Placemaking at Work: Creating Meaningful and Sustainable Workplaces in the Age of Remote Work

A Dissertation Proposal

Candidate: Sara Bensalem
Program: Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture
School of Architecture, College of Design, Construction and Planning
University of Florida
Advisor: Dr. Martin Gold, Professor, School of Architecture
Committee:
- Dr. Hassan Azad, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture
- Dr. Erin Cunningham, Associate Professor, Department of Interior Design
- Dr. Nicole Gravina, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology

Date: March 2026 (Final Submission)

Abstract

The traditional corporate office faces its most significant transformation since Frederick Taylor's scientific management reshaped workplace design at the turn of the twentieth century. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a structural shift toward distributed work. According to Pew Research Center (2023), approximately 7% of U.S. workers whose jobs could be performed remotely worked from home full-time prior to the pandemic. By October 2020, that share spiked to 55% before settling at 35% by February 2023. U.S. office vacancy rates climbed above 20% in Q2 2024—the first time this threshold was crossed since modern vacancy tracking began in the 1980s (Moody's Analytics, 2024). Concurrently, the global coworking industry expanded from 14,000 spaces in 2015 to an estimated 42,000 by end of 2024 (Coworking Insights, 2024).

This dissertation investigates the intersection of placemaking theory, workplace architecture, and environmental sustainability in the age of distributed work. The research draws on a focused theoretical framework anchored by six core theories from environmental psychology, organizational behavior, and human geography. The central research question asks: How can architects design meaningful, productive, and sustainable work environments across distributed spatial ecosystems where workers no longer occupy a single coherent workplace?

This dissertation proposes Distributed Placemaking as a novel theoretical framework extending traditional placemaking theory to intermittently occupied, multi-site work environments. Through a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design conducted across two regulatory contexts (Florida, USA and France, EU), this research produces: (1) a refined theoretical model operationalizing Distributed Placemaking; (2) empirical evidence testing hypotheses derived from core theories; and (3) evidence-based architectural guidelines for hybrid workplace design.

The research maintains epistemological rigor by acknowledging the limits of generalizability across sectors and geographies while demonstrating how regulatory environments shape distributed workplace outcomes.

Keywords: workplace architecture, placemaking, hybrid work, activity-based working, sustainability, employee-workplace alignment, distributed placemaking, space syntax, energy justice

1.0 Introduction: The Crisis of Architectural Typology

1.1 The Dissolution of the Container

For over a century, the commercial workplace functioned as a "container"—a coherent spatial entity predicated on mandatory, synchronous physical co-presence of the workforce. This model reached its architectural zenith in the mid-twentieth century corporate skyscraper, which functioned as both spatial arrangement and mechanism of control. As historian Stephen Waring (2016) documents in Taylorism Transformed, the modern office embodied Frederick Taylor's (1913) principles of Scientific Management: designed for visual surveillance, efficient paper flow, and labor synchronization.

The COVID-19 pandemic fractured this container. The workplace dispersed from a singular site into distributed spatial nodes—bedrooms, kitchen tables, coffee shops, satellite hubs, and partially occupied headquarters. This research terms this phenomenon the "Distributed Ecosystem." It represents a rupture in architectural history as significant as the Industrial Revolution's transition from craft to factory labor.

The data underscores this rupture: U.S. office vacancy reached 20.1% in Q2 2024 (Moody's Analytics, reported in Fortune, 2024)—a record high since modern tracking began in the 1980s. Simultaneously, the global coworking industry grew from 14,000 spaces in 2015 to 42,000 by 2024 (Coworking Insights, 2024). Equally significant: workers have not abandoned the need for physical workplace. Rather, they have multiplied locations while diminishing the symbolic centrality of corporate headquarters.

This multiplication creates a paradox central to this research: As workers gained flexibility, their relationship to physical space became simultaneously more fragmented and more consequential. The workplace now competes with home, coffee shops, coworking spaces, and satellite hubs for worker attention and loyalty. Architecture is needed—not less, but differently. The traditional office must now justify the friction of commuting by delivering an intensity of experience unavailable remotely. This is the working thesis of Distributed Placemaking: the architect's role has shifted from designing isolated buildings to curating networked spatial ecosystems.

1.2 Workspace Versus Workplace: A Phenomenological Distinction

Before addressing the architectural challenge, a conceptual distinction must be clarified: the difference between workspace and workplace.

A workspace is a physical setting defined by location and material attributes—furniture, equipment, and environmental systems (e.g., HVAC: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). It is functional infrastructure for work tasks. A workplace, by contrast, is a workspace invested with human meaning through experience, identity, and attachment. Workplace emerges not from design alone but from the interplay of spatial configuration and human social practice. As geographer Yi-Fu Tuan (1977) argues in Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, "What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it and endow it with value" (p. 6). The office building is a workspace; the office transformed through ritual, artifact, and social cohesion into a site of belonging is a workplace.

This distinction is not rhetorical; it carries design implications. Architects have historically optimized workspaces—ergonomic standards, daylighting, HVAC efficiency—while treating workplace creation as a byproduct of organizational culture. In the age of distributed work, this assumption breaks down. The home office is functionally equipped yet spatially isolated. The headquarters is architecturally impressive yet increasingly vacant. Without intentional placemaking, distributed work devolves into a series of ergonomic functional spaces devoid of belonging.

The dissertation makes a central claim: Architects must become placemakers. This does not imply abandoning functional design standards. Rather, it means acknowledging that meaningful workplace emerges at the intersection of spatial design and intentional social practice. Schneekloth and Shibley (1995), in their foundational work Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities, define placemaking as "the art of creating, sustaining, and adapting places that support the daily lives of the community" (p. 1). Applied to distributed work, placemaking becomes the intentional cultivation of "sense of place" (location + locale + social meaning, per Cresswell, 2004) across multiple nodes—transforming workspaces into workplaces.

1.3 Research Problem and Central Questions

This dissertation addresses a fundamental problem in contemporary architectural practice: How do architects design for work when "the workplace" no longer refers to a single coherent spatial entity?

This problem comprises three interrelated challenges:

The Design Challenge: Architects have developed sophisticated typologies for single-building workplaces (open plan, activity-based, cellular). These typologies assume continuous occupancy and spatial coherence. Distributed work shatters both assumptions. The architect must now curate a network of intermittently occupied spaces—a radically different design problem. What principles guide this curation?

The Knowledge Challenge: Placemaking theory, developed in urban design contexts (public squares, neighborhood centers), has not been systematically extended to workplace contexts, and never to distributed, multi-node environments. Place Attachment theory offers rich understanding of human-environment bonding but developed primarily for single-site, continuous-occupation settings (homes, workplaces as unified buildings). The theoretical apparatus exists in fragments; it must be synthesized and tested in a new domain.

The Equity Challenge: As workplace disperses, professional oversight diminishes. Home offices remain largely unregulated and unsupported in most jurisdictions. Yet lower-income workers bear disproportionate burdens from work-at-home arrangements (higher energy costs relative to income, less suitable housing). Architects have a duty of care to all workers, not just those in managed office environments. How do architects address equity in spaces over which they have limited direct control?

The dissertation frames these challenges within a single overarching research question:

How can architects employ design principles grounded in place theory, systems thinking, and equity frameworks to create productive, meaningful, and sustainable work environments across the distributed workplace ecosystem of corporate offices, home workspaces, and community work nodes?

1.4 Scope and Delimitations

Geographic and Regulatory Scope: This research employs a comparative design across two regulatory contexts:

• United States (Florida): Lenient regulatory environment; no employer mandate for home office ergonomics or equipment. Remote work culturally normalized and tax-advantaged. Florida serves as a case of market-driven distributed work adoption.

• European Union (France): Stringent regulatory environment; French labor law (2021 Accord National Interprofessionnel) mandates employer provision of equipment and ergonomic assessment for remote workers. Additionally, French law recognizes le droit à la déconnexion (the right to disconnect), establishing worker protections absent in the U.S. France serves as a case of regulation-driven distributed work design.

This contrast enables investigation of a critical moderating variable: How do regulatory environments shape architectural responses to distributed work? Understanding this relationship has direct applicability to the U.S. as policy environments evolve.

Target Population: The research focuses on workers whose jobs are remote-capable—professionals whose work primarily involves information processing, creative problem-solving, and communication, and whose work can feasibly be performed outside a traditional office. This definition aligns with Pew Research Center's (2023) survey methodology and allows focused analysis of an economically significant demographic.

Node Focus: Primary data collection focuses on two nodes: High-Intensity Anchor (HQ/corporate offices) and Ergonomic Periphery (Home workspaces). The third node, Community Node (coworking/smart work centers), is addressed through literature review and secondary data. This narrower focus enables deeper analysis within the dissertation timeline while maintaining theoretical completeness.

Excluded Scope: The research excludes occupations requiring physical presence (manufacturing, healthcare, retail, construction). Embodied carbon is excluded from carbon accounting; only operational carbon is assessed. This represents a known limitation addressed in the conclusions.

1.5 Contributions to Knowledge

Theoretical Contribution: The research develops and tests Distributed Placemaking—a novel theoretical framework extending place attachment theory and placemaking to multi-node, intermittently occupied work environments. This framework integrates six core theories (place attachment, ecological systems, JD-R, space syntax, activity theory, IPAT) into a coherent model applicable to hybrid work design.

Methodological Contribution: The research applies space syntax analysis to low-occupancy, hybrid-use facilities—a novel application testing the validity of space syntax metrics in contexts different from those for which the method was originally developed.

Empirical Contribution: The research produces comparative data linking workplace typologies to worker experience (place attachment, collaboration equity, belonging), productivity outcomes (self-reported and behavioral proxies), and sustainability metrics (carbon emissions, energy burden by income) across two regulatory contexts. This dataset is novel; few studies have simultaneously measured experience, productivity, and environmental outcomes.

Professional Contribution: The research produces evidence-based design guidelines for hybrid workplace design—actionable principles applicable to architectural practice and corporate real estate strategy. These guidelines are grounded in theory and validated through expert consensus (Delphi method).

2.0 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Framework Architecture

This dissertation employs a focused, multi-theory framework balancing analytical depth with intellectual transparency.

Core Theories (6): These theories directly inform research hypotheses and drive research design. They are explicitly tested.

Supplementary Lenses (4): These theories provide interpretive perspectives enriching the analysis but do not drive primary hypotheses.

2.2 Core Theories

2.2.1 Place Attachment Theory

Key Sources: Altman & Low (1992); Lewicka (2011); Williams & Vaske (2003)

Place attachment describes the emotional bond between people and physical environments. This bond comprises three dimensions:
- Place identity: The environment becomes integrated into self-concept
- Place dependence: The environment is valued for supporting specific, desired activities
- Social bonding: Emotional connection to people and communities associated with the place

Altman & Low (1992) establish that disruption of place attachment—through relocation, redesign, or loss of access—can provoke disruption comparable to grief. Workplace research by Lewicka (2011) extends this theory, demonstrating that place attachment in work settings correlates with tenure, territorial markers (personalization), and routine.

Role in Dissertation: Place Attachment Theory is central to the entire framework. It explains why placemaking matters for distributed work. The dissertation tests two propositions: (1) whether place attachment can be cultivated across multiple nodes simultaneously; and (2) which design strategies foster attachment in non-territorial, activity-based working settings where personalization is restricted.

2.2.2 Ecological Systems Theory

Key Source: Bronfenbrenner (1979)

Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, originally developed for child development, proposes that human behavior cannot be understood in isolation but only within nested environmental systems:

• Microsystem: Immediate setting and direct interactions (e.g., home office, desk in HQ)
• Mesosystem: Interactions between microsystems (e.g., commute connecting home and office)
• Exosystem: Settings indirectly affecting the person (e.g., corporate real estate policy)
• Macrosystem: Cultural values and policies (e.g., national labor law, COVID-19 response)
• Chronosystem: Change over time (e.g., pre-pandemic → pandemic → post-pandemic workplace evolution)

Role in Dissertation: This theory provides the structural logic underlying the Distributed Placemaking framework. The dissertation applies it as a novel theoretical extension to workplace architecture: treating the home office as microsystem, the HQ as a mesosystem-level interaction hub, organizational policy as exosystem, and national/EU regulatory environments as macrosystem. This application represents a conceptual translation of Bronfenbrenner's developmental theory to spatial design—a translation that requires empirical validation and is proposed as a contribution to both environmental psychology and architecture.

2.2.3 Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model

Key Sources: Bakker & Demerouti (2007); Roskams & Haynes (2019)

The JD-R model proposes that work environments comprise two categories:
- Job Demands: Physical, psychological, or organizational aspects requiring sustained effort (e.g., noise, interruptions, coordination overhead, commuting)
- Job Resources: Aspects that facilitate goal achievement, reduce demands, or stimulate growth (e.g., privacy, daylight, ergonomic furniture, social support, proximity to colleagues)

When demands exceed resources, worker strain increases (burnout, dissatisfaction, intention to leave). When resources exceed demands, engagement increases, and workers experience flourishing.

Role in Dissertation: The JD-R model provides the operational framework for testing the impact of distributed work. The dissertation operationalizes the "Coordination Tax" (cognitive/temporal overhead of distributed coordination, per Aksoy et al., 2022) as a primary job demand imposed by distributed work arrangements. The research then tests which spatial resources at each node (HQ, home, community nodes) can offset this demand. The output is a node-specific demands-resources inventory: What demands does each node impose? What resources does it provide?

2.2.4 Space Syntax Theory

Key Sources: Hillier & Hanson (1984); Sailer et al. (2023)

Space syntax is a quantitative analytical method for examining how spatial configuration affects movement, co-presence, and interaction patterns. Key spatial metrics include:
- Integration: Accessibility relative to all other spaces in the system
- Connectivity: Number of direct visual/physical connections from a space
- Visibility: The field of view from a spatial location

Space syntax research demonstrates correlations between spatial integration and unplanned social encounters, knowledge transfer, and organizational communication (Sailer et al., 2023). The method has been widely applied to office design but primarily in fully occupied, traditional workplace contexts.

Role in Dissertation: Space syntax provides the analytical method for empirically testing the HQ's ability to generate unplanned interactions and collaboration. The research employs Visibility Graph Analysis (VGA)—a specific space syntax technique—to correlate architectural layout geometry with observed interaction frequency. This application represents a novel methodological extension: testing space syntax validity in low-occupancy, hybrid-use scenarios (where occupancy density is variable and scheduled, not continuous). This extension is methodologically important; if space syntax metrics remain predictive in hybrid contexts, the method becomes more broadly applicable to contemporary workplace design.

2.2.5 Activity Theory

Key Sources: Vygotsky (1978); Engeström (1987)

Activity theory holds that the fundamental unit of analysis for understanding human behavior is not isolated action but purposeful activity—a goal-directed interaction between a subject, tools, and the environment. Activities are hierarchical: an activity comprises actions, which comprise operations. Critically, the same physical space can support some activities while hindering others, depending on the alignment between spatial configuration and activity requirements.

Role in Dissertation: Activity theory provides the theoretical foundation for understanding Activity-Based Working (ABW). The dissertation tests whether ABW environments—which provide diverse purpose-built settings (focus pods, collaboration rooms, phone booths, lounge spaces) that workers select based on task—achieve better alignment between activity type and spatial setting. The hypothesis is that activity-space alignment (a good "fit") improves Employee-Workplace Alignment and produces better outcomes (higher engagement, lower coordination tax).

2.2.6 IPAT Sustainability Framework

Key Sources: Ehrlich & Holdren (1971); Waggoner & Ausubel (2002)

The IPAT equation is a foundational ecological framework expressing environmental impact (I) as the product of three dimensions: Population (P), Affluence (A), and Technology (T).

Traditionally, architectural sustainability focuses almost exclusively on the "$T$" variable—optimizing building technology (e.g., HVAC efficiency, embodied carbon of materials). However, IPAT demonstrates that technological gains can be easily offset by increases in the number of consumers (P) or their consumption behaviors and spatial footprints (A).

Role in Dissertation: This dissertation explicitly centers the IPAT framework to critique the assumption that distributed work is inherently sustainable. By dispersing the workforce, hybrid work radically shifts the spatial dynamics of Affluence (A) and Technology (T). The research uses IPAT to structure a multi-scalar carbon accounting methodology:

1. Affluence (A) as Spatial Consumption: Hybrid work often triggers a "rebound effect," leading workers to heat or cool larger, less efficient homes or take discretionary trips that offset commute savings.
2. Technology (T) as Spatial Friction: Commercial office buildings utilize centralized, high-efficiency mechanical systems. Shifting work to residential buildings replaces shared high-efficiency networks with thousands of separate, mixed-efficiency discrete systems.
3. The Equity Dimension: By accounting for household income, the research quantifies the resulting "energy burden"—the proportion of income spent on the shifted heating/cooling costs. The IPAT model illuminates how the environmental benefits of hybrid work predominantly accrue to affluent workers in modern homes, while lower-income populations bear disproportionate utility costs and minimal carbon reduction.

2.3 Supplementary Theoretical Lenses

Four additional theories provide interpretive depth without driving primary hypotheses:

3.0 Literature Review and Gaps

3.0.1 Literature Mind Map

The following mind map visualizes the fundamental theories, architectural eras, and behavioral models surveyed in this literature review. It illustrates the structural relationship between historical workplace paradigms and contemporary phenomenological frameworks defining Distributed Placemaking.

mindmap
  root((Placemaking at Work))
    Workplace Evolution
      Taylorism & Scientific Management
      Activity-Based Working
      Distributed & Hybrid Reality
    Spatial Experience
      Placemaking Theory
      Place Attachment
      Space Syntax
    Productivity & Equity
      JD-R Model
      Collaboration Disparity
    Sustainability
      IPAT Sustainability Framework
      Energy Burden

3.1 Historical Evolution of Workplace Design Paradigms

Era 1: Taylorist Efficiency (1910s-1960s)

Frederick Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management (1913) fundamentally transformed workplace design. Taylor argued that work could be optimized through systematic observation, measurement, and standardization. Architectural historians Worthington (2012, Reinventing the Workplace) and Waring (2016, Taylorism Transformed) document how Taylorism produced the "bullpen" typology: vast, open floorplans with rows of desks designed for visual surveillance and standardized work processes. The office became a machine for efficiency optimization. This paradigm dominated workplace design for five decades.

Era 2: Humanistic Counter-Movement (1950s-1980s)

Bürolandschaft ("office landscape"), developed by German designers responding to Taylorism's dehumanization, proposed organic spatial arrangements fostering teamwork and autonomy (Hassanain, 2006). Concurrently, Herman Miller introduced the Action Office system (1968)—modular, reconfigurable workstations designed to provide flexibility and partial privacy. Yet as Haapakangas et al. (2022) document in research on Activity-Based Offices, this flexibility was commercialized into the "cubicle farm"—a compromise preserving Taylorist control while appearing modernized. Waring (2016) frames this evolution as an oscillation: reductionist efficiency (Taylorism) → holistic humanization (Bürolandschaft) → reductionist efficiency resurrected (cubicle standardization).

Era 3: Activity-Based Working (2000s-2010s)

Activity-Based Working (ABW) re-emerged in the 2000s as both management philosophy and design strategy. ABW provides diverse purpose-built settings (focus pods, collaboration rooms, phone booths, lounge areas) that workers select based on task requirements rather than assigned seating. Empirical support for ABW comes from Japanese and Finnish research: Tokumura et al. (2022) and Shinoyama et al. (2019) demonstrate that ABW can increase perceived productivity and job satisfaction compared to traditional office layouts. However, Haapakangas et al. (2022) caution that ABW can undermine territorial behavior and social cohesion if not carefully designed. Recent research by Tulenheimo-Eklund et al. (2025) reveals that Person-Environment fit mediates ABW outcomes: the same layout benefits some workers while distressing others.

Era 4: Digital Discontinuity (2010s-Present)

Dragan (2021) characterizes the current period as experiencing "great discontinuity." The digitization of knowledge work has decoupled value creation from physical location. Attempting to force Industry 4.0 workflows into Industry 2.0 buildings—open plan designs built for co-location—creates friction and underutilization. The container has become a bottleneck.

The Pandemic Disruption as a Catalyst

The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a universal accelerator for this discontinuity. Research by Ennes and Gain (2024) on the rapid digitalization of immersive museum environments provides a compelling analogy for the corporate workplace. When institutions uniquely designed for whole-bodied, sensory engagement were forced into "one-way transmission" models via teleconferencing, they faced a steep deficit in training and medium-specific pedagogy. While the pandemic proved that remote connection was functionally viable (and often permanently adopted for hybrid uses), it also illuminated the distinct experiential gap between simply accessing information remotely versus inhabiting a physical space purposefully curated to foster connection, interaction, and meaning.

Era 5: Distributed Ecosystem (2020s)

The pandemic accelerated this structural shift. Work dispersed across multiple nodes. This research proposes that workplace design must evolve to address three distinct spatial typologies: the HQ as a high-intensity destination for collaboration and culture; the home as an ergonomically supported work environment; and community nodes (coworking, satellite hubs) as third places mediating the divide. This era represents not merely a change in design strategy but a fundamental reconceptualization of the architect's role: from designer of buildings to curator of spatial ecosystems.

3.2 Placemaking Theory and Its Application to Workplace

Placemaking originates in urban design and community development. Schneekloth and Shibley (1995, Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities) define placemaking as "creating, sustaining, and adapting places that support the daily lives of the community" (p. 1). The approach integrates physical design with social processes: space + ritual + community practice = place.

Human geographer Tim Cresswell (2004, Place: A Short Introduction) distinguishes between space (abstract geometric container) and place (space imbued with human meaning). Cresswell identifies three dimensions of place: location (position in a spatial system), locale (material and social attributes of a setting), and sense of place (the emotional, experiential dimension). This framework is valuable for understanding distributed work: workers occupy multiple locations; each has distinct locales (home is intimate and controlled; HQ is public and collective); sense of place must be cultivated at each node.

Yi-Fu Tuan (1977, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience) provides phenomenological grounding: place emerges through human experience and time. His famous assertion—"What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it and endow it with value"—captures why rushed, occasional visits to the HQ may not generate workplace meaning, while consistent home routines may.

Gap in Literature: Placemaking theory has not been systematically extended to distributed, multi-node work environments. Existing placemaking literature assumes a coherent spatial unit (public plaza, neighborhood, single building). Distributed work shatters this assumption. How does placemaking function across spatially fragmented, temporally intermittent environments? This dissertation addresses this gap.

3.3 Empirical Evidence on Productivity and Wellbeing in Distributed Work

The Productivity Paradox

Aksoy et al. (2022), in an NBER working paper analyzing over 10,000 IT professionals at an Asian IT services firm, found that while total hours worked increased during work-from-home periods, output per hour declined 8%-19%. The authors attribute part of this decline to "coordination costs"—the cognitive and temporal overhead required to schedule, digitize, and formalize interactions that previously occurred spontaneously in co-located settings. This finding is sector-specific (IT services, large firm, Asian context) and may not generalize to all occupations or organizations.

Yang et al. (2022), examining Microsoft employees during pandemic lockdowns, found that remote work caused collaboration networks to become more static and siloed. Employees communicated more through asynchronous tools and worked longer hours. Again, this is organization-specific evidence requiring cautious interpretation.

Gallup (2024) reports that fully remote workers exhibit higher engagement than hybrid or on-site workers, yet they report lower life satisfaction and higher stress, anger, and loneliness. This captures a critical paradox: high engagement does not automatically translate to holistic wellbeing.

The Wellbeing Question: Is the office primarily an environment for focus work (suggesting remote work is optimal) or for collaboration and belonging (suggesting office remains essential)? The evidence is mixed and occupation-dependent. The dissertation treats this as an empirical question, not a settled matter.

3.4 Sustainability: The Rebound Effect and Energy Justice

Carbon Savings Are Not Guaranteed

While remote work is often characterized as environmentally beneficial, rigorous analysis reveals complexity. O'Brien and Aliabadi (2020) found that full remote work can reduce carbon footprints by up to 54%, while hybrid work (2-4 days remote) reduces footprints by 11%-29%. However, benefits depend significantly on energy use patterns and commuting distance. The California Air Resources Board (2024) reports that telecommuting reduces vehicle miles traveled for commuting but increases non-commute travel, a phenomenon called the "rebound effect." Dispersed home energy use may also be thermodynamically less efficient than centrally managed commercial buildings.

Energy Burden and Equity

Drehobl & Ross (2016, Lifting the High Energy Burden in America's Largest Cities) document that lower-income households spend a disproportionate percentage of income on energy. Work-at-home arrangements increase home energy demand, imposing an additional financial burden on lower-income workers who live in older, less efficient housing. Hook et al. (2020) emphasize that distributed work's environmental benefits are not evenly distributed; they accrue primarily to affluent workers in efficient homes, while lower-income workers bear disproportionate energy costs.

Gap in Literature: Few studies integrate environmental outcomes with equity analysis. The dissertation addresses this by measuring both carbon impact and energy burden by income band, making energy justice visible in the carbon accounting.

4.0 Research Questions and Hypotheses

4.1 Primary Research Question

How can architects employ design principles grounded in place theory, systems thinking, and equity frameworks to create productive, meaningful, and sustainable work environments across the distributed workplace ecosystem?

4.2 Specific Research Questions by Study Phase

Phase 1 (Literature Review):
- RQ1: How has the theoretical conception of "workplace" evolved from Taylorist efficiency (1910s) through Activity-Based Working (2000s) to contemporary distributed models (2020s)?

Phase 2 (Survey):
- RQ2a: Which spatial characteristics of HQ environments foster place attachment and belonging in hybrid-use contexts?
- RQ2b: Do workers in Activity-Based Working environments report higher place attachment than workers in traditional assigned-seat offices?
- RQ2c: How does the coordination tax vary across workplace typologies and regulatory contexts?

Phase 3 (Case Studies):
- RQ3a: Which spatial interventions (furniture geometry, camera placement, acoustic design) reduce collaboration disparity between remote and in-room meeting participants?

Phase 4 (Carbon & Equity):
- RQ4a: What is the net carbon impact of hybrid work when accounting for office, home, and commute emissions?
- RQ4b: How does energy burden vary by household income and housing characteristics?
- RQ4c: Are the environmental benefits of hybrid work equitably distributed, or do they accrue primarily to affluent workers?

Phase 5 (Synthesis):
- RQ5: Which evidence-based design guidelines achieve practitioner consensus for feasibility and impact?

4.3 Hypotheses

Each hypothesis is derived from a core theory and grounded in existing evidence:

5.0 Research Design and Methodology

5.1 Overview: Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design

The dissertation employs a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design across four integrated phases. Quantitative data collection informs qualitative exploration; qualitative findings enrich interpretation of quantitative results.

5.2 Phase 1: Systematic Mapping Review

Objective: Synthesize 60-80 peer-reviewed sources documenting the evolution of workplace design paradigms from Taylorism (1910s) to distributed placemaking (2020s).

Methodology: Following Petersen et al. (2015) systematic mapping guidelines.

Timeline: January 15 - April 15, 2026

5.3 Phase 2: Survey Design, IRB (Institutional Review Board), Piloting

5.3.1 Survey Population and Sample Size

Target Population: Workers whose jobs are remote-capable in Florida (USA) and France (EU). Inclusion criteria: (1) currently employed in information/knowledge work; (2) have worked remotely ≥1 day/week in past 12 months; (3) currently split time between ≥2 work locations (home, HQ, or coworking); (4) employed for ≥6 months.

Sample Size: N = 350 total (175 Florida, 175 France)

Power Analysis: For detecting a medium effect size (d=0.3) with α=.05 and 1-β=.80 between group comparisons, power analysis indicates n=64 per group minimum. With four primary occupational groups and two geographic contexts, n=350 provides robust power for hypothesis testing and allows stratified analysis by income band, housing type, and workplace typology.

5.3.2 Recruitment Strategy

1. Organizational Partnerships (Target: 40% of sample, n=140)
   - Florida: Partner with 3-4 organizations (Target: technology, finance, professional services, higher education)
   - France: Partner with 3-4 organizations (equivalent sectors)
   - Each partner provides access to employee email lists; survey administered during work time
   - Target completion: Fall 2026

2. Professional Networks (Target: 30% of sample, n=105)
   - IFMA (International Facility Management Association) Florida chapter
   - AIA Florida and Ordre des architectes France
   - UF alumni networks (College of Design, Construction & Planning)
   - LinkedIn targeted outreach to remote-capable professionals

3. Online Recruitment Panels (Target: 30% of sample, n=105)
   - Prolific Academic, screened for remote-capable workers in Florida/France
   - Screened to match organizational sample demographics

Incentives: $15 Amazon/equivalent gift card upon completion; entry into drawing for $500 prize

Language: Survey administered in English (Florida) and French (France); instruments translated using back-translation methodology with bilingual experts

Timeline:
- IRB submission: April 15, 2026
- IRB approval: May 15, 2026 (target 30-day turnaround)
- Pilot testing: May 15 - June 15, 2026 (n=40-50)
- Full survey: June 15 - October 15, 2026

5.3.3 Survey Instruments

A. Place Attachment Scale (Williams & Vaske, 2003)
- 6-item scale measuring place identity, place dependence, and social bonding
- Administered separately for each work location (HQ, home, coworking)
- Likert 5-point scale

B. Workplace Demands-Resources (Custom)
- 12-item scale assessing job demands (coordination overhead, commute burden, technology friction, isolation) and job resources (privacy, focus time, collaboration opportunity, social connection)
- Administered separately for each node
- Likert 5-point scale

C. Collaboration Equity Scale (Custom)
- 8-item scale assessing perceived equal voice in hybrid meetings, technology accessibility, and inclusion across remote/in-room participants
- Likert 5-point scale

D. Coordination Tax Scale (Custom)
- 6-item scale measuring time spent in meetings about meetings, scheduling overhead, asynchronous communication delays
- Minutes per week estimates

E. Home Office Characteristics Form
- Housing type (apartment, townhouse, single-family), era (pre-1980, 1980-2000, post-2000), HVAC type
- Estimated monthly utility bill increase due to work-from-home
- Equipment provided by employer vs. self-purchased
- Household income band (categorical: <$50K, $50K-$75K, $75K-$100K, $100K-$150K, >$150K)
- Number of occupants, children in household

F. Demographics & Occupational Data
- Age, gender, education level
- Occupational category (technology, finance, professional services, higher education, other)
- Tenure in current role (months)
- Current hybrid policy (days/week at HQ)

5.3.4 Pilot Study (May 15 - June 15, 2026)

Objective: Test survey clarity, feasibility, and response patterns before full-scale administration.

Pilot Sample: n=40-50 (recruited through professional networks and UF connections)

Pilot Protocol:
1. Administer full survey; record completion time
2. Cognitively test problematic items with 10-15 participants (think-aloud protocol)
3. Assess energy-related question clarity and response variability
4. Examine response distributions; identify ceiling/floor effects
5. Refine instruments based on feedback

Timeline: Complete pilot analysis by June 15, 2026; finalize survey by June 20, 2026

5.4 Phase 3: Case Study Field Work

5.4.1 Florida Sites (USA/Lenient Regulation)

High-Intensity Anchor (HQ):

• Ramos Collaboratory (Gainesville, FL): 50,000 sq. ft. interdisciplinary facility completed 2021, designed for post-pandemic collaboration. Purpose-built hybrid-use. Contact: Dr. Patricia Sexton, School of Architecture. Opportunity for longitudinal POE comparison with legacy Antevy Hall.
• Corporate Partner HQ (Orlando/Tampa): 1-2 additional organizational partners identified through IFMA Florida network (TBD by August 2026)

Ergonomic Periphery (Home):
- Survey respondents with documented home offices (n≥50 photo-documented workspaces)
- Subset (n=10-15) recruited for 30-minute virtual interviews; ask permission to photograph workspace (with privacy protections)

5.4.2 France Sites (EU/Strict Regulation)

High-Intensity Anchor (HQ):
- Corporate or academic facility (Paris/Lyon region): 1-2 partner organizations identified through Ordre des architectes France and academic contacts (TBD by August 2026)
- Comparative advantage: French partners operate under labor law requiring employer ergonomic assessment and equipment provision; this is institutionalized placemaking infrastructure

Ergonomic Periphery (Home):
- Survey respondents with documented home offices (n≥50 photo-documented workspaces)
- Subset (n=10-15) recruited for virtual interviews with French-speaking research assistant

5.4.3 Field Study Protocol: Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a systematic assessment of building performance after occupancy. This research employs POE to assess how HQ spatial configuration supports collaboration, place attachment, and experience of "workplace."

Methodology: Modified Building Use Studies (BUS) questionnaire—a validated occupant satisfaction instrument—adapted for hybrid contexts

Timeline: September 2026 - March 2027

5.4.4 Space Syntax Analysis

Objective: Quantify spatial configuration metrics and correlate with observed interaction patterns.

Methodology: Visibility Graph Analysis (VGA)

Software: Depthmap (University College London space syntax software); QGIS for spatial visualization

Hypothesis Test: H2 (spatial integration predicts unplanned interaction frequency)

Analysis: Correlate space syntax metrics with observed meeting frequency and interaction patterns using Spearman rho.

5.5 Phase 4: Carbon Accounting and Energy Burden Modeling

5.5.1 Carbon Calculation Framework

Scope: Operational carbon only (Scope 1, 2, 3 per the Greenhouse Gas [GHG] Protocol, the international standard for carbon accounting)

Scenarios Modeled:

Emission Sources & Data:

5.5.2 Energy Burden Calculation

Energy Burden Formula:
$$\text{Energy Burden (\%)} = \frac{\text{Monthly work-at-home energy cost}}{\text{Monthly household income}} \times 100$$

Data Sources:
- Self-reported monthly utility bill increase (from survey)
- Regional electricity rates (EIA, 2025)
- Household income band (categorical from survey)

Analysis: Cross-tabulate energy burden by income band, housing era, climate zone; identify disparities

5.5.3 Sensitivity Analysis

To account for uncertainty in self-reported home energy data:
- Base case: Self-reported utility increases
- Conservative case: +20% home energy assumptions (accounts for underestimation)
- Optimistic case: -20% home energy assumptions (accounts for overestimation)

Run carbon models under all three scenarios; report range of outcomes.

Contingency: If self-reported energy data prove too variable (standard deviation >50% of mean), shift analysis to:
- Use EIA residential consumption benchmarks by housing type/climate
- Focus on comparative analysis (relative energy burden across income bands) rather than absolute emissions

5.6 Phase 5: Delphi Expert Validation

5.6.1 Delphi Panel Composition (n=12)

• Architects (4): Practitioners with 15+ years experience in office/workplace design
• Facilities Managers (3): Corporate real estate/workplace strategy professionals
• HR/Organizational Development (3): HR leaders with hybrid workplace policy experience
• Sustainability Consultants (2): Energy/carbon experts

Geographic Distribution: Mix of Florida and France panelists (6 each)

5.6.2 Delphi Protocol

Round 1 (April 2027):
- Present 10-15 candidate design guidelines synthesized from Phases 1-4
- Each guideline: empirical basis, implementation feasibility (1-5 scale), potential impact (1-5 scale)
- Panelists rate and comment; identify gaps

Round 2 (May 2027):
- Synthesize Round 1 feedback
- Present revised guidelines with consensus summary
- Panelists re-rate; consensus threshold: ≥70% agreement on Feasibility ≥3 AND Impact ≥3

Round 3 (June 2027):
- Final round if needed to resolve disagreements
- Generate final validated guideline set

Output: 8-12 evidence-based, practitioner-validated design guidelines

5.7 Data Management and Ethics

IRB Oversight:
- All human subjects research (survey, interviews, observations) requires IRB approval
- IRB submission: April 15, 2026
- Target approval: May 15, 2026
- Ongoing IRB review for any protocol modifications

Data Security:
- Survey administered via encrypted platform (Qualtrics on UF secure server)
- All identifiable data separated from survey responses
- Interview recordings transcribed; transcripts anonymized and stored on encrypted UF server
- Data retention per UF policy (3 years post-publication minimum)

Informed Consent:
- All survey respondents receive informed consent before beginning
- Organizational partners sign data-sharing agreements outlining confidentiality protections
- Interview participants provide written consent

Confidentiality:
- Survey data reported in aggregate form only; no individual responses identified
- Case study facilities anonymized in reporting (referred to as "HQ-A," "HQ-B," etc.)
- Quotes from interviews anonymized

6.0 Expected Contributions and Significance

6.1 Theoretical Contributions

1. Distributed Placemaking Framework: Development of a novel theoretical framework extending place theory and placemaking to multi-node, intermittently occupied work environments. This framework integrates six theories (place attachment, ecological systems, JD-R, space syntax, activity theory, IPAT) addressing a gap in the literature.

2. Extension of Space Syntax: First systematic application of space syntax analysis to low-occupancy, hybrid-use facilities, testing the validity and limits of space syntax metrics in contemporary workplace contexts.

3. Energy Justice in Distributed Work: Explicit measurement of energy burden by income, revealing equity implications of distributed workplace design—an intersection underexplored in architecture and real estate literature.

6.2 Empirical Contributions

1. Comparative Regulatory Analysis: Dataset linking workplace typologies to experience, productivity, and sustainability outcomes across two distinct regulatory environments (USA/lenient, EU/strict). This comparison illuminates how policy shapes spatial design choices.

2. Place Attachment in Distributed Contexts: Empirical evidence on whether place attachment can be cultivated across multiple work nodes simultaneously and identification of design strategies that foster attachment in non-territorial settings.

3. Carbon Impact Quantification: Scenario-based carbon accounting revealing net environmental impact of hybrid work—accounting for commuting reduction, home energy increase, and rebound effects. Quantified energy burden distribution across income bands.

6.3 Practical Contributions

1. Evidence-Based Design Guidelines: 8-12 validated, practitioner-approved architectural guidelines for hybrid workplace design grounded in theory and empirical evidence.

2. Design Decision Framework: A decision-support tool mapping theoretical concepts to spatial interventions, enabling architects and real estate professionals to make informed design choices.

3. Case Studies and Lessons Learned: Detailed analysis of 2-3 HQ facilities, documenting successes and challenges in hybrid workplace design; applicable to satellite campus planning and office renovation projects.

7.0 Timeline and Milestones

8.0 Limitations and Scope

Geographic Generalizability: Comparative analysis limited to Florida (USA) and France (EU). Climate-specific factors (Florida's hot-humid climate per ASHRAE [American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers] Zone 2A vs. France's mixed-humid Zone 4A) affect carbon accounting. Results do not extend to other U.S. states, EU countries, or non-Western contexts.

Sectoral Specificity: Case studies in technology, finance, professional services, higher education. Caution advised in generalizing to manufacturing, healthcare, retail.

Self-Report Measures: Survey data on productivity, wellbeing, and home energy use rely on self-report, subject to social desirability bias and recall error. Sensitivity analyses attempt to mitigate.

Node Focus: Primary data collection limited to HQ and Home. Third place/coworking addressed through literature review only.

Carbon Scope: Operational carbon only; embodied carbon (building materials, construction) excluded. This underestimates total lifecycle environmental impact but focuses analysis on ongoing operational decisions.

Cross-Cultural Comparability: Survey instruments validated in English; French adaptation requires translation and cultural validation. Meaning of "place attachment" or "workplace belonging" may vary culturally.

9.0 Annotated Bibliography

This bibliography is divided into two sections. The first highlights the five most pivotal references that form the foundational theoretical pillars of this dissertation. The second section provides a comprehensive alphabetical listing of all literature surveyed.

9.1 Pivotal References

1. Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practice of building communities. John Wiley & Sons.
URL: https://www.wiley.com/
Annotation: A foundational text framing placemaking not just as physical design, but as a community-driven practice. Applied to this dissertation, it shifts the architect's mandate from designing containers to curating the relational and social rituals inside distributed spatial networks.

2. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
URL: https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/space-and-place
Annotation: A seminal text in human geography defining place as space endowed with human experience, meaning, and time. Tuan's framework is used heavily in this proposal to explain the phenomenological distinction between an empty "workspace" (like a home desk) and an actual "workplace" generated through ritual and social presence.

3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
DOI: 10.1108/02683940710733115
Annotation: Defines the primary framework used to evaluate individual worker wellbeing. By viewing different physical settings as providing unique resources (privacy at home, peer support at the office) versus distinct demands (commute, digital coordination tax), the JD-R model makes empirical evaluation of multi-node working possible.

4. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511597237
Annotation: The seminal text formulating Space Syntax. Hillier and Hanson established mathematical tools for evaluating how building configurations regulate pedestrian flow and visual continuity, offering a way to predict unplanned "water cooler" collisions inside the corporate office.

5. Hook, A., Sovacool, B. K., & Sorrell, S. (2020). A systematic review of the energy and climate impacts of teleworking. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 093003.
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8a84
Annotation: A thorough meta-review that demonstrates how the energy savings of avoided commutes are frequently erased by non-commute trips and increased residential heating/cooling. This establishes the critical "rebound effect" analyzed in this investigation.

9.2 Comprehensive Bibliography

• Agnew, J. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Allen & Unwin.
• Aksoy, C. G., Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., Dolls, M., & Zarate, P. (2022). Working from home around the world (NBER Working Paper No. 30446). National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: 10.3386/w30446
• Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Brooks/Cole.
• Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment (Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research, Vol. 12). Plenum Press. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4
• Appel-Meulenbroek, R., & Danivska, V. (Eds.). (2021). A handbook of theories on designing alignment between people and the office environment. Routledge. DOI: 10.1201/9781003128830
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. DOI: 10.1108/02683940710733115
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. URL: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/
• California Air Resources Board. (2024). Telecommuting impacts on vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Research brief. URL: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
• Coworking Insights. (2024). Global coworking growth study 2024. URL: https://www.coworkinginsights.com/
• Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Blackwell. URL: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Place%3A+A+Short+Introduction%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781118556756
• Cresswell, T. (2009). Place. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (Vol. 8, pp. 169–177). Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00310-2
• Dragan, M. (2021). Digital transformation in the lockdown era: Some lessons from Poland. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.1186/s13731-021-00164-3
• Drehobl, A., & Ross, L. (2016). Lifting the high energy burden in America's largest cities: How energy efficiency can improve low-income and moderate-income households. ACEEE. URL: https://www.aceee.org/research-report/u1602
• Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212–1217. DOI: 10.1126/science.171.3977.1212
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.
• Ennes, M., & Gain, I. C. M. (2024). Revisiting distance learning in museums three years after COVID-19 closures. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. DOI: 10.1108/qrde-12-2024-0003
• Gallup. (2024). State of the American workplace: 2024 edition. URL: https://www.gallup.com/
• Haapakangas, A., Hallman, D. M., Mathiassen, S. E., & Jahncke, H. (2022). Understanding activity-based work. In Handbook of theories on designing alignment between people and the office environment (pp. 265–290). Routledge. DOI: 10.1201/9781003128830-19
• Hassanain, M. A. (2006). Factors affecting the development of flexible workplace facilities. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 8(2), 142–161. DOI: 10.1108/14630010610711757
• Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511597237
• Hook, A., Sovacool, B. K., & Sorrell, S. (2020). A systematic review of the energy and climate impacts of teleworking. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 093003. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8a84
• Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
• Moody's Analytics. (2024). U.S. office vacancy rates Q2 2024. URL: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. URL: https://global.oup.com/
• O'Brien, W., & Aliabadi, F. A. (2020). Does telecommuting save energy? A critical review of quantitative studies and their research methods. Energy and Buildings, 225, 110298. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110298
• Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2015). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. 14th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (pp. 68–77). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2745802.2745814
• Pew Research Center. (2023). The state of telework in 2023. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/
• Roskams, M., & Haynes, B. P. (2019). Workplace alignment: Creating the right balance. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 21(2), 68–86. DOI: 10.1108/JCRE-10-2017-0037
• Sailer, K., Pacheco-Ribeiro, D., & Christophers, B. (2023). Workplace configuration and organizational performance: Emerging frameworks and novel analytic approaches. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 50(7), 1861–1878. DOI: 10.1177/23998083231174620
• Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practice of building communities. John Wiley & Sons. URL: https://www.wiley.com/
• Shinoyama, K., Tokumura, A., & Yohsuke, H. (2019). The effectiveness of activity-based working on office productivity. International Journal of Facility Management, 10(2), 1–15.
• Taylor, F. W. (1913). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers. URL: https://archive.org/details/principlesofscie00tayl
• Tokumura, A., Shimoyama, K., & Hayashi, Y. (2022). Evaluating the impact of activity-based working on employee well-being: A multi-facility study. Facilities, 40(1), 23–42. DOI: 10.1108/F-03-2021-0027
• Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. URL: https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/space-and-place
• Tulenheimo-Eklund, K., Viinikainen, J., & Haapakangas, A. (2025). Person-environment fit as a mediator of activity-based office outcomes: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, 102236. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102236
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9vz4
• Waring, S. P. (2016). Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. University of North Carolina Press. DOI: 10.5149/uncp/9780807843324
• Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Valid and reliable instruments for natural environments. Society and Natural Resources, 16(8), 645–667. DOI: 10.1080/08941920309189
• Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. URL: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/
• Worthington, J. (2012). Reinventing the workplace (2nd ed.). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780080516141

---

Conference Presentations & Posters

Selected peer-reviewed posters and visual research summaries presented at international conferences.

Poster Presentation

Placemaking at Work: A Theoretical Framework

Presented at the DCP Research Symposium, University of Florida (2024).

View Research Agenda →

Poster Presentation

Measuring Collaboration Equity

Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) Conference, Portland (2024).

View Publications →