Dedoose for Mac, Version 9.2.006 [56], and ATLAS.ti for Mac, Version 24.1.1 [57]. Identified sustainable features across both buildings were coded according to three domains: type of feature, LEED credit(s) served by the feature, and biophilic pattern(s). To ensure consistency in coding, intercoder reliability was calculated using Dedoose’s training module [56], with Cohen’s Kappa values used as an indicator of agreement. Following Cheung’s [58] methodology, intercoder reliability was calculated by randomly selecting three excerpts per code from the survey and interview data. The second author used an open-coding approach to classify every response as a building feature, reviewed the data, and then condensed the codes into a more manageable set of building features through a consensus-based approach with the first author. Discrepancies were discussed, and the codebook was revised; for example, “Greenspace” was collapsed under “nature–exterior”. The first author used deductive coding and created the codebook for the LEED credits and biophilic patterns. LEED credits were used as the initial framework for identifying sustainable design strategies in the buildings, as both buildings were LEED-certified. Though the codebook originally included codes for all possible LEED credits, only 16 codes contained five or more excerpts once the coding was complete. The biophilic pattern codes were based on Terrapin Bright Green’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design [49], as early discussions with members of the GBB integrated design team revealed that this biophilic design model was intentionally used to inspire diversity of biophilic applications. The researchers elected to separate some patterns into “interior” and “exterior” codes to account for this distinction in the participants’ answers. As a result, 17 total codes were generated for biophilic patterns, though only 9 were applied to more than five excerpts. Two research assistants independently coded the open-ended survey responses for applicable LEED credits and biophilic patterns. The resulting Cohen’s Kappa values for LEED credits and biophilic patterns were 0.98 and 1.0, respectively. For the source of green building awareness and building features, the second author coded responses, with the first author testing reliability, yielding Cohen’s Kappa values of 0.82 and 1.0, respectively. According to Landis and Koch [59], values between 0.81 and 1.00 indicate “almost perfect” agreement.

All materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with this publication are available upon request. The full codebook and survey are included in the Supplemental Materials.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics and Building Use Characteristics

Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to examine participant demographics and building use characteristics across the GB and the GBB. The demographic results (

Table 1. Demographics and building use characteristics.

Characteristic	Category	Green Building n (%)	Green and Biophilic Building n (%)	Total n (%)
Participants		105 (42.0%)	145 (58.0%)	250 (100.0%)
Age Group	18–29 years	30 (36.6%)	77 (70.0%)	107 (55.7%)
	30–39 years	20 (24.4%)	14 (12.7%)	34 (17.7%)
	40–49 years	12 (14.6%)	7 (6.4%)	19 (9.9%)
	50–59 years	14 (17.1%)	7 (6.4%)	21 (10.9%)
	60–69 years	6 (7.3%)	5 (4.5%)	11 (5.7%)
Gender	Non-binary	1 (1.2%)	1 (0.8%)	2 (1.0%)
	Male	20 (24.4%)	21 (16.0%)	41 (21.5%)
	Female	61 (74.4%)	109 (83.2%)	128 (77.5%)
Time Spent in Building 1	Occasional Users	6 (5.7%)	6 (4.1%)	12 (4.8%)
	Moderate Users	24 (22.9%)	41 (28.3%)	65 (26.0%)
	Frequent Users	75 (71.4%)	98 (67.6%)	173 (69.2%)

¹ Time spent in building was measured as a combination of duration of average visit (less than 1 h, between 1 and 3 h, more than 3 h) and frequency of visitation (occasionally, monthly, weekly, and daily). Percentages for each characteristic within each building are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, as not all participants responded to every question.

) showed no significant difference in gender distribution between the buildings, χ²(2, n = 191) = 0.045, p = 0.978, or distribution of time spent across both buildings, χ²(5, n = 250) = 4.391, p = 0.495. Female respondents were overrepresented in both buildings, but this distribution aligned with the overall gender demographics of the campus.

Age distribution differed significantly between the buildings, χ²(4, n = 192) = 21.825, p < 0.001, with younger participants more prevalent in the GBB. However, a chi-square test showed no significant association between age group and awareness of being in a green building, χ²(4, n = 191) = 0.480, p = 0.975, suggesting that age did not impact participants’ awareness of the building’s green status (RQ1).

3.2. RQ1: Green Building Awareness

A chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine the relationship between the building type and occupant awareness of being in a green building. The test revealed a significant relationship between these variables, χ²(1, n = 224) = 6.117, p = 0.01. Occupants of the GBB were significantly more likely to be aware that their building was green, with 78% indicating awareness, compared to 63% of occupants in the GB.

Table 2. Occupants’ awareness of being in a green building.

		Yes	No/Unsure	Total
Green Building	Count %	63%	37%	100%
	Expected %	71%	29%
Green and Biophilic Building	Count %	78%	22%	100%
	Expected %	71%	29%

provides a summary of occupant awareness across both building types.

3.3. RQ2: Sources of Green Building Awareness

To understand how occupants became aware that they were in a green building, responses were categorized into five main sources of knowledge: “Formal Communication”, “Role-related”, “Observation”, “Building Signage”, and “Word of Mouth”. “Formal Communication” includes sources like the facilities website, building website, and media reports. The “Role-related” category consists of participants who knew the building was green due to their role, such as working on the conception of the building or serving as a student ambassador. The “Observation” category captures participants who identified the building as green based on general observations, noting specific features like “seeing plants on the roof” (Participant 156, survey) and “recycling bins” (Participant 124, survey). In interviews, participants echoed this sentiment, sometimes struggling to articulate why they perceived the building as sustainable, likely experiencing the overall impact of its atmospherics without being able to pinpoint specific features. When asked about the source of their green building awareness, one interviewee from the GBB stated, “The building seems to give off a vibe that it’s very conscious of the environment. I kind of get that feeling. I’m not sure exactly why, but I get that feeling” (Participant 131).

The chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the distribution of sources of knowledge within both the GB (chi-square = 10.97, p = 0.027) and the GBB (chi-square = 15.94, p = 0.003), indicating variation in the source of participants’ green building awareness across the buildings. A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between the buildings and the source of green building awareness. The test results were not significant, χ²(4, n = 155) = 0.753, p = 0.945, indicating no statistically significant association between knowledge sources and the building occupied.

Table 3. Source of green building awareness.

Source of Knowledge	Green Building (GB) (n = 61)	Green and Biophilic Building (GBB) (n = 94)
Building Signage	24 (39.3%)	34 (36.2%)
Role-related	3 (4.9%)	4 (4.3%)
Formal Communication 1	13 (21.3%)	18 (19.1%)
Observation	7 (11.5%)	13 (13.8%)
Word of Mouth	14 (23%)	25 (26.6%)

¹ Media, email, announcement, website, or tour.

provides a summary of the sources of green building knowledge for occupants in both building types.

3.4. RQ3: Perceptions and Misconceptions of Sustainable Features

To understand which features occupants identified as sustainable, we first assessed data normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test to determine whether parametric or non-parametric tests were appropriate for Hotspot and Recall frequencies in the Green Building. The test results were significant (p = 0.002 for Hotspot and p = 0.005 for Recall), indicating that the data deviated from normality. Because of this violation of normality, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, which is a non-parametric alternative to the paired t-test and is more appropriate for comparing related samples when data are not normally distributed, was used. The Wilcoxon test results showed no statistically significant differences between the GB Hotspot and Recall frequencies (W = 162, p = 0.522) or between the GBB Hotspot and Recall frequencies (W = 175.5, p = 0.244). Given the lack of significant differences between the Hotspot and Recall tasks in both buildings, we combined the responses from these tasks for the remainder of the analysis to simplify interpretation and enhance statistical power. Occupants in the GBB identified a greater variety of features, with 29 unique features mentioned, compared to 23 features mentioned in the Green Building, reflecting a 23% difference in feature variety.

A chi-square test with false discovery rate (FDR) correction was performed to assess the association between building and the frequency of feature mentions (

Table 4. Comparison of identified sustainable building features in both buildings.

Feature	Building with Greater Identification	Chi-Square	Odds Ratio	95% CI	p-Value	Adjusted p-Value
Green Roof	GB	52.65	0.138	0.076–0.251	<0.001 ***	<0.001 ***
Interior Nature Elements	GBB	20.06	3.25	1.918–5.508	<0.001 ***	<0.001 ***
Recycling, Trash, and Compost Bins	GB	7.98	0.547	0.364–0.822	0.005 **	0.024 *
Windows/Daylighting	GBB	7.76	1.647	1.169–2.322	0.005 **	0.024 *
Toilets	GB	7.28	0.348	0.165–0.735	0.007 **	0.025 *
Stairs	GB	5.40	0.402	0.193–0.837	0.020 *	0.060
Shades and Window Treatments	GB	4.71	0.454	0.231–0.892	0.030 *	0.077
Materials and Products	GBB	2.43	1.756	0.915–3.371	0.119	0.268
Automatic Lights	GBB	1.56	1.431	0.857–2.388	0.211	0.422
Rain Collection System	GBB	1.25	1.99	0.717–5.519	0.264	0.476
Solar Panels	GBB	0.76	1.574	0.682–3.631	0.383	0.627
Automatic Sinks	GBB	0.62	1.329	0.732–2.413	0.430	0.645
Exterior Nature Elements	GBB	0.46	1.287	0.707–2.344	0.497	0.688
Drinking Fountains	GBB	0.23	1.234	0.65–2.34	0.628	0.808
HVAC	GBB	0.09	1.316	0.49–3.537	0.761	0.914
Furniture and Furnishings	GBB	0.00	1.066	0.438–2.596	1.000	1.000
General Lighting	GB	0.00	0.966	0.56–1.667	1.000	1.000
Recycled Materials	GBB	0.00	1.06	0.525–2.143	1.000	1.000

*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that a feature was more likely to be mentioned in the Green and Biophilic Building. The analysis includes data from the Hotspot, Recall, and interview responses. The table is sorted in descending order by the chi-square statistic.

). A threshold of at least five mentions in both buildings was applied to ensure reliability. Interior nature was three times more likely to be mentioned, and windows were referenced 1.6 times more frequently in the GBB, reflecting significant differences. In contrast, occupants in the GB identified the green roof; recycling, trash, and compost bins; stairs; shades and window treatments; and toilets more frequently. However, after applying the FDR correction, stairs, shades, and window treatments were no longer statistically significant. The presence of water, the boardwalk, and hand dryers were mentioned only in the GBB, with no features mentioned exclusively in the GB.

Occupants’ identification of sustainable building features occasionally revealed confusion, with 4.7% of coded excerpts reflecting such misconceptions. Responses from the GB contained 1.7% misunderstandings or uncertainties, compared to 6.4% of the total responses from the GBB. The most common areas of confusion included automatic features, biophilic elements, and aesthetics that were either not actually present in the buildings or served no environmental purpose (per the prompt). Participants associated automatic features such as doors and toilets with sustainability, despite these features not inherently contributing to energy or water savings. Similarly, aesthetic qualities influenced perceptions, with some equating a modern, clean, or new appearance with environmental benefits. Biophilic elements—such as design features that emulate nature or natural colors—were identified as environmentally friendly, even though these features lack any environmental impact. Within the Presence of Water subcategory under Biophilic Patterns, participants in the GBB correctly identified an exterior water feature as sustainable but were uncertain about its role. Some speculated that the water feature contributed to the building’s energy system, though this was inaccurate. Occupants identified interior materials as evidence of sustainable design, though sometimes made incorrect assumptions about the type of material they were seeing (e.g., incorrectly referring to wood inside GBB as bamboo when the building did not contain any bamboo).

Table 5. Misunderstandings and uncertainties of sustainable features.

Percent		Category	Representative Excerpt
27.5%		Automatic Features	“Sensors on the taps and automatic flush on the toilets and all that kind of stuff really make you more aware.” 1 (Participant 84, Interview) “Automatic Doors.” 2 (Participant 61, Survey) “Motion sensor for electrical outlets.” 3 (Participant 7, Survey)
21.6%	Biophilic Patterns	Presence of Water	“There’s that big water area behind there… I was like, this probably has some kind of significance to it.” 4 (Participant 42, Interview) “Water fall outside that contributes to the building’s energy… I think.” 4 (Participant 09, Survey)
		Biomorphic Forms and Patterns	“The lights in the entrance emulate river stones.” 2 (Participant 100, Survey)
		Visual Connection with Nature: Interior	“…bringing that outside feeling in.” 2 (Participant 53, Interview)
		Material Connection with Nature: Natural Colors	“Everything is green.” 2 (Participant 64, Survey)
21.6%		Aesthetics	“It gives off a clean impression.” 2 (Participant 131, Interview) “Modern.” 2 (Participant 129, Survey)
15.7%		Materials	“The wood that they used was a lighter bamboo type wood.” 5 (Participant 78, Interview)
11.8%		Other	“No AC in breakout room.” 5 (Participant 86, Survey) “Light weight doors.” 3 (Participant 127, Survey)

The “Percent” column represents the percentage of responses that contained misunderstandings and uncertainties, not the percentage of all responses collected. The analysis includes data from the Hotspot, Recall, and interview responses. ¹ Automatic flush toilets contribute to hygiene and maintenance, though do not have environmental impact. ² Feature does not have environmental impact. ³ Feature not present. ⁴ Correct feature identification, but uncertain about role of feature. ⁵ Factually inaccurate.

provides an overview of these misunderstandings and uncertainties with representative excerpts illustrating each category.

3.5. RQ4: Biophilic Features and Sustainability Awareness

A chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the proportion of features occupants correctly identified as sustainable (having an environmental impact) co-occurring with biophilic patterns between the GB and the GBB (χ² = 6.50, p = 0.011). The odds ratio of 1.40 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.80) indicates that occupants were significantly more likely (by 1.4 times) to be aware of sustainable features if implemented with biophilic patterns in the GBB compared to the GB. Across all correct sustainable features mentioned, 50.88% of responses in the GB and 59.16% of responses in the GBB co-occurred with biophilic patterns. Further analysis was conducted using a chi-square test for each pattern of biophilic design (

Table 6. Rank order of biophilic patterns co-occurring with correctly identified sustainable features.

Biophilic Pattern	Building with Greater Identification	Chi-Square	Odds Ratio	95% CI	p-Value	Combined Proportion
Visual Connection with Nature: Exterior	GB	26.89	0.328	0.215–0.5	<0.001 ***	0.204
Visual Connection with Nature: Interior	GBB	21.49	3.748	2.115–6.641	<0.001 ***	0.159
Dynamic and Diffuse Light: Naturally Occurring	GBB	1.52	1.304	0.881–1.93	0.218	0.267
Connection with Natural Systems	GB	1.15	0.708	0.405–1.237	0.284	0.096
Material Connection with Nature: Recycled/Sustainable Materials	GBB	0.14	1.181	0.635–2.196	0.711	0.082
Thermal and Airflow Variability	GBB	0.00	1.022	0.523–2	1.000	0.067

*** p < 0.001. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that a feature was more likely to be mentioned in the Green and Biophilic Building. The analysis includes data from the Hotspot, Recall, and interview responses. The combined proportion represents the percentage of each biophilic pattern that co-occurs with sustainable features across both buildings. Patterns with fewer than five occurrences in both buildings were excluded from this analysis. The table is sorted in descending order by the chi-square statistic.

) that was associated with an actual sustainable feature.

Sustainable features that contained the biophilic pattern Visual Connection with Nature: Interior were nearly four times more likely to be identified in the GBB, where occupants identified the highly visible living plant wall (green wall) as sustainable. Similarly, occupants in the GB identified the presence of indoor potted plants as contributing to sustainability. However, there was some uncertainty among occupants regarding why the green wall was considered sustainable. As one participant noted, “That I’m not too sure. That’s why I was hesitating to say it. …I don’t know if it has anything to do with photosynthesis, or greenhouse gas emissions, letting out more oxygen instead of carbon dioxide, maybe” (Participant 105, Interview). When asked about the most identifiable sustainable features of the building, another participant responded, “Well, the plant wall, of course. I’m a botanist by training. My PhD is in botany” (Participant 4, Interview). Yet, when encouraged to explain why it was sustainable, the same participant admitted, “Oh gosh. I’m not sure that I could” (Participant 4, Interview).

In contrast, sustainable features associated with the biophilic pattern Visual Connection with Nature: Exterior were three times more likely to be identified in the GB. In this building, occupants highlighted the green roof, which was accompanied by educational signage and prominently visible from the landing of the public stairway at the center of the building. Though the GBB also had a green roof, it was not as easily visible from main throughways of traffic in the building; rather, occupants of the GBB identified views of outdoor plant life and the wetlands as signs of building sustainability.

The biophilic pattern with the highest combined proportion across both buildings was Dynamic and Diffuse Light: Naturally Occurring. Occupants from both buildings identified windows affording daylight as contributing to the building’s sustainability goals, with statistically more mentions in the GBB. One occupant emphasized the abundance of daylight in the GBB, stating, “Just all the natural light coming in…‘You don’t even need a lot of lights in this building’” (Participant 21, Interview).

One participant familiar with both buildings suggested the Green Building was “definitely not a sustainable building” (Participant 33, Interview), citing the lack of natural light as a key reason. When asked to elaborate, they compared the GB to the GBB, noting, “Well, because I want to compare it to the [Green and Biophilic Building]. It is a sustainable building, and the majority of the [Green Building] doesn’t have natural light. I feel like it was built many years before now and that’s why, or the goal wasn’t to make it a sustainable building. It doesn’t have any natural light, it doesn’t have like…space, it’s not surrounded by green space, and the only green space it has is just the front yard” (Participant 33, Interview). The presence of nature through biophilic patterns related to natural light and an exterior view of nature was critical to informing Participant 33’s conception of a sustainable building.

Several biophilic patterns associated with sustainable features were exclusively identified by occupants in the GBB: Presence of Water, Prospect, Refuge, and Non-Visual Connection with Nature. In contrast, no sustainable features containing biophilic patterns were mentioned exclusively in the GB. Images of occupant-identified sustainable features implemented with biophilic patterns are shown in Figure 2.

4. Discussion

With the growing interest in sustainable building practices, it is increasingly important to consider how these spaces communicate their ecologically responsible intentions to those who use them daily. This study offers valuable insights into how occupants of green buildings perceive and interpret sustainability through atmospheric cues. Though previous research has suggested that occupants may rely on collective atmospheric cues to assess environmental sustainability [1,60] and analyzed how atmospheric cues may shape ERBs [39,45,46], occupant satisfaction, or perceived well-being [42,61], this study examines, at the feature level, how occupants’ perceptions of atmospheric cues contribute to their awareness of being in a green building. The results suggest that green building atmospherics (including visible sustainable features and visible sustainable biophilic features) support occupant awareness of inhabiting a green building, even in the absence of overt didactic signage.

The analysis revealed similarities and differences in the types and frequency of sustainable features identified by occupants in the two buildings, with those in the GBB identifying a greater variety of features overall. This broader range of features may have resulted in the proportion of responses for each feature appearing less prominent, thus diluting the apparent salience of any single feature for contributing to occupants’ awareness of sustainability in the GBB compared to the GB. In this study, occupant-identified sustainability features were also coded for biophilic design strategies using the lens of the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design [49] to explore how biophilic design contributes to occupant awareness of environmental sustainability. Biophilic design strategies have previously been identified as collectively contributing to the aesthetic experience of inhabiting a green building [43,62]. Participants in the GBB, who were more likely to be aware that they were in a sustainable building, mentioned significantly more biophilic sustainable features than occupants in the GB, suggesting that biophilic patterns can enhance occupant awareness of sustainable or environmentally friendly strategies in the built environment. This is notable for architects and designers seeking to develop buildings that are good for both the planet and people. Sustainable design strategies that include biophilic design patterns positively shape occupant mood and mental health [17,18]. In particular, natural light was the most frequently identified sustainable feature across both buildings, aligning with its well-documented role as a key factor in indoor environmental comfort [63,64], which makes it particularly salient to building occupants.

In the GB, occupants noted the visible green roof, which helps the building to conserve energy needed to heat and cool the interior, reduces the heat island effect, mitigates stormwater runoff and water pollution, and contributes to biodiversity [65]. Occupants in the GBB highlighted the integration of indoor nature, particularly the living green wall, which reduces indoor air pollutants [66]. Biophilic design strategies, which promote a connection to nature through elements like views or physical connection with plant life, enhance occupant well-being through attention restoration [67] and appear to serve as perceptible cues that remind occupants of the building’s sustainable focus.

Beyond these nature-inspired elements, occupants in the GB more frequently identified conventional sustainability features that required direct interaction, such as recycling, trash, and compost bins and dual-flush toilets—suggesting that engagement with these features may have enhanced awareness of environmentally responsible design. This finding is consistent with insights from tourism studies suggesting that interactive features enhance visitor engagement with the museum experience [68]. The act of engaging with an object or feature through touch has also been demonstrated to improve recall of the object [69] in learning environments. In contrast, while occupants in the GBB also recognized interactive sustainability features, such as drinking fountains (i.e., water bottle filling stations), they more frequently identified sustainable features requiring no direct behavior, which contributed to the building’s overall atmosphere. Features such as a water feature designed to conserve both indoor and outdoor water and recycled, repurposed, and/or responsibly sourced interior materials and furnishings were among those that shaped occupants’ perception of sustainability in the GBB. Notably, these features aligned with biophilic design principles, suggesting a connection between biophilic patterns and sustainability perception.

Alongside the potentially powerful role of atmospheric cues in communicating environmental sustainability, occupants’ identification of sustainable features also revealed misunderstandings—either perceiving neutral features as sustainable or making incorrect assumptions based on prior sustainability knowledge. A recurring theme among misidentified sustainable features was automation. While some automated systems, such as motion sensor sink faucets and automatic lighting, do contribute to water and energy conservation and were correctly identified by occupants, other forms of automation were mistakenly perceived as sustainable. For instance, motion sensor toilets and automatic doors, which primarily enhance hygiene and accessibility, do not offer direct environmental benefits (this was confirmed by project architects). This misinterpretation highlights the complexity of automation in occupant experiences within green buildings. Although automation often plays a critical role in optimizing environmental performance [70], its perceived sustainability can sometimes lead to misconceptions that may undermine occupant behavior [71,72]. This point of confusion suggests a need for clearer communication about the specific contributions of automation to building sustainability, the limitations of automated features, and the importance of occupant behavior in achieving overall conservation goals.

Occupants’ identification of sustainable features sometimes revealed confused understandings, possibly based on assumptions from prior sustainability knowledge. For example, many occupants identified wood finishes in the GBB as sustainable due to their natural origin. However, several incorrectly described the wood used in the GBB as bamboo. As a rapidly renewable resource with incredible strength, bamboo affords an environmentally responsible alternative to other slow-growth wood materials [73]. However, as bamboo is not native to the northeast United States [74], the salvaged red and white oak visible in the GBB, which was locally sourced, represents a more sustainable choice. Though the identification of the wood finishes throughout the GBB interior correctly reflects occupants’ (inferred) awareness of the material as sustainably sourced, the incorrect identification of the type of wood reflects a lack of understanding. Wu et al. [47] report similar findings, suggesting a challenge of communicating green design to building users—“aware-ability” of sustainable features does not necessarily translate to “know-ability”. One can interpret these findings within the context of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives [75], which has been used for teaching sustainability-related curricula [76]. Bloom outlines six cognitive skills arranged hierarchically, such that the lower-level skills require less sophisticated thinking. The identification of a sustainable feature by occupants represents the initial cognitive step in the learning process, which is then followed by comprehension—the ability to discuss, explain, or summarize the feature. Misunderstandings about sustainable building features—such as mistaking biophilic elements with no direct environmental function for sustainability strategies—reveal a gap in occupant awareness that has been documented in other empirical research [77]. This highlights an opportunity to introduce place-based and engaging environmental education to deepen understanding of the environmentally friendly design strategies implemented within sustainable buildings. Increasing awareness of the sustainably sourced materials within a green building can expand occupants’ knowledge base and potentially inform future decisions in home renovations and material selection. Such decisions would align with Bloom’s higher-order learning objectives that involve the application and evaluation of gained knowledge.

Occupants of both buildings identified surrounding exterior nature as evidence of building sustainability. In the GBB, occupants identified the “forest” or “water” area adjacent to the building. As part of the GBB project, the design team preserved the existing wetland on site, constructing a boardwalk over the area, which contained native, unmanicured groundcover sheltered by a canopy of trees. The exterior ambiance of the GB was quite different, with a lawn of lush green grass and sidewalks. The grass was identified as sustainable among occupants of the GB. Some respondents explained this feature by pointing to grass’s ability to reduce the heat island effect compared to pavement or to provide a permeable surface that mitigates stormwater runoff. However, the majority of respondents did not demonstrate this depth of understanding, instead identifying grass as sustainable without further explanation. The role of grass as ground cover is complex; while it does offer environmental benefits over concrete, it also requires significant maintenance, including regular watering in some climates and mowing, often using fuel-powered equipment on university campuses [78]. This presents another opportunity for educational intervention, helping occupants to understand both the advantages and limitations of grass while introducing alternative ground cover options that provide similar benefits with less maintenance. Such knowledge could also inform respondents’ residential landscaping choices, encouraging the adoption of native ground covers that enhance stormwater management while reducing resource consumption.

As in any study, there are some limitations to consider. This study relied on a post-occupancy evaluation comparing two existing green buildings. Though both LEED-certified and located adjacent to one another, the settings did not offer equivalent situational contexts in which to examine occupant perceptions. While the GBB included more biophilic elements, it also contained additional sustainable features, making it unclear whether the differences in occupant awareness were due solely to green atmospherics via biophilic design or the higher level of sustainability. However, in moving from LEED Gold to Platinum certification, much of the additional credits earned to achieve the Platinum-level designation pertain to energy optimization systems, which are largely not visible to building occupants and did not appear among identified features. Additionally, the selection of hotspot imagery used to assess feature identification was determined by the researchers, which may have influenced participants’ responses by emphasizing certain elements over others. Nevertheless, participants’ identification of features prompted through the hotspot exercise did not differ significantly from the feature recall responses given before seeing the building photographs. Another limitation involves the potential for misunderstanding among participants. Occupants in the Green and Biophilic Building may have been more likely to recognize their building as sustainable because they incorrectly associated biophilic elements, such as water features or indoor plants, with sustainability. This raises questions about whether the increased awareness reflects an accurate understanding or misinterpretation of these features’ purposes.

While this study sheds light on the impact of biophilic and sustainable design features on occupant awareness, future research is needed to assess these features in various building types and demographic contexts to determine if occupants in other contexts use the same atmospheric cues to infer environmental sustainability. Further studies might explore how engaging communication strategies [79]—such as strategically placed signage, interactive displays, and digital content—affect sustainability awareness and understanding, including a more in-depth categorization of occupant knowledge according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Quasi-experimental designs involving pre- and post-educational interventions involving the communication strategies listed above can seek to improve occupant understanding of the sustainable design strategies implemented within their green buildings. Expanding on these areas will allow researchers to further clarify the role of sustainable and biophilic design in fostering an informed, environmentally conscious public that actively engages with green buildings.

This study underscores how sustainable strategies and biophilic design principles, both individually and combined, can serve as a powerful foundation for sustainability education, fostering awareness and enthusiasm for green environments. As Cranz et al. [1] emphasize, the charge is clear: “We encourage all designers to help invent solutions to the problem of communicating to the public about sustainability and these new building types; if only people who know that photovoltaic (PV), sun shades, and tall windows are energy-efficient technologies can recognize the building as green, sustainable architecture is not making its way into the mental imagery of the culture as a whole” (p. 843). Visible sustainable features and green atmospherics, paired with clear communication, can deepen occupants’ appreciation for impactful sustainable design. Educators and designers can use biophilic elements not only to enhance environmental quality but also to spark curiosity and deeper engagement with sustainability. When design and education intersect, green buildings may become catalysts for a culture that values and actively participates in sustainable practices.