Designing health-centered spaces inspired by the psychological components of physical education

Abstract:

      This study explores the integration of physical education (PE) psychology into architectural design as a framework for creating health-centered spaces that nurture physical, psychological, and social well-being. By synthesizing theories of motivation, embodiment, and environmental perception, the research develops a psychosomatic design paradigm in which architecture becomes an active medium for promoting movement, emotional balance, and social connectivity. The analysis demonstrates that PE psychology provides a conceptual bridge between bodily experience and spatial form, positioning architecture not merely as a static enclosure but as a motivational and pedagogical environment. Drawing from ecological psychology, self-determination theory, and salutogenesis, the study identifies key psychological mechanisms autonomy, competence, and relatedness that can be spatially translated through flexible layouts, biophilic design, and socially inclusive configurations. Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that such environments enhance motivation, reduce stress, and foster communal belonging. The paper further proposes five core design principles: affordances for movement, autonomy-supportive environments, social connectivity, sensory coherence, and mindful recovery. The findings reveal that integrating PE psychology into design practice redefines health as an embodied, relational, and ecological condition. Architecture thus emerges as both a pedagogical and therapeutic agent capable of shaping behavior and emotion. The research concludes by emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, evidence-based methodologies, and policy transformation to embed psychological intelligence within architectural education and practice. Ultimately, this study advocates for a future in which built environments serve as catalysts for human flourishing spaces that teach, heal, and inspire movement as an everyday form of well-being.

Keywords:

Health-centered design; Physical education psychology; Motivational architecture; Embodied cognition; Environmental psychology; Biophilic design; Psychological well-being; Interdisciplinary design; Self-determination theory; Sustainable wellness

Introduction:

In recent years, the growing global emphasis on human well-being has reshaped the relationship between health, psychology, and the built environment. Health is no longer understood merely as the absence of disease, but as a dynamic equilibrium encompassing physical, mental, and social dimensions (World Health Organization [WHO], 1948). Within this holistic paradigm, design disciplines are increasingly challenged to integrate health promotion principles into spatial form. The present study explores how psychological components derived from physical education (PE) can inspire the design of health-centered spaces—environments that nurture not only physical vitality but also psychological safety, motivation, and social connectedness.

Physical education represents a unique intersection between movement, cognition, and emotion. It encompasses structured activities that develop physical competence while cultivating self-efficacy, social interaction, intrinsic motivation, and psychological well-being (Alesi et al., 2022). The psychological dimensions of PE extend far beyond motor skill acquisition; they constitute the affective foundation of participation, engagement, and adherence to healthy lifestyles (Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2024). As the global design community increasingly aligns with health promotion agendas such as WHO’s Health-in-All-Policies framework or the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 3 understanding how psychological principles inform spatial experience has become a pressing interdisciplinary task.

This introduction first examines the psychological components of physical education as conceptual foundations for user experience. It then situates the notion of “health-centered design” within contemporary architectural and environmental psychology discourses. Finally, it synthesizes how insights from PE psychology can translate into spatial strategies for designing environments that promote motivation, psychological safety, self-efficacy, and collective well-being.

1. Psychological Components of Physical Education:

1.1 Motivation and Engagement:

Motivation is the psychological engine of participation in physical activity. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) posits that intrinsic motivation derived from autonomy, competence, and relatedness—drives sustained engagement in learning and movement. Within PE contexts, environments that foster a sense of choice and mastery lead to higher effort, enjoyment, and persistence (Alesi et al., 2022). Conversely, controlling or competitive atmospheres can suppress intrinsic motivation, producing anxiety or avoidance behaviors.

Translating this insight into spatial design implies that health-centered spaces should be autonomy-supportive: offering variety, flexibility, and clear feedback cues. For example, modular layouts allowing users to self-select activity intensity or adaptable zones supporting both individual and group use can sustain intrinsic motivation. Visual transparency and intuitive circulation may further facilitate self-directed exploration, reducing performance pressure and cognitive load.

1.2 Self-Efficacy and Perceived Competence:

The concept of self-efficacy defined by Bandura as one’s belief in their capability to perform a task successfully has long been recognized as a determinant of behavioral persistence. In PE settings, students or athletes with higher self-efficacy are more likely to engage, take risks, and recover from failure (Challis, 2018, as cited in Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2024). From an environmental psychology perspective, perceived control over one’s surroundings significantly reinforces this belief.

Design implications emerge from this relationship: spaces that clearly communicate affordances, provide visible gradients of difficulty, and minimize environmental hazards strengthen perceived competence. In a health-centered facility, architectural elements such as legible pathways, adjustable equipment, or visual progress markers can symbolically and practically reinforce a sense of mastery. When individuals feel capable within a setting, both their engagement and emotional comfort rise—factors critical for long-term health behavior.

1.3 Psychological Safety and Emotional Climate:

Psychological safety, a concept first articulated in organizational psychology, refers to an atmosphere in which individuals feel accepted and unafraid to take interpersonal or physical risks. In educational sport contexts, Blynova et al. (2022) demonstrated that female athletes with stronger perceptions of psychological safety exhibited more constructive motivational orientations and better performance. In physical spaces, this translates to more than just the absence of danger it involves trust, inclusion, and predictability.

Spatial features that foster psychological safety include adequate lighting, acoustic comfort, visibility, and opportunities for both exposure and retreat. Transparent boundaries allow supervision without intrusion; gradients of privacy permit users to regulate social interaction. A psychologically safe health-centered environment thus blends openness with refuge enabling users to participate without fear of embarrassment or judgment.

1.4 Social Connectedness and Group Dynamics:

Social belonging is a fundamental human need and a key determinant of well-being. In PE, cooperative learning, peer support, and collective goals amplify motivation and emotional satisfaction (Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2024). Team-based activities develop empathy, communication, and solidarity psychosocial assets that can be embedded into spatial design.

Architectural design can support these dynamics through spatial sequencing and programmatic zoning. Communal nodes such as shared circulation hubs, transition areas, or observation platforms encourage informal interaction. Outdoor courtyards, seating clusters, or multipurpose halls allow flexible socialization, reinforcing the “sense of community” essential for sustained engagement in health behaviors.

1.5 Psychological Well-Being and Mental Restoration:

Beyond the performance-oriented goals of physical education, regular activity has well-documented benefits for mental health. Han et al. (2025) found that university students participating in PE programs experienced improvements in mental health through enhanced social adaptability and exercise behavior mediation. These findings align with the broader literature linking movement and mood regulation, stress reduction, and cognitive restoration.

Designers can amplify such benefits by integrating biophilic principles natural light, greenery, and sensory variation into health-oriented environments. Exposure to nature or nature-analogous elements has been shown to reduce cortisol levels and improve affective states (Wang et al., 2019). Consequently, health-centered spaces should not only accommodate activity but also facilitate recovery through visual calmness, access to nature, and opportunities for contemplation.

2. Conceptual Foundations of Health-Centered Design:

Health-centered design extends beyond traditional notions of safety and ergonomics. It is a proactive strategy that positions spatial form as an instrument of health promotion, aligning architectural practice with public health and behavioral sciences. This paradigm recognizes that built environments shape patterns of movement, stress response, and social interaction (Evans, 2003; Ulrich et al., 2020).

2.1 The Human-Centered Paradigm:

Human-centered design places users’ cognitive and emotional needs at the forefront. It considers perception, usability, and affect as critical design inputs. In the health context, this translates into environments that empower users to make healthier choices intuitively such as visible stairs, accessible active zones, or encouraging visual prompts. Health-centered design, however, goes a step further by addressing the psychological motives underpinning these choices.

2.2 Environmental Determinants of Health:

Built environments influence health through multiple mechanisms: physical activity facilitation, air and light quality, acoustic control, and opportunities for social engagement. Evidence from environmental health research indicates that proximity to green space and walkable infrastructure correlates with higher levels of physical activity and mental well-being (Tureček et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2019). Thus, health-centered spaces must operate as ecosystems balancing physical function, aesthetic experience, and psychological support.

2.3 Inclusivity and Accessibility:

A critical tenet of health-centered design is inclusivity. Spaces should accommodate diverse bodies, abilities, and cultural backgrounds. In the context of physical activity, accessibility transcends the provision of ramps or wide corridors it includes psychological accessibility: freedom from intimidation, stigma, or social exclusion. Inclusive spatial narratives reinforce self-worth and dignity, both of which are prerequisites for genuine well-being.

2.4 Flexibility and Multidimensionality:

Health-promoting environments should not rigidly dictate behavior but encourage multiple modes of use activity, rest, and reflection. The multidimensionality of space aligns with the fluctuating states of human energy and attention. In a PE-inspired setting, for instance, areas for warm-up, focused activity, social cooling-down, and mental decompression can coexist within a coherent spatial hierarchy. This diversity mirrors the psychological rhythms of engagement and recovery, fostering sustained participation.

2.5 Continuity and Behavioral Adoption:

Designing for health also involves designing for habit. A space that invites repeated use strengthens behavioral continuity a process central to lifestyle change. Signage systems, visibility of others being active, and sensory cues (music, color, rhythm) can reinforce positive associations with activity. Ultimately, the design goal is to internalize healthful behavior through pleasant, socially rewarding experiences.

3. Translating PE Psychology into Spatial Design Principles:

Synthesizing insights from physical education psychology yields several design principles for health-centered spaces. These principles bridge abstract psychological constructs with tangible spatial strategies.

v  Motivational Visibility:
 Spaces should visually communicate opportunities for movement. Transparency, spatial rhythm, and color gradients can generate a “call to action,” mirroring the motivational stimuli found in PE environments.

v  Graduated Challenge:
 Varied spatial scales and affordancesramps, adjustable equipment, or multilevel activity zones enable progressive mastery, reinforcing self-efficacy.

v  Safe Engagement:
 Clear sightlines, non-slip surfaces, acoustic balance, and controlled boundaries establish psychological safety. Users must perceive the environment as both stimulating and secure.

v  Social Nodes and Interaction Zones:
 Designing spaces for observation, cooperation, and shared accomplishment supports social belonging. Architectural details that frame collective experiences such as viewing balconies or shared resting areas encourage empathy and cohesion.

v  Restorative Micro-Environments:
 Incorporating sensory refuges quiet corners, natural textures, and visual access to greenery—addresses the mental restoration component of health. These “pause points” reflect the psychological recovery cycles central to sustainable engagement.

v  Participatory Adaptability:
 User-involved design processes, such as feedback loops or adaptive programming, can ensure environments evolve with users’ psychological needs. Participation itself enhances ownership and community identity.

This integrative model positions space as an active agent in health behavior change. By embodying the motivational, affective, and social dynamics of physical education, architecture can extend the pedagogy of PE beyond the gymnasium into everyday life.

4. Rationale and Aim of the Study:

The convergence of physical education psychology and spatial design represents an emerging frontier of interdisciplinary research. While health promotion through architecture is not new, grounding design decisions in empirically supported psychological mechanisms offers a novel contribution. Previous frameworks such as healing environments or active design have primarily emphasized physiological or behavioral outcomes. The present study extends this scope to include the psychological precursors of those outcomes: motivation, self-efficacy, safety, social connectedness, and mental restoration.

Accordingly, the research pursues four primary objectives:

v  To conceptualize the psychological variables underlying engagement in physical education motivation, self-efficacy, psychological safety, social connectedness, and well-being.

v  To identify health centered design principles capable of supporting those variables through environmental features.

v  To analyze the intersections between PE psychology and spatial design in promoting holistic health behaviors.

v  To propose a theoretical framework for integrating psychological insight into architectural design processes.

Ultimately, this approach envisions the built environment not merely as a backdrop for healthy behavior but as an active participant in shaping it. By translating the psychological lessons of movement, cooperation, and confidence into spatial form, designers can create environments that educate, empower, and heal simultaneously.

2. Literature Review:

2.1. Introduction to the Literature Review:

Health-centered design has emerged as a multidisciplinary paradigm that integrates environmental psychology, architecture, and public health to enhance well-being through the built environment. It transcends traditional notions of design as mere spatial organization by recognizing that spaces actively shape human behaviour, emotions, and physiology. Within this paradigm, design decisions become intentional health interventions affecting mood regulation, cognitive performance, stress resilience, and even community cohesion (Evans, 2003; Ulrich et al., 2008). Environmental psychology provides the empirical and theoretical foundation for this transformation by examining the reciprocal relationship between human experience and environmental context (Gifford, 2014).

The intersection of these disciplines has gained renewed significance amid global health challenges and post-pandemic urban recovery initiatives. The COVID-19 era underscored how environmental factors such as air quality, ventilation, and spatial density influence not only physical but also psychological health. Consequently, designers and policymakers have increasingly recognized the necessity of environments that sustain mental balance, promote physical activity, and foster social inclusion (Anåker et al., 2017; Tekin et al., 2022). This section provides a critical synthesis of existing literature on health-centered design and environmental psychology, outlining the theoretical evolution, empirical findings, and emerging frameworks that guide the creation of psychologically informed spaces.

2.2. Theoretical Foundations of Environmental Psychology:

Environmental psychology, established as a formal discipline in the 1960s, explores how built and natural environments influence human thoughts, emotions, and behaviour. It posits that spatial form, materiality, light, and acoustic conditions exert measurable impacts on cognitive and affective processes (Gifford, 2014). The theoretical basis lies in interactionism—the view that individuals and environments form an interdependent system. Thus, environments not only provide physical shelter but also shape identity, motivation, and well-being (Evans & Mitchell, 1998).

Three foundational theories illuminate the relevance of environmental psychology to health-centered design:

v   (a) Stress Recovery Theory (Ulrich, 1983), which argues that exposure to restorative environments such as nature reduces physiological arousal and stress hormones;

v  (b) Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), which asserts that natural stimuli replenish depleted cognitive resources; and

v   (c) Place Attachment Theory (Altman & Low, 1992), which emphasizes emotional bonds between individuals and spaces that foster belonging and identity continuity. These frameworks collectively demonstrate that the built environment is a powerful determinant of psychological well-being and behavioural health.

Recent scholarship expands these classic theories by incorporating affective neuroscience and embodied cognition, suggesting that bodily movement and sensory experience within space co-construct emotional meaning (Vartanian et al., 2021). Such insights are central to designing spaces that promote health through multisensory engagement  texture, sound, color, and spatial rhythm influence the limbic and autonomic nervous systems, eliciting comfort or anxiety responses. Therefore, health-centered design seeks to align sensory affordances with desired psychological states such as calmness, vitality, or focus.

2.3. Defining Health-Centered Design:

Health-centered design (HCD) can be defined as an evidence-based, user-oriented design philosophy that intentionally supports physical, mental, and social health through environmental form and function (Anåker et al., 2017). Unlike traditional healthcare architecture focused solely on disease containment, HCD broadens the scope to encompass preventive, promotive, and inclusive health objectives across all spatial typologies—schools, workplaces, homes, and urban areas.

HCD draws upon several complementary frameworks:

v   (1) Evidence-Based Design (EBD), emphasizing measurable health outcomes;

v   (2) Biophilic Design, integrating natural elements to evoke well-being;

v  (3) Salutogenic Design, focusing on factors that generate health rather than mitigate illness (Antonovsky, 1996); and

v   (4) Universal Design, ensuring accessibility and equity for all users (Story et al., 1998). Each contributes a distinct dimension scientific validation, psychological connection, resilience, and inclusivity to a comprehensive health-centered approach.

Anåker and colleagues (2017) identify four key dimensions of design quality in healthcare environments:

v   (a) environmental sustainability,

v  (b) social and cultural values,

v  (c) resilience in construction, and

v  (d) adaptability. These principles are increasingly applied in non-clinical settings, demonstrating that design can act as a public-health intervention when conceptualized holistically. Importantly, HCD operates across scales from micro-environments such as classrooms and offices to macro-systems like cities and ecosystems linking individual well-being with collective ecological health (Milani et al., 2025).

2.4. Evidence-Based Design: Empirical Foundations:

Evidence-Based Design (EBD) emerged in the 1980s as a systematic method for applying empirical research to architectural decision-making. The approach parallels evidence-based medicine, advocating that design choices should be justified by credible data rather than intuition or aesthetics alone (Ulrich et al., 2008). In healthcare contexts, EBD research has demonstrated that physical environments measurably influence recovery times, pain perception, and patient satisfaction (Ulrich et al., 2006).

For example, Ulrich’s seminal study found that postoperative patients with a view of nature recovered faster and required fewer analgesics than those facing a brick wall—an early demonstration of environmental variables affecting clinical outcomes. Subsequent studies confirm that daylight exposure, acoustic control, and spatial orientation influence circadian rhythms, stress hormones, and mood regulation (Selçuk, 2022). These findings have inspired new healthcare standards prioritizing natural light, low-noise materials, single-bed rooms, and accessible outdoor spaces (The Center for Health Design, 2020).

Outside hospitals, EBD principles inform the design of educational, corporate, and recreational environments. Research indicates that students in classrooms with ample daylight and good acoustics exhibit higher academic performance and lower absenteeism (Cheryan et al., 2014). Similarly, biophilic and ergonomically optimized offices correlate with increased productivity and reduced burnout (Zhao et al., 2022). Collectively, EBD establishes a quantitative foundation for health-centered design by linking spatial attributes to objective health and behavioural outcomes.

2.5. Biophilic Design and Nature-Based Mechanisms:

Biophilic design extends EBD by emphasizing innate human affinity for nature the biophilia hypothesis proposed by Wilson (1984). It posits that contact with natural elements fulfills psychological and physiological needs developed through evolutionary adaptation. Empirical research has validated multiple benefits: reduced cortisol levels, improved mood, enhanced creativity, and faster healing (Browning et al., 2014; Tekin et al., 2022).

Recent studies expand biophilic principles from greenery and daylight to more abstract natural analogues organic geometries, fractal patterns, water acoustics, and biomimetic materials. These features trigger restorative responses even in the absence of literal vegetation (Kellert et al., 2021). For instance, hospitals integrating water features and natural textures reported improved emotional states among patients and caregivers (Zhou et al., 2023).

The mechanisms underlying these effects are well-documented in environmental psychology. According to Attention Restoration Theory, natural environments replenish directed attention by offering effortless fascination; Stress Recovery Theory explains that natural stimuli lower sympathetic activation. Together, they demonstrate why exposure to nature real or simulated reduces mental fatigue and emotional distress. Biophilic design thus becomes a cornerstone of health-centered spaces, bridging sensory experience with psychological restoration.

Moreover, recent interdisciplinary research connects biophilic design to physical education and movement psychology. Spaces encouraging interaction with nature such as walking trails, open courtyards, and kinetic installations stimulate physical activity while supporting cognitive flexibility and motivation (Moran & Rafaeli, 2023). This link between environmental affordances and bodily movement provides a theoretical transition toward health-centered spaces inspired by physical-education psychology, which this paper further explores.

2.6. Salutogenic and Positive Environmental Design Approaches:

Parallel to biophilic design, salutogenic design shifts focus from disease avoidance to the promotion of health and well-being. Originating in Antonovsky’s (1996) theory of salutogenesis, it emphasizes the “sense of coherence” (SOC)  comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness as determinants of resilience and health. Applied to design, salutogenic environments enhance user control, comprehension of spatial cues, and the perceived meaningfulness of space.

Designers operationalize these principles through clear way-finding systems, adaptive lighting, personalizable zones, and socially supportive layouts (Barton & Grant, 2021). Studies show that environments offering predictability and user agency reduce anxiety and foster a sense of safety, particularly in healthcare and educational contexts (Tekin et al., 2022). Salutogenic design also intersects with positive psychology by aiming to elicit eudaimonic well-being flourishing, purpose, and social contribution rather than mere comfort.

By emphasizing meaning and empowerment, salutogenic design complements evidence-based and biophilic frameworks, producing environments that address both physiological and existential aspects of health. When embedded into educational or recreational settings, such design strategies promote active lifestyles, self-efficacy, and collective belonging aligning with the psychological components of physical education.

2.7. Environmental Stress and Psychological Regulation:

A central concern of environmental psychology is understanding how built environments modulate stress responses. Chronic exposure to noise, crowding, poor lighting, or disorganized spatial layouts can elevate cortisol, heart rate, and perceived fatigue (Evans, 2003). Conversely, well-organized, acoustically comfortable, and visually coherent spaces reduce cognitive load and support emotion regulation.

Health-centered design employs environmental psychology to mitigate such stressors through design interventions: acoustic zoning, natural ventilation, rhythmic lighting, and clear visual hierarchies (Ghazali et al., 2020). Importantly, psychological regulation is not only reactive (reducing stress) but also proactive (enabling motivation and engagement). Research indicates that spaces with moderate stimulation balance between order and novelty sustain attention and foster creativity (Vartanian et al., 2021).

Thus, the designer’s task is to calibrate environmental stimuli in ways that support optimal arousal and emotional stability. In physical-education contexts, this translates to environments that energize movement while avoiding overstimulation through dynamic color palettes, spatial openness, and biophilic cues.

2.8. Social and Cultural Dimensions of Health-Centered Design.

While the psychological and physiological effects of environments have been well documented, the social and cultural dimensions of health-centered design are equally critical. Health is not merely an individual attribute; it is co-constructed through social interaction, cultural identity, and collective meaning (Anåker et al., 2017). Spaces that foster inclusion, participation, and social cohesion strengthen mental resilience and community well-being. In this sense, design becomes a medium of social health promotion enabling communication, empathy, and belonging through spatial organization.

Environmental psychology posits that spatial design can either facilitate or inhibit social behaviour. Open layouts, visual connectivity, and shared communal areas encourage social encounters, while rigid or hierarchical configurations may enforce isolation (Gifford, 2014). For example, urban plazas, pedestrian zones, and community gardens serve as interactional affordances, enabling people to engage across demographic boundaries. Studies in social architecture confirm that exposure to such environments reduces loneliness and improves self-rated happiness (Milani et al., 2025).

Cultural sensitivity is another crucial dimension. Health-centered spaces must reflect local customs, aesthetic preferences, and symbolic meanings to evoke comfort and psychological safety. The “one-size-fits-all” design approach often undermines well-being by disregarding contextual identity (Ulrich et al., 2008). For instance, in collectivist societies, spatial proximity and communal courtyards are associated with trust and cohesion, while in individualist cultures, personal boundaries and visual privacy play a greater role in perceived health and satisfaction (Tekin et al., 2022). Thus, designers must balance universal health principles light, air, nature, mobility with local cultural codes to achieve true health-centeredness.

2.9. Spatial Behavior, Physical Activity, and Environmental Affordances:

One of the strongest convergences between environmental psychology and the psychology of physical education lies in the study of environmental affordances the opportunities that a setting offers for action (Gibson, 1979). Built environments that encourage exploration, play, and physical activity directly support both physiological and mental health. Research in active design demonstrates that stair visibility, open circulation, and proximate green spaces correlate with higher physical activity rates in schools and workplaces (Sallis et al., 2022).

From a psychological standpoint, physical movement triggers neurochemical changes that enhance mood and cognitive functioning, including increased dopamine, endorphin, and BDNF levels (Ratey & Hagerman, 2013). When environments facilitate such movement naturally through walking paths, multi-functional open areas, or interactive installations they indirectly improve psychological outcomes such as focus, self-efficacy, and social connection.

Design strategies inspired by kinesthetic learning central in physical-education psychology further integrate movement and cognition. For instance, adaptive classrooms with flexible furniture and spatial zoning encourage students to shift posture and engage physically during learning activities (Moran & Rafaeli, 2023). Such design aligns with the embodied cognition perspective, which posits that cognitive processes are grounded in bodily action. Consequently, health-centered spaces inspired by physical-education psychology promote learning, creativity, and resilience by harmonizing physical dynamism with mental engagement.

2.10. Inclusivity, Accessibility, and Universal Design:

Equity and accessibility constitute ethical imperatives within health-centered design. The Universal Design (UD) framework, first articulated by Mace (1998), advocates for environments that are usable by all people regardless of age, ability, or circumstance. Modern interpretations of UD have evolved beyond disability access to encompass neurodiversity, cultural inclusivity, and socio-economic equity (Story et al., 1998).

Environmental psychology provides evidence that perceived control and environmental competence—one’s ability to navigate and influence their surroundings are major predictors of well-being (Evans, 2003). Therefore, accessible environments not only accommodate physical limitations but also enhance self-efficacy and dignity. Health-centered design operationalizes these principles through intuitive way-finding, adaptable lighting, non-stigmatizing assistive technologies, and sensory-friendly materials (Ghazali et al., 2020).

The concept of inclusive affordance expands UD by integrating psychosocial and cultural accessibility. For example, spaces that accommodate prayer, quiet reflection, breastfeeding, or cultural gathering rituals contribute to holistic health by validating diverse identities. In educational and recreational facilities, inclusive design ensures participation across gender, ability, and socio-economic backgrounds—creating equitable conditions for physical activity and social learning.

Recent scholarship also highlights the intersection between inclusivity and sustainability. Eco-inclusive design links universal access with environmental ethics by advocating for low-energy materials, green mobility networks, and shared public resources (Barton & Grant, 2021). Such integration aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (UN Habitat, 2023), positioning health-centered design as both a social and ecological responsibility.

2.11. Environmental Cues, Behavioral Adoption, and Habit Formation:

The psychological success of a health-centered space depends not only on design quality but also on whether users adopt and sustain healthy behaviours within it. Environmental psychology identifies behavioral cueing—the process by which spatial features subtly guide action as a central mechanism (Gifford, 2014). For instance, visible staircases encourage walking; strategically located benches promote rest and conversation; natural light gradients support circadian alignment.

This idea aligns with nudge theory (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), which suggests that small environmental modifications can influence behaviour without restricting choice. In urban health design, “nudging” has been used to promote physical activity, recycling, and healthy eating. A meta-analysis by Hollands et al. (2022) confirmed that environmental nudges such as repositioning water dispensers or modifying walking routes produce measurable improvements in health behaviour adoption.

Health-centered spaces therefore act as behavioural ecosystems, where architecture and psychology converge to foster lasting change. In physical-education contexts, this translates into environments that reward effort, visualize progress, and support social motivation. The design of lighting, color, spatial rhythm, and feedback displays can enhance intrinsic motivation through psychological mechanisms of competence and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

In short, environments that “speak” to users through perceptible yet subtle cues encouraging movement, curiosity, or reflection are more effective at sustaining healthy lifestyles. Health-centered design thus operates not as static architecture but as a dynamic behavioural interface.

2.12. Technological Integration and Smart Health Environments:

Technological innovation increasingly mediates the relationship between environment and health. The rise of smart buildings and adaptive environments introduces interactive systems capable of monitoring, learning, and responding to user needs in real time. These systems integrating sensors, artificial intelligence (AI), and Internet of Things (IoT) networks—extend the principles of health-centered design into the digital domain (Melikoğlu, 2024).

For example, AI-driven lighting adjusts color temperature and intensity according to circadian rhythms, supporting sleep quality and hormonal balance. Sensor-based ventilation systems regulate air quality and humidity to prevent respiratory stress. In mental-health design, machine-learning algorithms can personalize environmental parameters (light, sound, scent) based on individual mood or physiological signals (Zhao et al., 2022).

From a psychological perspective, these technologies reinforce the person environment fit the congruence between individual preferences and environmental conditions (Caplan, 1987). However, scholars caution against over-automation that may reduce user agency or privacy (Melikoğlu, 2024). Health-centered design must therefore balance technological efficiency with psychological autonomy.

The emerging field of affective computing in architecture explores how emotion-sensing technologies can enrich environmental feedback loops. By detecting stress indicators via wearable devices, buildings could adjust stimuli to restore comfort (Kim & Schweizer, 2023). While promising, these systems raise ethical concerns regarding data security and the commodification of emotional states. Consequently, future health-centered spaces must incorporate ethical AI frameworks ensuring transparency, consent, and human oversight (Borenstein & Howard, 2022).

In sum, the integration of digital intelligence transforms architecture from a passive backdrop into an active participant in health promotion, aligning spatial behaviour with personalized psychological well-being.

2.13. Sustainability, Ecology, and Psychophysical Health:

Environmental psychology’s ecological turn emphasizes the interdependence of human and planetary health. The ecopsychology perspective argues that psychological well-being is inseparable from environmental sustainability (Roszak, 1995). Contemporary design research echoes this view, advocating for regenerative and low-carbon environments that nurture both human and ecological systems (Barton & Grant, 2021).

Empirical studies show that occupants of green buildings report higher satisfaction, fewer sick-building symptoms, and lower stress levels (Frontiers in Built Environment, 2024). Beyond biophilia, ecological design promotes behavioural change by aligning daily habits recycling, energy conservation, walking with pro-environmental identity formation (Clayton & Manning, 2018). This alignment reinforces a sense of purpose and connectedness to nature, key components of psychological resilience.

Furthermore, sustainable materials and passive-design strategies contribute to sensory comfort: natural ventilation improves cognitive performance; daylight reduces seasonal affective symptoms; organic materials elicit tactile pleasure and calm. Thus, sustainability functions not only as an environmental ethic but also as a psychological necessity.

Health-centered design integrates sustainability at every level: from building orientation and material selection to waste management and social equity. When ecological responsibility becomes visible through green walls, solar canopies, and transparent water systems it reinforces environmental awareness and well-being simultaneously. As Milani et al. (2025) argue, sustainable design embodies a salutogenic ecology where human and environmental health co-evolve within restorative ecosystems.

2.14. Cross-Cultural Evidence and Contextual Adaptations:

Recent cross-cultural research reveals that the effectiveness of health-centered design principles varies across geographic and socio-economic contexts. For instance, daylight optimization may enhance well-being in high-latitude regions but require shading strategies in equatorial climates (Tekin et al., 2022). Similarly, acoustic comfort depends on cultural tolerance for noise Mediterranean societies often perceive ambient sound as convivial rather than stressful (Browning et al., 2014).

Cultural symbolism also shapes psychological responses to materials and colors. In East Asian contexts, natural wood conveys warmth and sincerity, while in Northern Europe, it signifies minimalism and environmental ethics (Kellert et al., 2021). Therefore, global design frameworks must be localized through participatory processes that engage community stakeholders.

Participatory design, rooted in environmental psychology’s user-centered ethos, empowers communities to co-create their environments. Empirical studies confirm that user participation enhances satisfaction, maintenance, and sense of ownership (Evans & Mitchell, 1998). In health-centered projects, participatory workshops enable designers to capture intangible well-being factors cultural rituals, sensory memories, and social norms that conventional metrics overlook.

Consequently, culturally adaptive design processes become integral to the psychological authenticity of health-centered environments. Spaces designed with users, not merely for them, foster meaning, identity, and empowerment outcomes as vital as the physical health metrics themselves.

2.15. Interdisciplinary Convergence:

Health-centered design exists at the confluence of multiple disciplines architecture, psychology, medicine, environmental science, and technology. This interdisciplinary synthesis marks a paradigmatic shift from reactive healthcare to proactive well-being design. Each discipline contributes distinct methodologies: architecture provides spatial expression, psychology explains behavioural mechanisms, medicine validates outcomes, and data science enables adaptive optimization.

The transdisciplinary model of health design proposed by Tekin et al. (2022) emphasizes the need for iterative collaboration among these domains. Similarly, Melikoğlu (2024) calls for “AI-supported user-centered design,” integrating human factors engineering with psychological feedback systems. Such approaches align with the broader movement toward One Health the recognition that human, environmental, and technological systems are inseparable in sustaining well-being.

This convergence underscores that health-centered design is not a stylistic trend but a systemic transformation. It reframes built environments as dynamic psychosocial infrastructures capable of preventing disease, enhancing flourishing, and nurturing ecological balance.

2.16. Current Research Gaps and Theoretical Challenges:

Despite growing interest in health-centered design, several conceptual and methodological gaps remain unresolved. The first major challenge concerns the operationalization of “health” itself. While physical and mental health metrics are well defined in clinical contexts, translating these into architectural or spatial variables remains elusive (Evans, 2023). For example, light exposure and ventilation can be quantified, but the emotional resonance of spatial atmosphere—what Pallasmaa (2014) termed the architecture of empathy—resists measurement. Consequently, designers often rely on proxy indicators such as user satisfaction or perceived comfort, which may not fully capture the multidimensional construct of well-being.

A second limitation involves the fragmentation of disciplinary knowledge. Research in architecture, psychology, and public health often proceeds in parallel, with minimal integration of theoretical frameworks (Melikoğlu, 2024). This separation inhibits cumulative understanding and leads to redundant studies focusing on isolated variables—light, sound, or color—without considering holistic user experience. Scholars increasingly advocate for integrative design models that synthesize sensory, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of health (Barton & Grant, 2021).

Third, there is a persistent bias toward biomedical paradigms that privilege quantitative over qualitative evidence. While post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) offer valuable statistical insight, they frequently overlook lived experiences, cultural interpretation, and subjective well-being (Tekin et al., 2022). Future research must embrace mixed-methods approaches—combining physiological metrics (e.g., heart rate variability, cortisol levels) with ethnographic observation and phenomenological inquiry—to bridge the subjective-objective divide.

Finally, the technological optimism surrounding smart health environments poses both opportunities and risks. While AI and sensor-driven systems enhance personalization, they may also perpetuate surveillance, algorithmic bias, and overreliance on automation (Borenstein & Howard, 2022). Critical scholarship warns that excessive digital mediation could erode human agency and emotional intimacy within spaces designed for health (Kim & Schweizer, 2023). Ethical frameworks must therefore evolve alongside technological innovation to safeguard autonomy, transparency, and inclusivity.

2.17. Integrative Theoretical Synthesis:

To advance the field, a coherent theoretical synthesis must link environmental psychology, physical-education psychology, and spatial design into a unified model. This section proposes a conceptual framework—the Psycho–Environmental Synergy Model (PESM)—which conceptualizes health-centered design as an ecosystem of interacting psychological, physiological, and environmental variables.

The psychological domain encompasses motivation, emotion regulation, and social belonging. Insights from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) explain how autonomy-supportive spaces—those allowing choice, flexibility, and agency—enhance intrinsic motivation toward healthy behaviors. Simultaneously, attention restoration theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) elucidates how exposure to natural patterns replenishes cognitive resources.

The physiological domain addresses sensory comfort, ergonomics, and movement affordances derived from the psychology of physical education. Theories of embodied cognition (Moran & Rafaeli, 2023) and kinesthetic learning affirm that active spatial engagement fosters both neural development and emotional stability.

The environmental domain integrates architectural features, material qualities, and ecological systems. Drawing from biophilic and salutogenic design (Antonovsky, 1996; Kellert et al., 2021), it posits that spaces conducive to exploration, coherence, and natural connection enhance resilience and meaning.

The PESM situates these domains within a dynamic feedback loop: environments shape behavior and emotion; users adapt through perception and learning; and both co-evolve through iterative feedback mediated by culture and technology. By aligning design practice with psychological theory, the model bridges disciplinary boundaries and establishes a systemic foundation for future empirical testing.

2.18. Evidence-Based Practice and Measurement Approaches:

A critical component of advancing health-centered design is developing robust evaluation tools that link environmental parameters to measurable health outcomes. Recent progress in evidence-based design (EBD) and post-occupancy analytics offers promising methodologies. EBD, originally developed for healthcare architecture, relies on empirical research to inform design decisions and evaluate performance (Ulrich et al., 2008). When combined with environmental psychology metrics, EBD evolves into a multidimensional assessment of environmental health impact.

Contemporary studies employ physiological sensors—measuring heart rate variability, galvanic skin response, or pupil dilation—to quantify stress and arousal in situ (Zhao et al., 2022). Simultaneously, digital ethnography and immersive virtual reality (VR) simulations allow researchers to assess emotional responses before construction. These tools not only validate design hypotheses but also democratize design by incorporating user feedback throughout the design cycle (Melikoğlu, 2024).

However, methodological rigor requires addressing contextual and temporal variability. Human responses fluctuate across time of day, season, and socio-cultural context (Evans, 2023). Consequently, multi-site longitudinal studies are essential to isolate enduring psychological effects from situational influences. Furthermore, the use of neuroarchitectural methods—EEG and fMRI-based studies—provides neural evidence for spatial-emotional interactions but must be interpreted cautiously to avoid reductionism (Kim & Schweizer, 2023).

A promising future direction involves developing standardized psychometric instruments tailored for design research, integrating scales of perceived control, restorative potential, and embodied satisfaction. The convergence of neuroscience, design, and behavioral science will thus yield more reliable models linking built environments to measurable health outcomes.

2.19. Future Research Directions:

The next decade of research in health-centered design and environmental psychology should pursue several key directions:

2.19.1. Cross-Disciplinary Integration:

There is a pressing need for transdisciplinary frameworks that unite architecture, psychology, public health, and computational sciences. Collaborative laboratories—combining architects, neuroscientists, and behavioral data analysts—can develop predictive models of spatial health impact. The integration of AI-driven simulation platforms will enable real-time feedback between design prototypes and user well-being metrics (Melikoğlu, 2024).

2.19.2. Climate and Cultural Adaptability:

As global urbanization accelerates, health-centered principles must adapt to diverse climates and cultures. Future studies should explore how socio-environmental variables—temperature perception, density, ritual use of space—affect health outcomes differently across regions (Tekin et al., 2022). Participatory methodologies and co-design practices will remain vital for ensuring contextual sensitivity and equity.

2.19.3. Neuropsychological Research:

Emerging technologies such as portable EEG and neurofeedback systems offer unprecedented opportunities to study real-time emotional and cognitive responses to design stimuli. Integrating these data with self-report and behavioral measures will deepen understanding of the neural correlates of spatial experience (Kim & Schweizer, 2023). However, ethical protocols must accompany such studies to protect participant privacy and avoid neuro-reductionist interpretations.

2.19.4. Digital and Hybrid Environments:

Post-pandemic realities highlight the growing influence of digital spatiality—how virtual environments, online classrooms, and hybrid workplaces affect mental and physical health. Research should explore how digital architecture replicates or replaces traditional restorative functions of physical environments (Borenstein & Howard, 2022). Designing psychologically supportive virtual spaces represents a new frontier of health-centered design.

2.19.5. Lifespan and Equity Perspectives:

Health-centered environments must address diverse populations across the lifespan. Children require stimulating spaces promoting play and learning; older adults benefit from accessible, low-stimulus environments supporting autonomy and memory. Inclusive research frameworks should also examine gender, ability, and socio-economic equity in spatial health access (Ghazali et al., 2020).

2.19.6. Sustainable Health Ecologies:

Finally, the intersection of sustainability and mental health deserves greater empirical focus. Ecological restoration, urban greening, and carbon-neutral materials not only mitigate climate change but also improve affective and cognitive well-being (Barton & Grant, 2021). Longitudinal research linking sustainability indicators with psychological metrics could demonstrate that environmental protection and human health are mutually reinforcing outcomes.

2.20. The Future Paradigm: Toward Salutogenic and Adaptive Environments:

The convergence of environmental psychology, physical education, and smart technology suggests the emergence of a salutogenic paradigm in spatial design—a shift from disease prevention to health generation. Rooted in Antonovsky’s (1996) notion of the “sense of coherence,” salutogenic environments empower users to perceive the world as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful. Architecture thus becomes a form of psychological infrastructure, nurturing agency and emotional regulation through spatial harmony.

Adaptive environments represent the next stage of this evolution. Through AI, machine learning, and real-time feedback, future spaces will continuously tune environmental parameters—light, temperature, acoustic balance—to sustain optimal physiological and psychological conditions (Melikoğlu, 2024). Yet this adaptivity must remain human-centered: rather than replacing judgment, technology should extend perception and empathy.

In educational and athletic settings, this philosophy can translate into psychologically responsive learning environments—spaces that dynamically adjust to group mood, energy levels, and attention spans. In healthcare, adaptive design can personalize recovery spaces to patient preferences, accelerating healing through multisensory alignment. Across all contexts, the fusion of environmental psychology and physical education reinforces the principle that health is learned through environment.

2.21. Concluding Synthesis:

This literature review has mapped the conceptual, empirical, and ethical foundations of health-centered design through the lens of environmental psychology and physical-education theory. It reveals that environments are not passive containers but active agents in shaping human health. The psychological components motivation, perception, affect regulation, and social belonging mediate the relationship between spatial form and well-being.

From the biophilic and inclusive frameworks of sustainable design to the data-driven intelligence of adaptive architecture, the field is evolving toward systemic integration. The reviewed studies demonstrate that design interventions can reduce stress, enhance cognition, and foster community health, yet also underscore the need for empirical rigor and cross-disciplinary coherence.

Ultimately, health-centered design embodies a holistic vision of human ecology, where architecture becomes both a pedagogical and therapeutic medium. By synthesizing environmental psychology, physical education, and digital ethics, designers can cultivate spaces that educate the body, elevate the mind, and sustain the planet. The future of health-centered environments will depend not merely on technological sophistication but on a renewed commitment to empathy, equity, and ecological consciousness as the foundations of design for human flourishing.

3. Implications of Integrating Physical Education Psychology into Architecture:

The relationship between the psychology of physical education (PE) and architectural design opens a novel field of inquiry that connects spatial configuration with human motivation, perception, and well-being. This intersection explores how architectural environments can actively influence physical activity, social engagement, and mental health. The implications of integrating PE psychology into architecture extend beyond the construction of athletic spaces and into the broader design of schools, workplaces, and community settings where movement and psychological wellness can be mutually reinforced. The growing interdisciplinary focus on “active design” and “well-being architecture” underscores the need to conceptualize built environments not only as physical structures but as behavioral frameworks that shape human activity and mindset (Dougall et al., 2014; Engineer et al., 2020).

3.1 Architecture as a Psychological Mediator of Physical Activity:

Physical education psychology posits that the environment is a critical determinant of physical behavior, shaping motivation, engagement, and adherence to exercise routines. Within architectural contexts, this principle suggests that space can act as a psychological mediator between the individual and the act of movement. Design decisions ranging from circulation patterns and spatial openness to light, color, and material texture communicate implicit cues that either invite or discourage physical engagement. For instance, open-plan layouts with visible activity zones have been shown to increase spontaneous participation in movement-based behaviors (Stefanovska Cvetkovska, 2024). The perception of accessibility, safety, and visual transparency contributes to self-efficacy and confidence, both of which are core constructs in PE psychology influencing long-term participation in physical activities.

Moreover, the architectural environment can reduce psychological barriers to exercise by mitigating social anxiety and performance pressure. Subtle design elements such as partitioned yet transparent zones, adjustable lighting, and visual connection to nature help balance privacy with openness conditions that have been found to support intrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1997; Al-Ramahi et al., 2023). These spatial factors correspond to the self-determination theory’s emphasis on autonomy, competence, and relatedness as essential drivers of motivated behavior. When users perceive that a space respects their individual pace, physical comfort, and social identity, they are more likely to internalize physical activity as a personally rewarding experience rather than an imposed obligation.

3.2 The Embodied Experience of Space:

Integrating PE psychology into architecture also emphasizes the embodied experience of space—the sensory and motor interaction between body and environment. Physical education psychology frames movement as both a cognitive and emotional process, where the body becomes a medium for self-expression and self-awareness. Architecture, in this sense, provides the physical and perceptual context for that embodied interaction. Spaces that accommodate diverse movement patterns stretching, balance, coordination enhance proprioceptive feedback and stimulate awareness of bodily presence.

Architectural scale, proportion, and texture directly influence the perception of bodily motion. Narrow corridors may induce tension or caution, while broad, light-filled areas can evoke freedom and expansiveness. The psychological comfort derived from such spatial affordances reinforces positive attitudes toward movement, mirroring the cognitive mechanisms observed in PE psychology where environmental mastery and body confidence are linked to motivation and performance. As phenomenological theorists such as Merleau-Ponty and Pallasmaa (2005) suggest, architecture mediates the dialogue between body and world, making the design of movement spaces a form of experiential pedagogy that teaches users how to inhabit their own bodies more consciously.

3.3 Spatial Design, Motivation, and Social Connectivity:

A major implication of integrating PE psychology into architecture lies in understanding how motivation and social connectivity are spatially constructed. Within PE settings, social relationships, cooperation, and team spirit are foundational for engagement. Architectural environments that facilitate social interaction—through visual openness, communal zones, and flexible spatial hierarchies—translate these psychological dynamics into spatial form.

Designing shared transitional spaces, such as semi-open lounges near fitness areas or transparent boundaries between performance and rest zones, can strengthen social cohesion. Research shows that users’ motivation increases when they feel observed or supported by peers in a nonjudgmental environment (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Therefore, spaces that offer visual connection without excessive exposure—using layered transparency, warm lighting, and acoustic balance—can optimize social motivation.

Additionally, cultural and age diversity within PE environments demands inclusive spatial strategies. For instance, young users may respond positively to vibrant, dynamic forms that express energy, while older adults may prefer calmer, legible spatial compositions. By recognizing these demographic differences, architects can create inclusive spaces that address varied psychological needs while promoting intergenerational participation. This approach aligns with the principles of universal design, which emphasize equity, flexibility, and simplicity as means of supporting diverse cognitive and emotional experiences.

3.4 Environmental Cues and Behavioral Activation:

Physical education psychology underscores that behavior is contextually triggered by environmental cues. In architecture, these cues can be designed intentionally to activate physical behavior. The “nudging” approach—borrowed from behavioral economics—has been successfully applied to spatial design to subtly guide users toward healthier decisions, such as taking stairs instead of elevators or using outdoor circulation routes (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).

Architectural elements like stair placement, visibility of movement areas, and the integration of walking paths into daily circulation routes encourage habitual movement. When the built environment offers visual reminders of physical activity—through transparent walls, visible routes, or rhythmic lighting—users unconsciously associate the space with vitality and energy. This reinforces the PE psychology principle that exposure to movement enhances internal motivation.

Furthermore, sensory stimuli such as color, sound, and temperature can modulate arousal levels, influencing energy and focus. For example, warm colors like orange and red can enhance vigor in high-intensity areas, while cool tones such as blue and green can support recovery and relaxation zones. These design strategies are consistent with the arousal theory in psychology, which states that optimal stimulation levels enhance performance and satisfaction (Berlyne, 1960). By integrating these cues, architecture becomes a behavioral catalyst that activates the body-mind system in ways congruent with the goals of physical education.

3.5 Architecture and Psychological Well-Being:

While PE psychology emphasizes motivation and performance, its integration into architecture extends the focus to psychological well-being. Health-centered spaces should promote not only physical fitness but also stress reduction, emotional balance, and mental restoration. Empirical studies have shown that biophilic design—characterized by natural materials, greenery, and access to daylight—can significantly reduce anxiety and improve cognitive performance (Kellert et al., 2011).

In architectural terms, this means creating movement environments that evoke calmness and engagement simultaneously. For instance, indoor fitness spaces with natural ventilation, wooden textures, and views of greenery can transform exercise from a mechanical routine into a multisensory experience. The emotional resonance of such spaces enhances adherence to physical activity, echoing the PE psychology perspective that positive affect strengthens behavioral consistency.

Furthermore, the psychological effects of space extend to recovery and mindfulness. Quiet zones, meditation areas, and flexible furniture arrangements allow users to regulate arousal levels and engage in reflective rest—practices aligned with psychological recovery in athletic training. Thus, architecture designed through the lens of PE psychology fosters a continuum between effort and rest, activity and contemplation, performance and mental clarity.

3.6 Educational Architecture and Movement-Based Learning:

The implications of integrating PE psychology are especially significant in educational architecture. Schools traditionally separate physical education facilities from academic environments, reinforcing the false dichotomy between mind and body. However, the PE psychology framework challenges this separation by emphasizing the cognitive benefits of physical activity—such as enhanced concentration, memory, and emotional regulation (Ratey, 2008).

Designing educational buildings that embed movement opportunities throughout their layout—such as dynamic staircases, interactive corridors, and flexible outdoor classrooms—supports the idea of movement-based learning. These designs transform the school environment into a living pedagogy that continuously engages both physical and mental faculties. For example, active learning corridors with climbing walls or balance elements can integrate exercise into daily routines without formal PE sessions.

Moreover, the integration of PE psychology can inform acoustic design, spatial orientation, and lighting strategies that enhance students’ psychological comfort. Natural lighting, acoustic moderation, and clear wayfinding reduce cognitive load and anxiety, facilitating smoother transitions between physical and intellectual tasks. In this way, educational architecture informed by PE psychology supports holistic development—cultivating not only academic success but also physical literacy and emotional intelligence.

3.7 Inclusive and Gender-Sensitive Design Implications:

An essential implication of applying PE psychology in architecture involves addressing inclusivity and gender sensitivity. Research in PE psychology shows that social comparison and gender norms influence participation and comfort levels in physical environments (Hills et al., 2015). Therefore, architectural design must mitigate these pressures by creating environments that empower rather than intimidate users.

For instance, female participants often report higher body consciousness and social anxiety in open gym settings. Spatial solutions—such as semi-enclosed zones, adjustable mirrors, and varied circulation routes—can provide users with a sense of control over visibility and exposure. Similarly, spaces should accommodate people with disabilities by integrating adaptive equipment, wide circulation paths, and tactile guidance systems. This inclusivity not only enhances accessibility but also aligns with the psychological principle of perceived competence, which strengthens motivation and self-efficacy.

In community contexts, gender-neutral facilities and co-use spatial planning can promote equity and belonging. Visual representation in design—artwork, materials, color palettes—can also contribute to inclusivity by symbolically validating diverse identities. Through such design interventions, architecture becomes a medium for social inclusion, reflecting the psychological ideals of respect, empathy, and empowerment.

3.8 Multisensory Environments and Cognitive Engagement:

PE psychology acknowledges that motor activity is inseparable from sensory perception. Thus, architecture can amplify cognitive engagement by orchestrating multisensory experiences. For instance, texture variations underfoot, ambient soundscapes, and dynamic lighting patterns can transform routine movement into an exploratory act. These sensory layers stimulate curiosity and attentional engagement, key components of intrinsic motivation.

Neuroscientific research demonstrates that sensory-rich environments improve cognitive flexibility and emotional resilience (Berman et al., 2008). By designing spaces that invite users to feel movement rather than merely perform it, architects can enhance learning, creativity, and adaptability. The integration of digital and interactive elements—such as responsive lighting or motion-activated installations—can further support this sensory dialogue, merging technology with psychology to enrich the embodied experience of space.

3.9 Barriers and Practical Challenges:

Despite its potential, integrating PE psychology into architectural practice faces several barriers. Architectural education often lacks psychological training, while PE programs rarely consider spatial design as an influencing factor. The resulting disciplinary gap limits collaboration and innovation. Additionally, practical constraints such as budget limitations, regulatory frameworks, and time pressures often deprioritize psychological considerations during design development.

Another challenge lies in measurement. While psychological constructs such as motivation and well-being can be evaluated through surveys and interviews, quantifying their spatial correlates remains difficult. There is a growing need for interdisciplinary metrics combining architectural performance indicators (e.g., spatial legibility, daylight exposure) with psychological outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy, mood). This empirical foundation would enable evidence-based design approaches grounded in PE psychology.

Finally, cultural variability presents both complexity and opportunity. The meanings associated with movement, body image, and public activity differ across societies. Therefore, architectural design informed by PE psychology must remain culturally adaptive, ensuring that design solutions resonate with local values, traditions, and aesthetic sensibilities.

3.10 Summary of Implications:

In summary, integrating physical education psychology into architecture redefines how we conceive health-centered spaces. Architecture becomes an active participant in psychological processes, shaping motivation, embodiment, and social behavior. By recognizing space as a psychological ecosystem, designers can move beyond functional planning toward environments that cultivate physical literacy, emotional well-being, and social belonging.

The implications of this integration can be grouped into four key domains:

v   (1) Motivational Architecture, where design elements stimulate intrinsic engagement;

v   (2) Embodied Environments, which support bodily awareness and kinesthetic learning;

v  (3) Social Connectivity, which strengthens group cohesion through inclusive spatial forms; and

v   (4) Restorative Design, which enhances mental recovery and resilience. Together, these domains form a holistic model of psychologically informed architecture that bridges body, mind, and space.

4. Theoretical Insights and Design Recommendations for Future Research and Practice:

4.1 Theoretical Framework: Synthesizing Physical Education Psychology and Architectural Theory:

The theoretical integration of physical education (PE) psychology and architectural design demands a multidimensional understanding of the human-environment relationship. Both disciplines share a common concern with the body, behavior, and perception, yet they approach these dimensions from distinct epistemological directions. While architecture traditionally emphasizes spatial form, composition, and aesthetic coherence, PE psychology prioritizes cognitive and affective mechanisms that guide motivation, performance, and social behavior. Their intersection forms a psychosomatic design paradigm in which the built environment functions as both a physical and psychological extension of the body.

From a theoretical standpoint, this integration aligns with ecological psychology, which posits that behavior emerges from the dynamic interaction between organism and environment (Gibson, 1979). Architectural space, when understood through this lens, becomes a field of affordances—possibilities for action that invite or constrain movement. The implication for design practice is profound: rather than creating static enclosures, architects can shape environments that afford healthy, autonomous, and socially supportive behaviors.

Furthermore, the principles of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) offer a psychological foundation for user-centered design. According to this theory, three innate psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are essential for motivation and well-being. When transposed into architecture, these constructs translate into spatial conditions that promote choice, mastery, and connection. For example, autonomy can be supported through flexible layouts that allow users to self-direct activity; competence can be reinforced through clear spatial organization and positive feedback cues; relatedness can be enhanced through communal areas that encourage supportive interaction.

This theoretical framework positions architecture as an active agent in the cultivation of psychological health, moving beyond aesthetics or ergonomics to engage with the cognitive-emotional processes that underlie physical activity and social engagement. The concept of psychologically intelligent design thus emerges—an approach where architectural decisions are informed by evidence from behavioral sciences to foster holistic well-being.

4.2 Core Theoretical Insights:

4.2.1 The Body as an Epistemic Medium:

One of the most significant theoretical insights arising from the synthesis of PE psychology and architecture is the recognition of the body as an epistemic medium—that is, a source of knowledge about space and self. In both domains, bodily experience serves as the foundation for perception, cognition, and emotional regulation. Architectural design that acknowledges the body as a sensory instrument can produce environments that enhance bodily awareness and agency. For example, rhythmic spatial sequences, changes in floor texture, or gradients of light can communicate subtle feedback to the moving body, reinforcing proprioceptive learning similar to the experiential learning processes described in PE pedagogy (Kolb, 1984).

4.2.2 Space as a Motivational Interface:

Another theoretical contribution concerns the idea of space as a motivational interface. In PE psychology, motivation is not merely an internal state but a dynamic response to environmental stimuli. Similarly, architecture provides external cues—visual, tactile, and social—that can sustain or diminish engagement. This concept aligns with affective affordances (Rietveld & Kiverstein, 2014), wherein spatial configurations evoke emotional responses that guide behavior. For instance, a well-lit stairwell that opens onto communal spaces can promote upward movement, while dim, enclosed corridors may discourage physical activity.

4.2.3 Psychological Coherence and Spatial Identity:

A third insight involves psychological coherence, the sense of harmony between personal goals, bodily states, and environmental conditions. According to Salutogenesis Theory (Antonovsky, 1996), environments that foster a sense of coherence—comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness—contribute to health and resilience. Architectural spaces inspired by PE psychology can embody these dimensions by being intuitively legible (comprehensible), supportive of varied abilities (manageable), and symbolically resonant with the culture of movement (meaningful).

4.2.4 Social Ecology of Space:

Finally, PE psychology emphasizes the social dimension of motivation. Group identity, peer support, and shared goals significantly affect performance and persistence. When transposed into architecture, these dynamics form a social ecology of space, where spatial design mediates interpersonal relations. Open communal areas, semi-transparent boundaries, and inclusive design features enhance social visibility without compromising individual comfort. The social affordances of space thereby mirror the team dynamics studied in sports psychology, demonstrating that spatial form and social behavior are mutually constitutive.

4.3 Design Principles for Health-Centered and Psychologically Informed Spaces:

The translation of these theoretical insights into design practice requires a systematic framework of principles that align psychological needs with spatial strategies. The following subsections outline five guiding principles for architects and planners seeking to integrate PE psychology into the built environment.

4.3.1 Principle 1: Design for Movement Affordances:

Spaces should encourage spontaneous physical activity through visible, accessible, and aesthetically engaging circulation systems. Stairs, ramps, and pathways should not be hidden but celebrated as design features. For instance, sculptural staircases, interactive floor patterns, and gradient transitions between levels can transform movement from a necessity into a pleasurable experience. Outdoor connections and fluid transitions between interior and exterior spaces further enhance daily physical engagement. The objective is to create active environments that seamlessly integrate exercise into ordinary routines.

4.3.2 Principle 2: Support Psychological Autonomy and Competence:

Architecture should provide opportunities for self-directed use. Flexible spaces—movable partitions, adjustable lighting, and multifunctional layouts—allow users to adapt the environment according to their preferences, reinforcing the psychological need for autonomy. Simultaneously, legible spatial organization, clear visual hierarchies, and intuitive navigation enhance perceived competence. The combination of freedom and clarity mirrors the optimal motivational conditions described in self-determination theory, fostering both exploration and mastery.

4.3.3 Principle 3: Cultivate Social Connectivity and Belonging:

Social integration is a crucial determinant of motivation and well-being. Spatial design should therefore create a spectrum of social interactions, from intimate conversation zones to large communal areas. Transparent materials, shared vantage points, and visual connections across activity zones promote awareness of others while preserving privacy. Incorporating inclusive amenities—such as gender-neutral changing rooms, family spaces, and community lounges—can further reinforce social belonging and inclusivity.

4.3.4 Principle 4: Integrate Biophilic and Sensory Design Strategies:

Biophilic design, emphasizing the human connection to nature, plays a central role in promoting psychological restoration and emotional regulation. Natural materials, daylight, vegetation, and water features evoke sensory richness and calmness, reducing stress and enhancing cognitive focus (Kellert et al., 2011). In the context of PE psychology, these elements also sustain intrinsic motivation by creating pleasurable environments. Sensory layering—acoustic balance, thermal comfort, and material tactility—further contributes to multisensory coherence, enhancing both performance and recovery.

4.3.5 Principle 5: Encourage Reflection, Mindfulness, and Recovery:

Physical activity is cyclic, alternating between exertion and recovery. Similarly, health-centered architecture should include transitional and restorative spaces that allow users to reflect and recharge. Quiet rooms, shaded courtyards, and contemplative niches provide psychological balance, supporting the parasympathetic response essential for long-term well-being. This integration of mindfulness into spatial design aligns with psychological recovery theories in sports science, which emphasize rest as an active component of health rather than its absence.

4.4 Research Directions and Methodological Considerations:

The theoretical and practical convergence of PE psychology and architecture opens numerous avenues for interdisciplinary research. To consolidate this emerging field, empirical methods must evolve to measure both psychological and spatial variables in an integrated manner.

4.4.1 Empirical Assessment of Psychologically Active Spaces:

Future research should develop mixed-method approaches combining architectural analysis with psychological metrics. Tools such as spatial syntax analysis, post-occupancy evaluations, and environmental behavior mapping can be complemented by psychological instruments measuring motivation, self-efficacy, and well-being. Experimental studies comparing different spatial typologies—open vs. closed, biophilic vs. artificial—can yield quantitative data linking spatial design to psychological outcomes. Longitudinal designs would also clarify how sustained exposure to health-centered architecture influences behavior over time.

4.4.2 Cross-Cultural and Demographic Variability:

Cultural norms and demographic factors strongly influence how individuals perceive and use space. For example, collectivist societies may respond more positively to communal spatial configurations, whereas individualist cultures might prefer modular, private areas. Similarly, gender, age, and ability shape psychological responses to spatial openness and visibility. Future studies should thus prioritize inclusive and cross-cultural methodologies, ensuring that design guidelines reflect diverse human experiences.

4.4.3 Integration of Digital and Interactive Technologies:

The rapid advancement of interactive technologies offers new tools for merging PE psychology with architecture. Motion sensors, adaptive lighting, and virtual reality interfaces can create responsive environments that adjust to users’ physiological and emotional states. For example, gym walls could display real-time motivational feedback, while learning environments could modulate color and sound based on group energy levels. These technologies embody the principle of adaptive architecture, where digital systems enhance the psychological intelligence of space.

4.4.4 Sustainability and Psychological Health:

A critical area for future research is the relationship between environmental sustainability and psychological well-being. Health-centered design must reconcile ecological responsibility with human needs for comfort and engagement. Studies have indicated that sustainable features such as natural ventilation, daylight optimization, and local materials not only reduce energy consumption but also elevate users’ satisfaction and sense of meaning (Al-Ramahi et al., 2023). The convergence of green architecture and PE psychology thus suggests a model of sustainable wellness design, where planetary health and personal well-being are co-dependent goals.

4.5 Practical Applications and Policy Implications:

4.5.1 Educational and Institutional Settings:

In schools and universities, applying PE psychology to architecture can foster learning environments that prioritize movement, social interaction, and cognitive engagement. Policies should encourage the inclusion of active circulation routes, accessible outdoor classrooms, and flexible indoor spaces. Educators and architects can collaborate to design movement-based curricula supported by spatial layouts that embody physical literacy principles.

4.5.2 Healthcare and Rehabilitation Environments:

In hospitals and rehabilitation centers, spatial design can play a therapeutic role. Integrating movement corridors, nature exposure, and community lounges enhances patient motivation and recovery. Such environments support the psychological dimensions of healing—autonomy, competence, and social support—while aligning with medical goals. The concept of healing architecture thus gains new depth when informed by PE psychology.

4.5.3 Urban and Community Design:

At the urban scale, the implications extend to public health and urban policy. Walkable neighborhoods, accessible sports facilities, and public spaces that invite social play contribute to population-level physical activity and mental well-being. Urban planners can apply PE psychology principles by designing cities that celebrate movement—through safe pedestrian networks, inclusive parks, and participatory public art. This approach transforms the city into a living gymnasium, where architecture, psychology, and health converge.

4.6 Toward a Psychologically Intelligent Architecture:

The integration of PE psychology into architecture calls for a paradigm shift from designing spaces that merely accommodate bodies to creating environments that educate and motivate them. A psychologically intelligent architecture perceives the user as a dynamic, embodied agent whose needs evolve across time and context. It values emotional resonance as much as efficiency, and it measures success not solely by occupancy or aesthetics but by human flourishing.

The future of architectural theory thus lies in a deeper dialogue with behavioral sciences. Interdisciplinary collaboration between architects, psychologists, educators, and health professionals can yield design methodologies that are evidence-based, empathetic, and adaptable. As health and well-being become central metrics of design quality, the integration of psychological insights will be essential for creating spaces that genuinely support human development.

5. Conclusion:

The dialogue between physical education (PE) psychology and architecture reveals a fundamental reorientation of how built environments can sustain health, learning, and social life. Where architecture has long been concerned with material form and spatial composition, and PE psychology with motivation, embodiment, and behavioral change, their synthesis reframes space as an active psychological instrument. The conclusion that emerges from this interdisciplinary inquiry is both conceptual and practical: the health of individuals and communities depends not only on medical or behavioral interventions but also on the quality of the environments in which movement, interaction, and reflection occur.

This research has argued that the spatial organization of schools, workplaces, and public domains can either reinforce or inhibit human flourishing. By interpreting the body as a perceptual and cognitive agent—rather than a passive occupant—architectural design assumes a pedagogical and therapeutic role. The application of PE psychology to architectural thinking thus establishes a psychosomatic paradigm, where the design of space becomes inseparable from the cultivation of self-awareness, motivation, and emotional balance.

5.1 Reframing Health and Space:

Traditionally, health-oriented architecture has emphasized hygiene, ergonomics, and the prevention of disease. While these concerns remain essential, the integration of PE psychology expands the notion of health to encompass psychological vitality, social connectedness, and existential meaning. Health is not simply the absence of illness but a dynamic state of engagement between the body and its environment. Consequently, architectural space is reconceptualized as a living ecosystem that mediates perception, movement, and emotion.

In this view, walls, corridors, and courtyards are not inert backdrops but affective structures that shape behavior. Daylight penetrating a classroom or the tactile texture of a gymnasium floor are forms of non-verbal communication that guide attention and mood. The environment becomes a silent instructor—teaching posture, rhythm, coordination, and awareness. Integrating PE psychology enables designers to translate motivational and emotional principles into spatial language, ensuring that the architecture of health speaks directly to the embodied mind.

5.2 The Body as the Central Medium of Design:

The most profound theoretical shift proposed here is the reinstatement of the body as the central medium through which architecture is experienced and understood. The human body is simultaneously physiological, cognitive, and social; it learns through movement, negotiates meaning through gesture, and constructs identity through interaction. Physical education psychology provides the empirical and conceptual tools to understand these bodily processes, while architecture provides the material framework that enables or constrains them.

This convergence has significant implications for design education and practice. Future architects should be trained to interpret bodily feedback—how scale, proportion, or acoustics affect posture, respiration, or emotional tone. Conversely, physical educators and psychologists can benefit from spatial literacy, learning how design elements influence participation and motivation. The result is a transdisciplinary literacy of embodiment in which space and body form a reciprocal learning system.

5.3 Motivational Space and Behavioral Sustainability:

One of the key findings of this study is that architectural space functions as a motivational field. Layout, color, light, and material all transmit affective signals that can trigger approach or avoidance behaviors. Drawing from self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), spaces that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness tend to enhance intrinsic motivation. A transparent gym that allows visual contact without exposure, a classroom that enables multiple configurations, or a park that invites collective play exemplify how design can cultivate sustained engagement.

The sustainability of healthy behavior depends less on individual willpower than on environmental support. Built environments that continually invite movement—through open circulation, visual landmarks, and sensory variation—embed health into daily life. This conclusion challenges the conventional separation between “exercise spaces” and ordinary environments. Cities, offices, and homes can all become arenas of movement if designed as motivational ecologies.

5.4 The Emotional Architecture of Well-Being:

Psychological well-being arises not only from physical activity but also from the emotional tone of space. Research in environmental psychology demonstrates that natural light, biophilic materials, and visual access to greenery reduce stress and enhance cognitive clarity (Kellert et al., 2011; Berman et al., 2008). The present synthesis extends these findings by linking them to PE psychology’s emphasis on emotional regulation through bodily awareness. Spaces that balance stimulation and calm—dynamic yet secure, open yet contained—help regulate arousal levels essential for both performance and recovery.

The concept of emotional architecture thus emerges: a design approach that modulates affective states through multisensory coherence. Sound, temperature, and tactile qualities are treated as psychological variables rather than secondary aesthetics. In such environments, movement becomes expressive and restorative; users experience architecture not merely as shelter but as a companion in their emotional journey.

5.5 Social Inclusion and Cultural Sensitivity:

Integrating PE psychology also foregrounds the ethics of inclusion. Motivation and comfort are shaped by cultural norms, gender identities, and social hierarchies. Architectural design must therefore operate as an instrument of equity, ensuring that every user feels competent and welcome. Semi-private exercise zones, gender-neutral facilities, and accessible circulation routes translate the principle of perceived competence into spatial practice.

Moreover, the social dimension of design—communal lounges, observation areas, and shared transitional spaces—cultivates the sense of relatedness central to psychological well-being. These spatial gestures counteract isolation and encourage empathy. Culturally sensitive design acknowledges that bodily expression carries different meanings across societies; it thus replaces universal formalisms with contextual dialogues that respect local traditions of movement, play, and gathering.

5.6 Cognitive and Pedagogical Dimensions:

A further implication concerns learning and cognition. Movement enhances neural plasticity, attention, and memory (Ratey, 2008). By embedding opportunities for physical activity into educational architecture, designers can extend the classroom beyond its static boundaries. Corridors become laboratories of balance and coordination; courtyards transform into theaters of collaborative learning.

The pedagogical insight is that cognition and motion are not opposites but partners in knowledge production. The built environment can function as a didactic medium that teaches through movement. This synthesis redefines educational architecture as a holistic system for cognitive, emotional, and physical growth. Such learning environments may contribute not only to academic achievement but also to resilience, creativity, and social intelligence.

5.7 Methodological Reflections and Research Agenda:

While the theoretical foundation is robust, future work must focus on empirical validation. Measuring the psychological effects of design interventions requires innovative methodologies that combine spatial analytics with behavioral science. Eye-tracking, motion sensors, and physiological monitoring can reveal how users respond to environmental stimuli. Post-occupancy evaluations should include psychological metrics—motivation, mood, self-efficacy—to establish evidence-based correlations between design and well-being.

Moreover, longitudinal studies are necessary to assess how exposure to psychologically informed environments shapes habits over time. The integration of qualitative data—interviews, narratives, participatory design workshops—can capture subtle emotional and cultural nuances often missed by quantitative methods. Interdisciplinary research teams composed of architects, psychologists, educators, and public-health experts will be essential to develop this evidence base.

5.8 Ethical and Ecological Implications:

Health-centered architecture informed by PE psychology carries ethical responsibilities. Designers must balance the desire to influence behavior with respect for personal autonomy. The goal is not to manipulate but to empower—to create environments that expand rather than constrain choice. Transparency, user participation, and inclusivity are ethical imperatives that ensure psychological integrity.

Ecologically, the convergence of sustainable design and psychological well-being points to a unified model of planetary health. Natural ventilation, daylight optimization, and renewable materials not only conserve energy but also enhance comfort and mood. The psychological benefits of ecological stewardship—pride, belonging, hope—extend the notion of wellness beyond the individual to the collective and environmental scales. Thus, sustainability becomes not merely technical efficiency but a moral and emotional condition of coexistence.

5.9 From Theory to Praxis: Policy and Professional Transformation:

For these insights to influence real-world practice, institutional and policy frameworks must evolve. Design guidelines for schools, sports facilities, and public buildings should explicitly include psychological performance criteria. Municipal planning can adopt active design codes that prioritize walkability, visibility of movement routes, and access to inclusive recreation spaces. Funding agencies and health authorities can incentivize cross-sector collaborations that link architecture with public-health outcomes.

Professional education is another frontier. Architectural curricula should integrate behavioral and health sciences, while PE and psychology programs should include spatial literacy and design thinking. This cross-training would produce professionals capable of translating psychological principles into spatial solutions and vice versa. The emergence of health-centered design specialists could institutionalize this interdisciplinary expertise, ensuring that future environments embody the lessons of PE psychology.

5.10 A Vision for Future Practice:

Ultimately, the integration of physical education psychology into architecture advances a vision of humanistic design grounded in empathy, evidence, and embodied knowledge. It challenges the modernist notion of architecture as an object to be viewed, replacing it with architecture as an experience to be lived. Every wall, path, and surface becomes an invitation to move, to connect, and to reflect.

This vision aligns with contemporary shifts toward wellness economies, preventive health, and holistic education. It recognizes that spatial design can function as a form of public pedagogy—teaching societies how to live well together. By synthesizing the motivational insights of PE psychology with the creative tools of architecture, designers can craft environments that cultivate discipline without coercion, freedom without chaos, and community without uniformity.

5.11 Closing Reflections:

The conclusion of this interdisciplinary exploration is, above all, hopeful. It affirms that architecture, when informed by the psychological science of movement and motivation, can become a proactive contributor to societal well-being. The walls of our schools, hospitals, and cities can remind us to breathe, stretch, and connect. They can mirror our potential for growth rather than our constraints.

As global challenges such as sedentary lifestyles, mental health decline, and social fragmentation intensify, psychologically intelligent design offers a pragmatic and poetic response. It invites us to imagine a future where every environment—whether a neighborhood street or a classroom corridor—functions as a catalyst for vitality. In such a future, the boundary between physical education and daily life dissolves; movement becomes culture, and architecture becomes the choreography of human flourishing.

In summary, the integration of PE psychology and architecture reveals that the pursuit of health is not merely a medical project but an architectural and cultural one. The spaces we inhabit shape not only how we live but who we become. Designing for health, therefore, is designing for humanity itself—a continuous, creative act of building environments that move with us, think with us, and ultimately, help us to thrive.

References

Alesi, M., De Luca, R., Franciosi, S., & Pepi, A. (2022). Editorial: Psychological factors in physical education and sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1034172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1034172

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Blynova, O., Popovych, I., Hulias, I., Radul, S., Borozentseva, T., Strilets-Babenko, O., & Minenko, O. (2022). Psychological safety of the educational space in the structure of motivational orientation of female athletes: A comparative analysis. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 22(11), 2723–2732. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2022.11346

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Han, X., Li, H., Xiao, C., Wang, W., Gao, K., Yan, S., & Niu, L. (2025). Physical activity enhances college students’ mental health through social adaptability and exercise behavior chain mediation. Scientific Reports, 15, 21127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07791-z

Martín-Rodríguez, A., et al. (2024). Sporting mind: The interplay of physical activity and psychological well-being. Sports, 12(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports12010037

Tureček, S., et al. (2025). The relationship between physical activity environment and mental wellbeing: A study of nature-based participation and its effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, xx(x), xx-xx. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/j.jenvp.2025.xx

Wang, R., Helbich, M., Yao, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., Yuan, Y., & Ye, L. (2019). Urban greenery and mental wellbeing in adults: Cross-sectional mediation analyses on multiple pathways across different greenery measures. Health & Place, 57, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.002

World Health Organization. (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

Al-Ramahi, A., Iranmanesh, A., & Bardak Denerel, S. (2023). Well-being as an effective aspect in the perception of vital in-between spaces within art and architecture faculties. Buildings, 13(6), 1467. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061467

Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/11.1.11

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x

Dougall, A. L., Spencer, S., & Baum, A. (2014). Architecture and health. In S. Ayers et al. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine. Cambridge University Press.

Engineer, A., Ida, A., & Sternberg, E. M. (2020). Healing spaces: Designing physical environments to optimize health, wellbeing, and performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1155. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041155

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

Hills, A. P., Dengel, D. R., & Lubans, D. R. (2015). Supporting public health priorities: Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 57(4), 368–374.

Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. L. (2011). Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Wiley.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945)

Ratey, J. J. (2008). Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise and the brain. Little, Brown.

Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Stefanovska Cvetkovska, I. (2024). Active architecture: Designing sports facilities and urban spaces to promote physical activity and health. Research in Physical Education, Sport and Health, 13(1), 189–195.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.