Australia’s architecture, engineering and construction industries are being challenged to rethink their approach to building design following the publication of new research examining the relationship between the environment and mental health.
Monash University researcher Dr Paul Kremer argues that the industry needs to look beyond aesthetics, structural performance, sustainability and regulatory compliance to consider how environments affect the people who occupy them.
“A building can meet every technical requirement, win design awards and photograph beautifully. But what happens if the people living or working inside experience chronic stress, discomfort, isolation or a loss of control over their surroundings?” he says.
“We have become very sophisticated at measuring the environmental performance of buildings. We now need to become far more sophisticated at understanding their psychological performance.”
Published in the international journal Cities & Health , the paper introduces the Environmental Determinants of Mental Health (EDMH) Multilevel Pathways Framework. The framework describes how natural, built, social and digital environments may influence psychological wellbeing through environmental exposures, individual experiences and biopsychosocial mechanisms. It considers influences including noise, thermal conditions, environmental quality, access to nature, privacy, safety, social connection and broader environmental inequalities.
According to Dr Kremer, the implications extend across the built environment sector, from architects and interior designers to engineers, developers, builders, urban planners and property owners.
“Architecture and interior design are not simply about creating visually appealing spaces. They influence the conditions in which people live, work, learn, recover and interact with one another,” he says.
“An attractive interior is not necessarily a psychologically supportive interior. We need to challenge the assumption that good aesthetics automatically translate into good human outcomes.”
Dr Kremer is calling for greater attention to psychological wellbeing in design briefs, material selection, building services, spatial layouts, workplace design, housing development and post-occupancy evaluation. The challenge is whether the industry can demonstrate that its design decisions genuinely support the wellbeing of occupants.
“We routinely ask whether a building is safe, structurally sound, energy-efficient and environmentally responsible,” says Dr Kremer. “We should also be asking what it does to the mental health and wellbeing of the people who use it.”
The EDMH framework is not presented as a completed building assessment tool or as experimental proof of particular design outcomes. Instead, it provides a theoretical structure for developing research, examining environmental pathways and informing future practice.
The research also considers how housing conditions, neighbourhood design, climate exposure, green space, social environments and inequality interact to shape psychological experiences. These influences require coordinated action across construction, development, urban planning, public health and government.
“The industry has made major advances in how it considers carbon, energy, materials and environmental sustainability. Psychological wellbeing deserves comparable attention,” says Dr Kremer. “A genuinely sustainable building should not only be better for the planet. It should also support the people who inhabit it.”
