Quality of Hotel Biophilic Design and Its Impact on Guest Well-Being, Perceived Value, and Patronage Intentions: The Moderating Role of Guest Delight

Abstract

Biophilic designs and elements have been the focus of numerous studies due to their potential impact on key marketing outcomes including satisfaction, word-of-mouth, and revisit intentions. However, previous studies have mainly relied on simplified image-based experiments that focused only on the presence or absence of biophilic elements, overlooking the quality of these designs as hotel guests actually experience them. This study aimed to investigate the quality of actual biophilic elements in hotel service settings and their impact on guest well-being, perceived value, and patronage intentions while also exploring the moderating effects of guest delight. The study employed a self-administered questionnaire survey to collect data from a total of 428 guests who had already stayed at hotels with biophilic designs/elements in Egypt. Using SmartPLS 3.0, a PLS-SEM analysis was performed to test the study hypotheses and conceptual model. The findings revealed that the high quality of biophilic designs/elements in hotels significantly affected guest well-being and perceived value, which eventually supported revisit intentions and willingness to pay a premium. The results also affirmed the moderating effects of guest delight on the proposed model. This study addresses a notable knowledge gap and provides valuable managerial implications regarding hotel biophilic designs.

1. Introduction

Biophilic design is derived from the term biophilia, which refers to humankind’s innate feelings to connect with external nature and other forms of life. Biophilia reflects the belief that humans derive cognitive, emotional, and physiological benefits from reconnecting with natural environments (Nanu et al., 2020; Ryan et al., 2014; Song et al., 2022; Suess et al., 2024). The concept of biophilia has become very interesting in contemporary society, where individuals are frequently exposed to stressful working conditions, increased anxiety, fast-paced lifestyles, and increased levels of hostility and aggressive behaviour (Suess et al., 2024). Moreover, anxiety and stress are commonly experienced during travel, even for tourism purposes, which negatively affects the psychological well-being of tourists (Zhu et al., 2020). Researchers from various disciplines, particularly architecture and design, have adapted the idea of biophilia and found evidence that intentionally designed spaces incorporating natural elements in the built environment can improve human well-being by satisfying innate psychological tendencies towards nature (Suess et al., 2024).

Biophilic designs (i.e., embedding natural elements like greenery and natural light in physical environments or service encounters) have been recognised as a potential means of alleviating these adverse effects and supporting individuals’ psychological restoration and well-being (Song et al., 2022; Suess et al., 2024; Totaforti, 2018). In addition, such designs provide benefits for business organisations, such as hotels, by achieving customer satisfaction and positive post-consumption evaluations and behavioural intentions (S. H. Lee, 2019). Suess et al. (2024) explained that incorporating biophilic elements could generate positive financial outcomes for hotels, as evidence suggests that hotel spaces featuring biophilic design attract approximately 35% more guests compared to with non-biophilic spaces.

Nonetheless, implementing biophilic design or incorporating biophilic elements into hotel settings requires overcoming several practical challenges. The process of transforming traditional architectural layouts into biophilic environments typically requires substantial financial investment, as it involves structural modifications and the use of specialised materials (Ding et al., 2024; Sholanke et al., 2024). Moreover, the long-term operation of biophilic features involves significant maintenance issues, such as irrigation systems for greenery, high energy consumption for air-conditioning areas with sunroofs or wide-ranging glass walls in hot climates, and continuous maintenance to preserve the aesthetic and functional quality of environmental elements (Ding et al., 2024). These constraints underscore the challenges associated with maintaining high-quality biophilic designs and highlight the need to critically evaluate whether the benefits of biophilic design, in terms of guest experience, perceived value, well-being, and behavioural outcomes, justify the considerable costs and operational difficulties involved in its implementation (Tekin et al., 2025).

Hotel biophilic design has recently garnered the attention of hospitality scholars due to its potential impact on desirable marketing outcomes such as guest satisfaction, stress relief, and behavioural intentions (Han et al., 2020; S. H. Lee, 2019; Nanu et al., 2020). However, despite numerous studies investigating biophilic design and its elements in hotels and their resultant outcomes, the relevant literature has revealed some notable gaps in this area that justify further investigation. Prior studies lacked an examination of the quality of hotel biophilic design or elements and focused on the inclusion of nature elements by comparing the presence versus the absence of nature features or biophilic elements (Nanu et al., 2020) using image-based scenarios and online experiments (Song et al., 2022) without delving into design quality or investigating the behavioural response of tourists who actually experienced accommodation in hotels with biophilic designs. Also, according to Song et al. (2022), prior research mostly recognised greenery and plants as biophilic design factors while ignoring other factors (i.e., water and natural materials) (S. H. Lee, 2019; Purani & Kumar, 2018). Moreover, Song et al. (2022) reported that there was a scarcity of literature examining variables such as guest delight and well-being in the context of hotel biophilic design.

Accordingly, unlike previous studies that adopted the common twofold approach of examining biophilic design (i.e., biophilic vs. non-biophilic/traditional), this study sought deeper investigation and aimed to explore the quality of biophilic design elements in hotel settings as experienced and evaluated by guests who had already stayed in hotels with biophilic designs or elements. Instead of operationalising biophilic design as a simple presence-or-absence construct, the current research theoretically developed and empirically tested a structured conceptual model that captures how the perceived quality of biophilic elements enhances guest well-being, affects perceived value, and influences behavioural intentions. Specifically, the current study investigated the following: (1) the direct effects of the quality of hotel biophilic design on guest well-being, perceived value and patronage intentions (i.e., revisit intentions and willingness to pay premium for biophilic hotels); (2) the mediating role of guest well-being and perceived value in the linkages between the quality of hotel biophilic design and patronage intentions; and (3) the moderation effects of guest delight on the association between the quality of hotel biophilic design and both guest well-being and perceived value. By examining and analysing firsthand guest feedback, the study contributes to the hospitality literature and provides a deeper understanding of how biophilic design quality impacts psychological and behavioural outcomes within the hotel industry.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Biophilic Design in Hotels

Biophilic design involves integrating natural elements, such as indoor greenery, landscaped flowerbeds, water features, aquariums, and/or fauna, including birds or butterflies, into the built environment (Han et al., 2020; Song et al., 2022). Nanu et al. (2020) further explained that biophilic hotel design is not only limited to incorporating elements from the natural world into the built environment, but it can also involve complex designs or elements, such as sound, water, and lighting, that mimic the natural environment and integrate natural elements into architectural designs. In hotel servicescapes, biophilic designs can include incorporating natural light and skylights, placing potted plants in indoor environments such as hotel lobbies and restaurants, mounting indoor gardens, and installing indoor water fountains (Nanu et al., 2020; Suess et al., 2024).

2.2. Guest Well-Being

Well-being can be described as an individual’s positive cognitive and evaluative orientation towards both the self and the external environment alongside a sense of personal fulfilment arising from one’s actions (Cooke et al., 2016). Well-being is usually considered through two dimensions: hedonic and eudaimonic (Guest, 2017). The hedonic dimension focuses on subjective experiences of happiness and pleasure in addition to the balance between optimistic and pessimistic thinking (Edgar et al., 2021). This dimension captures the immediate affective outcomes that shape the guests’ perceptions of their hotel experience. In contrast, the eudaimonic dimension focuses on the realisation of one’s potential, meaningful engagement, and the pursuit of a purpose (Marescaux et al., 2019). It extends beyond immediate affective states and captures a longer-term orientation towards meaning, competence, and self-actualisation.

2.3. Perceived Value

Perceived value has been defined as a “customer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product or service based on their perception of what has been received” (Zeithaml, 1988). According to Bhasin and Burcher (2006), value represents what customers consider to be beneficial and sufficient at a given price and time. Baker and Fulford (2016) further described perceived value as a holistic evaluation of utility that emerges from comparing the benefits gained with the costs incurred for a product or service. In the hospitality industry, customers primarily evaluate their experiences based on the overall value they derive from the products and services they consume (Moons et al., 2020). Perceived value represents an essential concept in business marketing, as customers rarely evaluate the utility and costs in absolute or objective terms. Instead, the customers’ decisions are guided by subjective perceptions of value (Baker & Fulford, 2016). Furthermore, customer-perceived value has been repeatedly acknowledged as a critical predictor of various favourable outcomes such as customer satisfaction, loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, and repurchase intentions (Baker & Fulford, 2016; Ryu et al., 2012).

2.4. Guest Delight

The literature identifies two primary approaches to defining customer delight (Gyung Kim & Mattila, 2013; M. Kim et al., 2015; Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011). The first approach conceptualises delight as a distinct construct from satisfaction, characterising it as a combination of intense positive emotions, such as joy, elation, arousal, thrill, exhilaration, and other affective responses typically triggered by surprise or an extraordinary experience (Berman, 2005; Torres & Kline, 2006). Prior research (Ali et al., 2016, 2018) has reported guest delight as an essential outcome and affective responses to consumption stimuli, such as the physical environment, in tourism settings. The second approach considers delight as an elevated or higher form of satisfaction that occurs when customer expectations are significantly exceeded, while satisfaction itself occurs when expectations are merely met (Berman, 2005; Vanhamme, 2008). However, this second perspective has been criticised for its lack of conceptual clarity and insufficient differentiation between satisfaction and delight (M. Kim et al., 2015; Vanhamme, 2008). Accordingly, the present study adopted the first approach, which identifies delight as an emotional response to consumption experiences.

2.5. Patronage Intentions

According to Filimonau et al. (2022), tourists can show patronage towards hotels in various ways such as expressing preference, spreading positive WOM, showing willingness to pay extra money to stay in certain hotels, and returning to the same hotels for future stays. Accordingly, patronage intentions towards hotels with biophilic design include choosing accommodations that integrate natural elements when making reservations, sharing positive word-of-mouth about their experiences in such environments, demonstrating a willingness to pay a premium to enjoy nature-inspired spaces, and showing loyalty by returning to biophilic hotels for future stays. This study primarily focused on intentions to revisit, the inclination to return to the same hotel on future trips (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020), and willingness to pay a premium (i.e., tourists’ tendency to pay extra for staying at hotels with biophilic designs) (Kang et al., 2012).

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. Quality of Hotel Biophilic, Guest Well-Being, and Perceived Value

Biophilic design in hotels supports guest well-being and enhances the perceived value of accommodation. This can be better explained through the lens of both stress recovery theory and attention restoration theory. First, stress recovery theory posits that exposure to natural elements helps the body and mind relax by reducing stress, lowering heart rate, and alleviating negative emotions (Ulrich et al., 1991). Second, “attention restoration theory” argues that natural environments can capture our attention peacefully, allowing the mind to recover from mental fatigue and regain focus (Kaplan, 1995). Accordingly, when guests experience reduced stress and improved mental clarity in biophilic hotel spaces, they tend to feel more comfortable, emotionally balanced, and mentally refreshed. This positive state motivates hotel guests to more positively evaluate their accommodation experience and perceive a higher value in the overall experience. In other words, customers tend to perceive higher quality and develop favourable attitudes towards service environments that induce feelings of happiness and excitement (Ha & Jang, 2013; Rosenbaum et al., 2016, 2018; Worsfold et al., 2016). This is particularly important in hotel service settings, where both the social atmosphere and the physical setting interact to shape the guests’ perceived value and intentions to return (Worsfold et al., 2016).

Prior studies have provided some empirical evidence indicating that hotels with biophilic designs or natural elements, such as plants in public spaces, facilitate greater interaction between guests in these spaces, which in turn stimulates revisit intentions. For example, the study by Song et al. (2022) examined the psychological responses of hotel customers to biophilic design and analysed the relationships among self-image congruity, guest delight, and subjective well-being. Their findings confirmed the positive effects of the biophilic design of the hotel lobby on both guest delight and subjective well-being. Further studies (S. H. Lee, 2019; S. H. Lee et al., 2023) in hospitality settings confirmed these effects, showing that biophilic features improve the guests’ emotions and relaxation and increase satisfaction, perceived quality, and willingness to return. Therefore, this study argues that the quality of hotel biophilic design exerts positive effects on guest well-being and perceived value, as follows:

H1. 

The quality of hotel biophilic design positively contributes to guest well-being.

H2. 

The quality of hotel biophilic design positively contributes to guest perceived value.

3.2. Guest Well-Being, Perceived Value, and Patronage Intentions

Guest well-being represents a state in which tourists feel relaxed, satisfied, and emotionally balanced during their stay. Such a state plays a crucial role in shaping post-consumption behaviours including intentions to revisit and willingness to pay a premium. According to Fredrickson (2001), experiences that promote well-being expand cognitive perspectives, encourage openness to future engagement with the service provider, and foster strong emotional attachments. This means that guests who feel mentally restored and emotionally elevated by their stay tend to form a positive attachment to the hotel brand, which in turn translates into a stronger desire to revisit this hotel. Furthermore, well-being enhances the perceived value of the experience. This is because when guests feel healthier and happier as a result of their stay, they attribute greater overall value to the service, and thereby their willingness to pay a premium for the same experience in the future is more likely to increase.

Empirical evidence from previous studies supports this proposed connection. For example, the study by J. J. Kim and Han (2022) found that guest well-being in hotels significantly increased revisit intentions. Similarly, Dewi’s (2024) study examined the role of green atmospherics and customer well-being in influencing customer satisfaction and revisit intention in the context of city hotels. Their findings confirmed the significant effects of well-being on revisit intentions. The study of Suess and Mody (2018) also showed that the guests’ well-being stimulated their willingness to pay extra. Therefore, the following hypotheses were set for testing:

H3. 

Guest well-being positively impacts guest intentions to revisit the hotel.

H4. 

Guest well-being positively impacts a guest’s willingness to pay a premium.

Perceived value (i.e., the customer’s evaluation of the benefits received versus the costs incurred), is a primary driver of post-purchase behaviour in the hospitality sector. That is, when guests perceive that the benefits of a hotel stay (including comfort, service quality, aesthetics, emotional enrichment, etc.) exceed the costs that they paid, they are more likely to accept higher prices because the overall experience is cognitively and emotionally framed as “worth it” (Zeithaml, 1988). In this context, perceived value serves as both a rational judgment of benefits in relation to costs (utilitarian value) and an affective evaluation of worth (hedonic or emotional value). Those two assessments together make perceived value a key antecedent for loyalty behaviours such as revisit or rebook intentions (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

Previous studies have supported the influence of perceived value on post-consumption behaviours. For instance, Chen and Chen (2010) demonstrated that perceived value in heritage tourism significantly predicted both revisit intentions and willingness to recommend. In the hotel service settings, Ryu et al. (2012) found that perceived value had a direct and positive effect on willingness to pay more for quality dining experiences. Additionally, Wu and Li (2017) found that in the context of experiential services, a higher perceived value led to positive behavioural intentions including intentions to revisit and recommend. Accordingly, the subsequent hypotheses were formulated:

H5. 

Perceived value positively influences guest intentions to revisit the hotel.

H6. 

Perceived value positively influences the guests’ willingness to pay a premium.

Moreover, this study posits that both guest well-being and perceived value function as mediators in the linkage between the quality of hotel biophilic design and patronage intentions. Both guest well-being and perceived value are widely recognised as key psychological mechanisms that explain how service environments influence patronage intentions. That is, high-quality biophilic design (such as natural light and greenery) enhances the guests’ psychological well-being by reducing stress and restoring attention (Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991). This positive state of well-being fosters emotional attachment and enhances perceptions of value, as guests view the experience as more rewarding and worthwhile (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Zeithaml, 1988). In turn, both well-being and perceived value function as mediators by transforming the restorative and aesthetic benefits of biophilic design into stronger intentions to revisit and increased willingness to pay premium prices, as follows:

H7. 

Guest well-being significantly mediates the linkage between the quality of hotel biophilic design and guest intentions to revisit the hotel.

H8. 

Guest well-being significantly mediates the linkage between the quality of the hotels’ biophilic design and guest willingness to pay a premium.

H9. 

Perceived value significantly mediates the linkage between the quality of the hotels’ biophilic design and the guests’ intentions to revisit the hotel.

H10. 

Perceived value significantly mediates the linkage between the quality of the hotels’ biophilic design and guest willingness to pay a premium.

3.3. The Moderating Role of Guest Delight

Guest delight, as it reflects intense positive emotions such as joy, surprise, and excitement, can significantly strengthen the influence of biophilic design quality on both guest well-being and perceived value. High-quality biophilic features (such as natural light, greenery, and restorative spatial layouts) can improve the guests’ psychological states by reducing stress and enhancing attention restoration (Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991). The presence of guest delight functions as an emotional magnifier that intensifies these effects. The affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) posits that affective reactions to environmental stimuli influence an individual’s cognitive appraisals and subsequent attitudes. Accordingly, when hotel guests experience delight in response to the hotel’s physical and biophilic environment, they are more likely to perceive biophilic elements as restorative and uplifting, which in turn results in enhanced well-being. Similarly, delight reinforces the guests’ evaluative judgments, making them more appreciative of the benefits they receive compared with the costs they incur. This elevated emotional feeling increases the guests’ perceptions of greater functional and emotional value, thereby supporting the effect of biophilic quality on perceived value. Subsequently, guest delight can function as a moderator that strengthens both the psychological (well-being) and cognitive (perceived value) outcomes of high-quality biophilic design in hotels, as postulated in the following hypotheses:

H11a. 

Guest delight significantly moderates the relationship between the quality of the hotel biophilic design and guest well-being.

H11b. 

Guest delight significantly moderates the relationship between the quality of the hotel biophilic design and perceived value.

In light of the aforementioned literature review and justification for the proposed hypotheses, this study presents a conceptual model that encompasses the postulated assumptions, as shown in Figure 1.

4. Methods

4.1. Measures

All measurements used in this research were derived from previous studies. The study employed 15 items to gauge the quality of biophilic elements through five dimensions with three items each (i.e., authenticity (AU), aesthetic appeal (AA), integration (IN), maintenance and cleanliness (M_C), functional and sensory experience (F_SE)) that were adapted from relevant studies (Browning et al., 2014; Kellert et al., 2011; Wijesooriya et al., 2025; Yue et al., 2024). Guest well-being (GW) was gauged by a 5-item scale recommended by Han et al. (2019). To capture guest delight (GD), a 3-item scale was taken from M. Kim et al. (2015). Furthermore, perceived value (PV) was measured by five items adopted from Duman and Mattila (2005). The revisit intention (RI) variable was evaluated using two items from Maxham and Netemeyer (2002). Finally, three items were adopted from J.-S. Lee et al. (2010) to gauge the willingness to pay a premium (WPP) (see Appendix A). To ensure content validity, the instrument was pretested with a panel of 17 experts, comprising 7 academics and 10 industry practitioners. Importantly, no alterations were made to the substantive meaning of the items during this process.

4.2. Data Collection

The study employed a purposive sampling technique to select hotels that incorporated biophilic designs and elements into their service settings such as lobbies, restaurants, and guest rooms. Subsequently, a convenience sampling approach was employed to collect data from guests staying at these hotels, gathering information on the study variables. With the assistance of postgraduate colleagues from the authors’ affiliated institutions in Egypt, who also serve as inspectors at the Ministry of Tourism, 13 five-star hotels located in Sharm El-Sheikh and Hurghada that had adopted biophilic design principles were initially identified. After contacting hotel managers, data collection was successfully conducted in twelve of these hotels, while one hotel did not respond. An online survey, distributed through a URL link and QR code, was administered over a four-month period, from May to August 2025. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, out of these, 428 completed and valid responses were collected, representing a response rate of 71%, which is considered satisfactory. The questionnaire was structured with a mandatory response option, ensuring that all submitted surveys were complete with no missing data. Consequently, the 428 responses used in the analysis were both comprehensive and valid, thereby strengthening the reliability of the findings. Respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and assured that the data would be used strictly for research purposes and analysed in an aggregate form. Participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality was emphasised, and participants were explicitly informed that there were no right or wrong answers. The sample consisted of 54.9% males and 45.1% females, with the majority aged less than 25 years (40.9%) or between 25 and 35 years (35.7%). In terms of education, most respondents held a Bachelor’s degree (55.6%), followed by high school (18.0%), postgraduate qualifications (16.6%), and others (9.8%), see

Table 1. Respondents’ profile.

Category	Group (N = 428)	Frequency	%
Gender
	Male	235	54.9
	Female	193	45.1
Age group
	Less than 25	175	40.9
	25 up to 35	153	35.7
	36 up to 50	87	20.3
	More than 50	13	3.0
Education
	Bachelor’s degree	238	55.6
	High school	77	18.0
	Postgraduates	71	16.6
	Others	42	9.8

.

4.3. Data Analysis

The hypotheses were tested using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 3.0, while descriptive statistics were performed with SPSS 26.0. PLS-SEM was deemed appropriate for this study, as the primary objective was to predict the relationships among variables rather than confirm an established theoretical framework. Moreover, PLS-SEM is particularly advantageous for analysing complex models under fewer distributional assumptions and has more flexibility regarding sample size. The analytical procedure followed the standard two-step approach, involving the assessment of both the measurement and the structural models (J. F. J. Hair et al., 2017).

5. Results

5.1. Common Method Bias (CMB) and Data Normality

During the collection of study data, numerous procedural remedies were implemented to mitigate the potential effects of common method bias (CMB) and ensure the validity of the responses. First, participants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their contributions, minimising the likelihood of socially desirable responses. Second, all the questionnaire items were designed in a random manner to reduce order effects and responses to patterns. Third, all question items were clearly phrased by employing neutral and non-leading phrasing. Finally, the online questionnaire designed included a mandatory response option to prevent missing scores and ensure data completeness. In addition to these procedural approaches, a statistical evaluation of common method variance (CMV) was also implemented. To assess CMV, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted, and the results showed that a single factor explained 44.411% of the variance, which was below the 50% threshold, indicating that CMB was not a concern (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This conclusion was further supported by the variance inflation factor (VIF) values, all of which were below the recommended cut-off of 3.3 (ranging between 1.621 d 2.972) (

Table 2. The results for the measurement outer model.

Factors and Items	λ	VIF	Mean	SD	SK	KU
1. Quality of Biophilic Elements (QB) (α = 0.943, CR = 0.950, AVE = 0.559)
A. Authenticity (AU) (α = 0.861, CR = 0.915, AVE = 0.783)
AU_1	0.884	2.203	3.467	1.386	−0.311	−1.194
AU_2	0.905	2.575	3.654	1.306	−0.479	−0.961
AU_3	0.865	2.006	3.736	1.216	−0.465	−0.847
B. Aesthetic Appeal (AA) (α = 0.846, CR = 0.907, AVE = 0.764)
AA_1	0.860	1.940	3.512	1.354	−0.446	−0.946
AA_2	0.883	2.148	3.633	1.325	−0.523	−0.894
AA_3	0.879	2.033	3.671	1.268	−0.588	−0.656
C. Integration (IN) (α = 0.865, CR = 0.918, AVE = 0.788)
IN_1	0.874	2.074	3.850	1.373	−0.815	−0.715
IN_2	0.909	2.670	3.808	1.286	−0.806	−0.432
IN_3	0.879	2.216	3.935	1.266	−0.872	−0.398
D. Maintenance and Cleanliness (M_C) (α = 0.800, CR = 0.883, AVE = 0.715)
M_C_1	0.833	1.621	3.750	1.277	−0.561	−0.941
M_C_2	0.855	1.803	3.727	1.281	−0.525	−0.949
M_C_3	0.849	1.751	3.715	1.330	−0.630	−0.789
E. Functional and Sensory Experience (F_SE) (α = 0.820, CR = 0.893, AVE = 0.735)
F_SE_1	0.860	1.895	3.998	1.254	−1.028	−0.029
F_SE_2	0.875	2.025	3.879	1.265	−0.829	−0.403
F_SE_3	0.836	1.673	3.722	1.262	−0.511	−0.847
2. Guest Well-Being (GW) (α = 0.890, CR = 0.919, AVE = 0.695)
GW_1	0.836	2.424	3.631	1.358	−0.622	−0.829
GW_2	0.864	2.838	3.769	1.291	−0.769	−0.440
GW_3	0.868	2.700	3.748	1.373	−0.831	−0.552
GW_4	0.833	2.206	3.643	1.436	−0.682	−0.869
GW_5	0.762	1.950	3.463	1.355	−0.502	−0.873
3. Perceived Value (PV) (α = 0.919, CR = 0.939, AVE = 0.754)
PV_1	0.864	2.537	3.645	1.416	−0.632	−0.951
PV_2	0.872	2.798	3.764	1.289	−0.687	−0.624
PV_3	0.878	2.972	3.762	1.300	−0.733	−0.575
PV_4	0.855	2.573	3.750	1.290	−0.710	−0.579
PV_5	0.873	2.748	3.780	1.267	−0.720	−0.491
4. Revisit Intention (RI) (α = 0.843, CR = 0.927, AVE = 0.863)
RI_1	0.912	2.137	3.876	1.170	−0.816	−0.163
RI_2	0.946	2.137	4.000	1.147	−0.944	−0.095
5. Willingness to Pay Premium (WPP) (α = 0.885, CR = 0.929, AVE = 0.813)
WPP_1	0.916	2.831	3.930	1.181	−0.891	−0.127
WPP_2	0.900	2.418	3.986	1.159	−0.960	−0.027
WPP_3	0.888	2.411	3.944	1.219	−1.077	0.262
6. Guest Delight (GD) (α = 0.869, CR = 0.919, AVE = 0.791)
GD_1	0.871	2.223	3.731	1.329	−0.695	−0.746
GD_2	0.904	2.581	3.776	1.310	−0.710	−0.681
GD_3	0.893	2.157	3.680	1.339	−0.601	−0.869

Note: SK = skewness, KU = kurtosis, (λ) = loadings, (α) = Cronbach’s alpha, (CR) = composite reliability, (AVE) = average variance extracted, (VIF) = variance inflation factor, and (SD) = standard deviation.

) (Kock, 2015). In terms of normality, the skewness (ranging between 1.077 and −0.311) and kurtosis (ranging between −1.194 and 0.262) values for all items were within the acceptable ranges of ±2 and ±7, respectively (Table 2) (Curran et al., 1996), suggesting that the data did not suffer from non-normality.

5.2. Measurement Model Evaluation

Before testing the structural relationships, the measurement (outer) model was specified and evaluated. Since conventional model fit indices used in CB-SEM are either unavailable or not recommended for PLS-SEM due to its variance-based approach (J. F. J. Hair et al., 2016), alternative reliability and validity criteria were employed. Following J. F. Hair et al. (2019), convergent validity (CV) was assessed using item loadings (λ), Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and the average variance extracted (AVE). As shown in Table 2, all loadings exceeded the threshold of 0.70 (ranging from 0.762 to 0.946), the CR (ranging between 0.883 and 0.950) and α (varied from 0.800 and 0.943) values met the recommended minimum of 0.70, and the AVE values surpassed the 0.50 criterion. Specifically, the AVE values ranged from 0.559 (quality of biophilic elements) to 0.863 (revisit intention). Accordingly, these results confirmed an adequate CV.

Discriminant validity (DV) was assessed with the Fornell–Larcker criterion, which necessitates the square root of each construct’s AVE to be greater than its correlations with other factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in

Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Guest Delight	0.890
Guest Well-Being	0.429	0.833
Perceived Value	0.486	0.575	0.869
Quality of Biophilic Elements	0.672	0.500	0.563	0.748
Revisit Intention	0.557	0.468	0.501	0.621	0.929
Willingness to Pay Premium	0.664	0.576	0.595	0.761	0.716	0.901

Note: Values off the diagonal-line are squared inter-construction-correlations, while values on the diagonal-line are AVEs.

, this condition was satisfied, demonstrating the distinctiveness of all dimensions.

To further strengthen the assessment and address critiques of the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) was also examined. According to Henseler et al. (2015), an HTMT value of 0.90 indicates that constructs are conceptually related, whereas a stricter threshold of 0.85 is recommended when constructs are expected to be more distinct. As shown in

Table 4. HTMT matrix.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Guest Delight
Guest Well-Being	0.473
Perceived Value	0.540	0.628
Quality of Biophilic Elements	0.739	0.537	0.603
Revisit Intention	0.650	0.521	0.562	0.692
Willingness to Pay Premium	0.756	0.635	0.660	0.831	0.824

Note: The HTMT values should be larger than 0.90.

, all HTMT values in this study were below 0.85, thereby providing additional support for discriminant validity. Collectively, these results indicate that the measurement model meets the established standards of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, ensuring the robustness of the constructs for subsequent structural analysis.

5.3. Structural Model and Testing Hypotheses

The model demonstrated acceptable explanatory power, with R² values of 0.293 for guest well-being, 0.411 for perceived value, 0.299 for revisit intention, and 0.436 for willingness to pay a premium. The Q² values (0.183, 0.274, 0.236, and 0.331, respectively) were all above zero, indicating predictive relevance (J. F. Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index was calculated using the formula suggested by Tenenhaus et al. (2005), where the GoF values of 0.10, 0.25, and 0.36 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively.

$$\mathrm{GoF}=\sqrt{{AVE}_{avy}\times {R^2}_{avy}}$$

The GoF value obtained for this study was 0.518, which substantially exceeded the recommended threshold for a large effect size, indicating a strong overall fit of the model. Additionally, recent discussions on PLS-SEM highlight the importance of reporting the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) as an approximate measure of model fit. In this study, the SRMR value was 0.076, which is below the recommended threshold of 0.08, thereby indicating an acceptable model fit (Henseler et al., 2016).

Following the confirmation of reliability and validity, and consistent with the recommendations by Henseler (2020), hypothesis significance was assessed using t-values, standardised path coefficients (β), and p-values from a structural model estimated with 5000 bootstrapped resamples.

Table 5. Hypotheses evaluation.

Hypothesis	β	t	p	F2		Results
Direct effects
H1: QB → GW	0.479	7.993	0.000	0.152		✔
H2: QB → PV	0.584	9.738	0.000	0.271		✔
H3: GW → RI	0.268	3.859	0.000	0.069		✔
H4: GW → WPP	0.349	5.479	0.000	0.144		✔
H5: PV → RI	0.346	5.215	0.000	0.115		✔
H6: PV → WPP	0.395	6.214	0.000	0.185		✔
Indirect mediating effect				CI
H7: QB → GW → RI	0.129	3.305	0.001	0.056	0.211	✔
H8: QB → GW → WPP	0.167	4.320	0.000	0.093	0.254	✔
H9: QB → PV → RI	0.202	4.422	0.000	0.113	0.299	✔
H10: QB → PV → WPP	0.231	5.027	0.000	0.137	0.330	✔
Indirect mediating effect
H11a: QB × GD → GW	0.163	3.147	0.002	0.066	0.258
H11b: QB × GD → PV	0.264	4.638	0.000	0.137	0.369
Guest well-being		R2	0.293	Q2	0.183
Perceived value		R2	0.411	Q2	0.274
Revisit intention		R2	0.299	Q2	0.236
Willingness to pay premium		R2	0.436	Q2	0.331

Note: QB—quality of biophilic elements, GW—guest well-being; PV—perceived value, RI—revisit intention, WPP—willingness to pay premium (WPP), GD—guest delight, ✔—supported, β—path coefficients, CI—confidence intervals.

and Figure 2 present the results of hypotheses testing. All direct hypotheses (H1–H6) were supported, with the quality of biophilic elements (QB) showing significant positive effects on guest well-being (β = 0.479, t = 7.993, p < 0.001, f² = 0.152) and perceived value (β = 0.584, t = 9.738, p < 0.001, f² = 0.271). Guest well-being significantly influenced revisit intention (β = 0.268, t = 3.859, p < 0.001, f² = 0.069) and willingness to pay a premium (β = 0.349, t = 5.479, p < 0.001, f² = 0.144). Similarly, perceived value had significant positive effects on revisit intention (β = 0.346, t = 5.215, p < 0.001, f² = 0.115) and willingness to pay a premium (β = 0.395, t = 6.214, p < 0.001, f² = 0.185).

The mediating effects (H7–H10) were also confirmed. Specifically, guest well-being was found to partially mediate the relationships between QB and revisit intention (β = 0.129, t = 3.305, p = 0.001, CI [0.056–0.211]) as well as between QB and willingness to pay a premium (β = 0.167, t = 4.320, p < 0.001, [0.093–0.254]). Furthermore, perceived value partially mediated the associations between QB and revisit intention (β = 0.202, t = 4.422, p < 0.001, [0.113–0.299]) and between QB and willingness to pay a premium (β = 0.231, t = 5.027, p < 0.001, [0.137–0.330]). Both confidence intervals excluded zero, confirming the study hypotheses.

In addition, the moderating effects of guest delight were significant, indicating that guest delight strengthened the positive impact of QB on both guest well-being (β = 0.163, t = 3.147, p = 0.002) (Figure 3) and perceived value (β = 0.264, t = 4.638, p < 0.001) (Figure 4). All latent variables were mean centred prior to creating the interaction terms, in line with established recommendations to reduce multicollinearity (Fassott et al., 2016).

5.4. Modelled the Higher Order Construct of QB

To validate the higher-order construct of QB, several steps were undertaken. First, the correlations among the first-order constructs (authenticity, aesthetic appeal, integration, maintenance and cleanliness, and functional and sensory experience) were examined, confirming their conceptual relatedness. Second, VIF values were assessed to test multicollinearity. The VIF values for the first-order constructs ranged from 1.621 to 2.972, all well below the recommended threshold of 5, indicating the absence of serious multicollinearity issues. Likewise, the VIF value for the second-order construct of hotel website quality was 2.141, further supporting the lack of problematic collinearity. Finally, the significance of the paths linking the first-order constructs to the second-order construct was evaluated. As shown in

Table 6. Weights of the first order constructs on the designated second-order constructs.

Second-Order Constructs	First-Order Constructs	Weight	t-Value
Quality of Biophilic Elements	Authenticity	0.832	48.241 **
	Aesthetic Appeal	0.885	73.112 **
	Integration	0.881	65.692 **
	Maintenance and Cleanliness	0.838	51.076 **
	Functional and Sensory Experience	0.859	42.102 **

Note: ** = p < 0.01.

, the first-order constructs exhibited strong and significant weights, demonstrating their substantial contribution to the formation of the hotel website quality construct.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1. Findings and Theoretical Contributions

Previous studies have focused on investigating the presence or absence of biophilic designs and elements in hotels, examining whether they would affect marketing outcomes and guest behaviour. These studies mainly used scenario-based surveys or online experiments while completely disregarding the quality of hotel biophilic design and its respective outcomes and effects. To address this gap, this study aimed to investigate the impact of biophilic design quality in hotels on guest well-being, perceived value, and patronage intentions. It also tested the moderating role of guest delight on the proposed model. The findings showed that high-quality biophilic designs and elements significantly and positively contributed to both guest well-being and perceived value, which in turn stimulated revisit intentions and willingness to pay a premium. Furthermore, guest delight strengthened the positive influence of biophilic quality on both well-being and perceived value, confirming its significant moderation role.

Accordingly, this research makes a significant contribution to the hospitality and tourism literature in several ways. While previous studies often approached biophilic design as a binary presence-versus-absence construct (Nanu et al., 2020; Nanu & Rahman, 2023; Song et al., 2022), this study drew on previous studies and operationalised the quality of hotel biophilic design as a multi-dimensional construct comprising authenticity, aesthetic appeal, integration, maintenance, and sensory functionality. In so doing, this study addresses a gap in knowledge and responds to the recent calls to enrich conceptual clarity around biophilic design quality (Tekin et al., 2025; Wijesooriya et al., 2025).

Moreover, the results of this study extend the application of stress recovery theory (Elshaer et al., 2025) and attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995) in hospitality settings. The findings demonstrate how high-quality natural design features translate into psychological (well-being) and cognitive (perceived value) appraisals, which in turn shape behavioural intentions. This integrative approach provides strong empirical evidence for explaining the importance of high-quality biophilic design in service environments such as hotels.

Additionally, this research is among the few studies that have empirically confirmed the moderating effect of guest delight in the context of hotel biophilic designs and their respective outcomes. Prior research often treated delight as an outcome (M. Kim et al., 2015; Torres & Kline, 2006), whereas the findings of the present study position delight as a critical moderator that boosts the favourable effects of biophilic design quality on its outcomes (i.e., guest well-being and perceived value), which also supports affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Finally, by collecting data from guests who stayed in biophilic hotels rather than relying on hypothetical scenarios or image-based experiments (Song et al., 2022), this study reinforces the validity of its findings and provides a more authentic and reliable account of how biophilic design shapes the guests’ experiences in real-world hospitality settings.

6.2. Managerial Implications

Based on the empirical findings, this study provides several actionable recommendations. The study affirmed that benefits stem from the quality of biophilic design and elements rather than its mere presence in hotel settings. Therefore, hotels should ensure that they have authentic, well-integrated, and carefully maintained natural features that provide both functional and sensory value. Additionally, given that hotel guests are willing to pay a premium for high-quality biophilic environments, hotels can strategically position such designs as part of their value proposition in branding and pricing strategies. This is particularly important to target and attract certain types of guests including wellness seekers and eco-conscious tourists.

Additionally, hotels can enhance the perceived value of the accommodation experience by tailoring biophilic experiences to different guest profiles. For instance, hotels can provide quiet, restorative corners for business travellers, playful green spaces for families, or specific areas dedicated to meditation or wellness for tourists. Such personalisation of biophilic designs enhances the sense that the stay was “worth it”, which in turn fosters revisit intentions. Furthermore, the perceived value and willingness to return can certainly be undermined by the poor maintenance of biophilic elements. Thus, hotels need to ensure consistent maintenance of biophilic elements to reinforce the guests’ positive perceptions on subsequent, thereby supporting guest loyalty.

Since delight magnifies the psychological and cognitive benefits of biophilic environments, hotels should design surprising and emotionally engaging experiences around natural elements to exceed guest satisfaction and foster delight. This can include elements such as interactive water features, seasonal installations, or storytelling about locally sourced materials. Hotel managers are also advised to balance the costs of biophilic designs with long-term gains. Although implementing and maintaining high-quality biophilic designs can be expensive, their resultant effects on guest loyalty and willingness to pay a premium provide a reasonable justification for such investments. In this context, hotels should not only deliver high-quality biophilic environments, but also clearly communicate their value. This includes emphasising health benefits, relaxation, and sustainability in marketing messages. This justifies premium pricing and reinforces the guests’ perceptions of value.

Finally, destination management organisations and hotel associations can integrate biophilic quality standards into their sustainability norms or service standard certifications. Such procedures would encourage hotels to adopt a more holistic and high-quality biophilic initiative rather than superficial implementations. On this note, hotel managers are advised to incorporate locally sourced natural materials, flora, and cultural design themes into biophilic environments. This can strengthen authenticity while supporting community-based sustainability, which eventually enhances both the guest experience and local stakeholder engagement.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study makes significant contributions, some limitations should be acknowledged for further research. First, the data collection was limited to hotels and resort hotels in Egypt, which may restrict the generalisability of the study’s findings and implications. Future research should replicate the model across different cultural contexts or in diverse settings including urban hotels, boutique properties, and wellness resorts. Second, the study adopted a cross-sectional design, which can limit the establishment of robust causal inference. Future longitudinal research could explore how repeated exposure to high-quality biophilic environments builds guest loyalty and long-term brand attachment.

Third, the study depended mainly on subjective guest perceptions of design quality. Future studies could triangulate these findings with objective architectural and environmental assessments (e.g., lighting, air quality, acoustic performance) for a more comprehensive evaluation. As this study tested only guest delight as a moderator, further studies could examine other psychological or cultural variables that may also influence responses to biophilic design such as environmental consciousness, cultural orientation, or personal wellness goals. Exploring these moderators would deepen our theoretical understanding. Finally, future work should extend the model to examine other outcomes, such as positive word-of-mouth, online reviews, and brand advocacy, which are becoming increasingly vital in shaping hotel competitiveness.