A Framework for Integrating Ergonomics Into Architectural Design

Abstract

We spend most of our lives inside buildings. Although human–building interactions have a substantial impact on architectural design, there is no comprehensive framework for addressing buildings as facilitators of such interactions and as an interface between users and the environment. I share a framework derived from a project that incorporates principles of ergonomics into the early stages of architectural design processing. The main research objective is to outline a holistic approach to ergonomics-aided architectural design that addresses interactions between humans, buildings, and their environment. It also functions as guidance for designers to generate human-centered environment-friendly designs.

Keywords

scenario analysis user-centered performance responsive buildings human-centered design task analysis ergonomics design scenario-based design sustainable solutions

Le Corbusier (2007) describes the house as a “machine for living in.” As such, we can view all buildings as machines for facilitating our activities. According to this view, buildings act as systems that host multiple subsystems (Eilouti, 2020b).

Ergonomics is defined as “the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system” (http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html) This discipline can help building design become more human centered via understanding human–environment interactions (Eilouti, 2020a). Within the extended scope of ergonomics that includes the environment as a mega system (Brunoro et al., 2018; Munguía Vega et al., 2018; Naeini, 2019; Radjiyev et al., 2015), this research describes an ergonomics-aided architectural design project and proposes a framework that can guide similar future projects in education and practice.

Ergonomics in Architecture

Ergonomics is typically classified into three categories: the physical, cognitive, and organizational classes (Woodcock, 2011). In this categorization of human–product interactions, the physical and the cognitive issues are related to the human side of the interaction. In contrast, the organizational aspects are more associated with the side of products and their internal systems (Eilouti, 2010, 2018b, 2018d).

Henceforth, a system is interpreted as the natural/built environment that directly surrounds humans. It includes the micro level of fixture/furniture pieces, the macro level of buildings and the urban fabric surrounding them, and the mega level of the natural environment. The main goal of integrating ergonomics into architectural design is to help understand human–building interactions and their impact on the optimization of spatial design and formal articulation of building components. This integration is expected to improve users’ satisfaction and buildings performance. Methodologically, it employs a scenario-based approach that departs from an extrapolation of predicted scenarios of postoccupancy to analyze existing settings. This includes research and analysis of user behavior and its impact on spatial planning to improve the quality, functionality, and adaptability of spaces (Eilouti, 2018a, 2018c).

All categories of ergonomics are influential in architectural design. The incorporation of physical ergonomics aims to produce more human-centered spaces, cognitive ergonomics aims to foster active placemaking and social sustainability, and organizational ergonomics aims to optimize the performance of buildings.

While applications of ergonomics in interior and engineering design areas are well-established, examples of ergonomics as a generator of architectural forms are less frequent. Most of the existing applications in architecture focus on the design of health care facilities (Engström et al., 2001; C. Martin et al., 2000), working environments (Attaianese & Duca, 2012; Burnard & Kutnar, 2020; Motlagh et al., 2020; Pheasant & Haslegrave, 2005), intelligent buildings (Strumillo, 2014), educational built environments (Sarmento et al., 2019), and sustainable solutions (Gennari, 2000). However, the area of incorporating ergonomics principles into the early phases of schematic spatial planning and conceptual designing is still underrepresented. Applications of human factors in architecture transcend the scope of static anthropometry, where a designer follows principles of anthropometrics for optimizing buildings dimensions. They include considerations of motion, emotion, and behavior patterns that help ensure producing comfortable environments. As a result, considerations of smooth accessibility, circulation, maneuverability, and way-finding in and around buildings can inform architectural designing during its early stages. Similarly, the needs of the elderly, children, people with mobility/disability issues, and wheelchair users should be considered in the early stages of problem solving. The study of sick building syndrome and its impact on occupants’ health, comfort, and well-being represents another domain where architecture and ergonomics converge (Park et al., 2016).

Kinetic Buildings as Ergonomic Structures

Ergonomics can be expressed as kinetic structures that enable users to interact with them within variable scenarios and for multiple purposes. They enhance human/system interactions where multifunctional products are designed (Asefi, 2010; Eilouti, 2007; El Razaz, 2010).

The rapid growth of digital applications and related technologies has helped create more kinetic products (Kolarevic, 2015; Kronenburg, 2014; Moloney, 2011). These include movable artifacts, adjustable structures, intelligent systems, flexible spatial configurations, and responsive building components (Eilouti, 2009; Friedman & Farkas, 2011; Lienhard, 2014; Osório et al., 2014). Development of kinetic solutions requires knowledge in many disciplines to produce flexible structures, adaptable systems, sensitive materials, convertible envelope compositions, and metamorphic façade engineering (Eilouti, 2019; Fox, 2003; Moloney, 2011).

The Ergonomics-Driven House Design Project

I asked 85 students of architectural engineering sophomore level to design a house that integrates ergonomics, anthropometrics, and kinetics into the house design. The students were distributed into six sections with various instructors. The project duration was 6 weeks. The house was for a family with special needs that consists of a tall professional man (190 cm, musician), a short wife (145 cm) who owns a home business (preparing desserts and delivery meals on request using social media), an elderly grandmother whose hobby is gardening, a daughter who is interested in fashion design (clothes, shoe, and accessories) and online marketing, and a disabled artist son who likes painting. The husband frequently helps his wife in the kitchen, which is supposed to be adaptable for all user heights. Similarly, the house envelope was expected to be adaptable to variable environmental forces.

Considering each user’s requirements based on his or her circulation patterns, needs, desires, and experiences within each space and during transition between different spaces represented a point of departure for this project. Space planning was expected to be derived by applying task analysis, user analysis, and an empathetic cognitive walk-through of each user/action by systematically describing their interaction with space (Brookhuis et al., 2005). This required studying all possible scenarios of each user’s behavioral tendencies and movement patterns and solving any predicted conflict in users’ interactions. The empathetic part was conducted by taking each user’s place by the student herself or by the instructor if the behavior/scenario was ambiguous. Moreover, considering sustainability issues, where the house was viewed as an interface between users and the environment, was required.

Study of interactions between people and their built environments was applied within the extended scope of the trifold mutual relationships between humans, buildings, and environment (Figure 1):

Interaction between humans and buildings (e.g., Costa et al., 2012; Engström et al., 2001; Pheasant & Haslegrave, 2005).

Interaction between humans and environment indoors and outdoors (e.g., Duca, 2014).

Interaction between buildings and environment. This includes considerations of contextual, environmental and urban fitting in building design (e.g., Attaianese, 2017; Gennari, 2000; K. Martin et al., 2013).

The participants were encouraged to consider these relationships to integrate the sustainability issues in their designs. The scope of sustainability was limited to aspects of green buildings and their passive/active responses to climate and context.

Figure 1.

The extended definition of ergonomics.

The Project Implementation

Well-being of a building’s occupants is conditioned by the quality of their activities and their physical and psychological satisfaction with their direct and indirect built environments. The design of spaces may hamper or foster user’s activities due to physical environment configurations or cognitive perceptions about them. The participants were reminded continuously to design spaces that foster occupants’ activities and well-being.

The human-centered design of the built environment represents a holistic approach that can be structured by three macroactivities (Attaianese & Duca, 2012). The first activity aims to design a satisfactory environment for users by identifying the end-users and their expected physical and organizational needs. The second is to produce creative design solutions in which conceptual diagrams and mock-up models express responses to users’ needs. The third is a follow-up assessment of the human-related building performances.

Adapting the aforementioned activities, the design processing of this project consists of five main stages. Each stage requires a particular competency of design processing. The stages and associative competencies in the developed model are illustrated in Table 1. The process used iterative prototyping, where incremental and recursive design cycles were applied and evaluated until a satisfactory product was generated.

Table 1.

Ergonomics-Based Architectural Design Process and Competencies

Stage	Competency
1. The first stage focuses on the analysis of each user’s needs and behavior patterns. It applies the scenario-based approach, where all possible scenarios are predicted, portrayed, and documented.	Research and analytical thinking
2. Such scenario-based analysis is assumed to lead to the design of a space for each family member.	Space planning
3. The design of each space based on the needs of its expected user/s is followed by an analysis of the spatial relationships among all spaces. This stage considers the circulation spaces that are needed to connect all other spaces vertically and horizontally. It also considers the interpersonal and social interactions between the designated building’s occupants.	Zoning and spatial organization
4. The functional layout derived thus far is then supported by a design concept that helps form the overall compositional theme and appearance of the house.	Aesthetic and artistic compositional skills
5. Final mapping of the concept into the functional solution is finalized and represented in two-dimensional (2D) and 3D drawings and in a physical operable model of the house.	Translation of conceptual thinking into tangible products

Project Examples

To produce design solutions, the human-centered study was based on detailing each user’s needs and expectations. This was communicated by conceptual diagrams and schematic models to objectify the conceptual ideation proposals. As a subsequence, iterative design proposal processing was incrementally generated to control the coherence of the functional solutions and compliance with the users’ needs.

As a result of the project implantation, the instructors observed that the ergonomics-driven approach had improved the designers’ competencies to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate design products. Besides, the participants produced efficient and effective solutions that satisfied complex performances and innovation criteria.

Figure 2 illustrates examples of the designs produced by the participants. In Figure 2A, the student studied the needs of each expected user and designed the spaces accordingly. The core of the central space is a spiral ramp that enables all family members to use all spaces on all levels without barriers. The ramp surrounds a central courtyard that hosts a green environment with natural lighting and ventilation. The kitchen has two sinks of various heights to adapt to the various users. In Figure 2B, the central atrium houses a sustainable courtyard and a ramp. It has a rotational roof that interacts with the solar motion and has an adaptable service counter in the kitchen to match the various heights. This design applies kinetics and uses animation to illustrate the various scenarios of space usage. In Figure 2C, adaptations to the internal users’ needs and external environmental requirements shaped the layout and forms of the spaces.

Figure 2.

Example of ergonomics-aided house.

Similarly, Figure 2D illustrates internal and external responses to users and context presented in diagrammatic sketches. Figure 2E illustrates the task analysis of some spaces and the environmental study of the context. In these examples, the three levels of human, building, and environment interactions are addressed. A thorough study of human–space interactions generated the final forms, and a study of building-environment interactions derived the sustainable solutions and roof/court garden designs.

Figure 3 illustrates examples of task analysis, user movement patterns, and building responses to the environment presented in schematic diagrams.

Figure 3.

Example of adaptive solutions analysis.

Findings and Discussion

As a result of the project implementation, reflections and findings are mainly related to the exploration and understanding of new concepts, the significance of the problem interpretation to the potential solutions, and the interdisciplinary incorporation of systemic principles into architectonic solutions. The observations are also related to the emphasis on different problem-solving competencies, integration of multiple areas of interdisciplinary knowledge transformation, and on the power of applying different media and multiple communication methods. Furthermore, a higher level of enthusiasm and active involvement of the students was observed. This can be explained by the challenging problem and the new learning experience.

The reflections are based on observations of the instructors of the various sections, jury discussions, unstructured interviews with the students, and the students’ feedback. The main findings can be summarized into the following points:

The finished products consisting of sketches, drawings, and physical models demonstrated that each participant had understood the basics of ergonomics-aided designing in four dimensions. The students came up with various solutions based on different articulations of functionality, operability, flexibility, adjustability, metamorphism, portability, and mobility. Their solutions demonstrated an understanding of the significance of the time element as a fourth dimension (Hancock, 2018; Sheridan, 2020) and the multifaceted incorporation of various kinetic solutions into spatial design.

Most participants expressed that they fully understood and applied the bottom-up, in-out approach to designing. In this approach, architectural design departs from interior space design, where each furniture piece is analyzed in terms of its measurements, function and usage, and moves into morphological design where aesthetics and modelling techniques are considered.

The design approaches to this problem solutions oscillated between bottom-up methods of designing the interior spaces and top-down methods for the articulation of the exterior form and its response to the environmental forces and influences.

The anthropometrics-driven approach helped emphasize the sense of scale and proportion of spaces and furniture pieces.

The participants addressed the sustainability considerations within the building–environment interaction scope. This helped shaping the external envelop of the house in terms of form, orientation, materials, and fenestrations.

The participants realized the strong relationships between interior and exterior, user and space, and buildings and urban contexts.

The problem interpretation was vital to its potential solutions. Students’ reflections revealed that they had to revisit and reinterpret the problem to their understanding many times during the recursive processing cycles within the iterative prototyping process.

The participants indicated that the integration of the theoretical knowledge from different resources into design processing significantly improved the quality of their products.

Significance of technology incorporation into design processing was clear in this project. The students used different media to communicate their projects and used multiple graphic software.

Vocabulary such as physical fit, comfort, health, safety, fun, flexibility, adaptation, energy and vibes, psychological satisfaction, emotional attachment, social interaction, sustainable compatibility had taken new dimensions, denotations, and connotations.

The predesign research phase was conducted by groups with various approaches. However, all research processes started with the analysis of each user’s physical and psychological needs.

The instructors noted unusual high levels of enthusiasm by the participants. The concentration and excitement generated by this project was higher than usual.

The ambiguity and complexity of the design problem posed a challenge that encouraged the students to keep trying new solutions. They had to overcome many previously unforeseen barriers that emerged during the process.

Most participants expressed in the informal interviews that the new design methodology was informative and helpful.

The negative responses to the proposal of rolling out more similar ergonomics-driven projects into the future design pedagogy focused on the difficulty of the task and the students’ concerns about the increased workloads placed on them. Another concern was related to the technical knowledge needed to communicate the adaptable structures.

A New Framework for an Ergonomics-Driven Design Approach

A few tools for ergonomics applications in architectural design were described. However, they cover parts of the ergonomics-based design approach such as user involvement in building design (e.g., Remijn, 2006). As a result of the project implementation, it is possible to propose a new framework for an ergonomics-driven design approach to architectural design. The framework consists of two parts. The first emphasizes new venues of interaction between the three major components of design (Figure 4). In this part, the conventional scope of human–building interaction addresses properties of human comfort, health, safety, security, belonging, and satisfaction. It also stresses criteria of functionality, flexibility, adaptability, and performance of buildings and their associated systems. It also adds interactions between buildings and environment that highlight the value of reducing the footprint, expanding the built environment vertically, applying sustainable systems, adopting responsive environmental strategies, maximizing the passive and active green systems, and using the exterior envelop of buildings for ecological solutions, such as using roofs and walls for vegetation. In addition, consideration of human–environment interactions emphasizes the values of resource preservation, pollution reduction, integrative landscape design, ecological diversity, social sustainability, and transcending the typical space shaping paradigm into a place-making one. Emphasis of the environment as a major driver of building design in this framework highlights issues of green buildings, sustainability, and nature-friendly solutions. Considering the intersection of the three major components of humans, buildings and environment yields improved building designs that represent balanced user satisfaction and sustained environmental solutions. Intersection of the three components embodies an extended meaning of ergonomics in which humans, buildings, and environment have more positive impacts on each other. The main domain of this intersection is green ergonomics. It optimizes human–building–environment interactions.

Figure 4.

Framework scope of ergonomics-driven architectural design.

The second part of the framework details a process and skills for ergonomics-aided design (Figure 5). The process of the ergonomics-driven design includes the following steps:

Study and analyze the physical, psychological, and social needs for each expected user.

Design each space in the functional program according to its user’s needs.

Cluster the individual spaces into zones according to their functional requirements and occupants’ interactions.

Based on the initial zoning, model the layout internally into interrelated spaces and externally into balanced responsive forms.

Redesign the enclosure between the generated masses to produce usable exterior spaces.

Refine the exterior spaces to complement the building with pleasant outdoor areas.

Design the building, its external envelop and landscape as a context-sensitive entity to fit its urban fabric.

Although the sustainable and environmental considerations require addressing from the start of this process, they can be refined and ensured at this stage. This cycle may be repeated as needed.

Figure 5.

Framework for ergonomics-driven architectural design process and skills.

The main design skills needed to conduct this process are

Critical thinking, analysis, and research.

Interior design and application of anthropometrics principles to ensure the right measurements, proportions, and scale.

Spatial organization to optimize the flow of spaces.

Visualization and modelling skills to transform the two-dimensional (2D) shapes into balanced and creative 3D/4D spaces and forms.

Sense of place-making to emphasize the social interaction enhancement in the generated spaces and to ensure the effectiveness of their layouts and the efficacy of their articulations.

Landscape design that strengthens and complements the building design with pleasant exterior environments.

Urban design that considers the mutual impact of the building and the surroundings.

Sustainable design skills that help relate the building to its environment and optimize its impact on and influence by it.

These processing phases and their associated design skills are listed within the three ergonomics levels (micro, macro, and mega) and the three scopes of interactions between humans, buildings, and environment.

Conclusion

A project that addresses various scopes of ergonomics is presented. It is driven by a user-based, human-centered, and environment-friendly ergonomics-aided approach to building design. Reflections about the project implementation demonstrate an improved quality of the design products and show that the typical boundaries between interior and exterior, user and space, physical and psychological, individual and social, and buildings and urban context seem to be less restrictive and rigid.

As a result of the project implementation, a new framework for ergonomics-aided architectural design approach is introduced. It articulates three levels and scopes of interaction of ergonomics and associates them with a design process and set of skills to generate a balanced human-centered architectural design. The framework emphasizes the domain of green ergonomics, which can be devised to optimize building performance and maximize positive human–environment mutual impacts. It contributes to knowledge in interdisciplinary design by instrumental guidance that can help designers and educators produce more efficient and effective designs.

Footnotes

Buthayna Eilouti is a professor of architecture in the College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Previous to her current position, she worked as a chair of Architectural Engineering and Interior Design in Prince Sultan University, and in Jordan University of Science and Technology as a professor and assistant dean of Engineering. She has a PhD, MSc, and MArch from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States. Her research interests include design studies, biomimetics, design computation, shape grammars, and Islamic architecture. She has published in some of the most prominent international, refereed and indexed journals and conference proceedings in the United States and Europe. ORCID iD: .

References

Asefi

(2010). Transformable and kinetic architectural structures: Design, evaluation and application to intelligent architecture. VDM.

Attaianese

(2017). Ergonomics of built environment ie how environmental design can improve human performance and well-being in a framework of sustainability. Ergonomics International Journal, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.23880/EOIJ-16000S

Attaianese

Duca

(2012). Human factors and ergonomic principles in building design for life and work activities: An applied methodology. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.504286

Brookhuis

Hedge

Hendrick

Salas

Stanton

(2005). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics models. CRC Press.

Brunoro

C. M.

Bolis

Sznelwar

L. I.

(2018). Building sustainable organisations: Contributions of activity-centred ergonomics and the psychodynamics of work. In Thatcher

Yeow

P. H. P.

(Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors for a sustainable future (pp. 191–210). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8072-2_8

Burnard

M. D.

Kutnar

(2020). Human stress responses in office-like environments with wood furniture. Building Research and Information, 48(3), 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1660609

Costa

A. P.

Campos

Villarouco

(2012). Overview of ergonomics built environment. Work, 41(1), 4142–4148. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2012-0710-4142

Duca

(2014). From energy-efficient buildings to energy-efficient users and back: Ergonomic issues in intelligent buildings design. Intelligent Buildings International, 6(4), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.909770

Eilouti

(2020a). Applied human factors in residential architectural design. Journal of Ergonomics, 10(4), 264. https://doi.org/10.35248/2165-7556 .20.10.264

10.

Eilouti

(2020b). Form follows users: A framework for system-based design. Architectural Engineering and Design Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1833831

11.

Eilouti

(2007). A computer-supported problem-based learning project for architectural design pedagogy. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 5(3), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.5.3.197_1

12.

Eilouti

(2009). Design knowledge recycling using precedent-based analysis and synthesis models. Design Studies, 30(4), 340–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.03.001

13.

Eilouti

(2010). A digital incorporation of ergonomics into architectural design. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7 (2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1260/147807709788921994

14.

Eilouti

(2018a). Concept evolution in architectural design: An octonary framework. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2018.01.003.

15.

Eilouti

(2018b). Scenario-based design: New applications in metamorphic architecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7(4), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2018.07.003.

16.

Eilouti

(2018c). Design programming and conceptualization: Design management and processing methods in architecture. PSU Press.

17.

Eilouti

(2018d). A hybrid framework of computer-aided instruction and problem-based learning for metamorphic design pedagogy. International Journal of Design Education, 13(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v13i02/29-46.

18.

Eilouti

(2019). Shape grammars as a reverse-engineering tool for the morphogenesis of architectural design. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.03.006.

19.

El Razaz

. (2010). Sustainable vision of kinetic architecture. Journal of Building Appraisal, 5(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2010.5

20.

Engström

Bergqvist

L. G.

Gasslander

(2001). Linkage of user demands to the building facility [Paper presentation]. HCTM Hospital of the Future Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands.

21.

Fox

(2003). Kinetic architectural systems design. In Kronenburg

(Ed.), Transportable environments 2 (pp. 163–186). Spon Press.

22.

Friedman

Farkas

(2011). Roof structures in motion–on retractable and deployable roof structures enabling quick construction or adaption to external excitations. Concrete Structures, 12(1), 41–50.

23.

Gennari

(2000). Architectural ergonomics and sustainable design: A model proposition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(8), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400809

24.

Hancock

P. A.

(2018). On the design of time. Ergonomics in Design, 26(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804617735018

25.

Kolarevic

(2015). Towards architecture of change. In Kolarevic

Parlac

(Eds.), Building dynamics: Exploring architecture of change (pp. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315763279

26.

Kronenburg

(2014). Architecture in motion: The history and development of portable building. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203408964

27.

Le Corbusier. (2007). Toward an architecture (Trans. Goodman

). Getty Research Institute.

28.

Lienhard

(2014). Bending-active structures: Form-ﬁnding strategies using elastic deformation in static and kinetic systems and the structural potentials therein. Universität Stuttgart–Institut für Tragkonstruktionen und Konstruktives Entwerfen.

29.

Martin

Escouteloup

Grall

Ledoux

Danniellou

(2000). Ergonomic contribution to architectural programming in healthcare. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(26), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004402618

30.

Martin

Legg

Brown

(2013). Designing for sustainability: Ergonomics–carpe diem. Ergonomics, 56(3), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.718368

31.

Moloney

(2011). Designing kinetics for architectural facades: State change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814703

32.

Motlagh

S. M.

Golmohammadi

Aliabadi

Faradmal

Ranjbar

(2020). Acoustic problems and their solutions in a typical open-plan bank office. Ergonomics in Design, 28(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804618824897

33.

Munguía Vega

N. E.

Flores Borboa

V. S.

Zepeda Quintana

D. S.

Velazquez Contreras

L. E

. (2018). Assessing the effectiveness of integrating ergonomics and sustainability: A case study of a Mexican maquiladora. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 25(4), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1419589

34.

Naeini

H. S.

(2019). Towards quality of life through the “ergosustainomics” approach. In Bagnara

Tartaglia

Albolino

Alexander

Fujita

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 825, pp. 662–668). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96068-5_71

35.

Osório

Paio

Oliveira

(2014). KOS–Kinetic origami surface. In Gu

Watanabe

Erhan

Hank Haeusler

Huang

Sosa

(Eds.), Rethinking comprehensive design: Speculative counterculture. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (pp. 201–210). The Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia.

36.

Park

H. S.

Hong

(2016). Methodology for assessing human health impacts due to pollutants emitted from building materials. Building and Environment, 95, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.001

37.

Pheasant

Haslegrave

C.M.

(2005). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work (3rd ed.). CRC Press.

38.

Radjiyev

Qiu

Xiong

Nam

(2015). Ergonomics and sustainable development in the past two decades (1992–2011): Research trends and how ergonomics can contribute to sustainable development. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.07.006

39.

Remijn

S. L. M.

(2006, August). Integrating ergonomics into the architectural design processes: Tools for user participation in hospital design. In Proceedings of the 16th World Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Elsevier Science. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e562/e176259760ea140272753b17aaa6ebe6377c.pdf?_ga=2.238046466.368508631.1589611518-775163976.1570045224

40.

Sarmento

T. S.

Villarouco

Attaianese

(2019). Ergonomic analysis of secondary school classrooms: A qualitative comparison of schools in Naples and Recife. In Bagnara

Tartaglia

Albolino

Alexander

Fujita

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 825, pp. 537–526). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96068-5_60

41.

Sheridan

T. B.

(2020). Theory and models for designing with respect to time. Ergonomics in Design, 28(2), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804619838091

42.

Strumillo

(2014). Ergonomic aspects of an intelligent building. In Vink

(Ed.), Advances in social and organizational factors (pp. 51–58).

43.

Woodcock

(2011). About ergonomics, about design, about the user. Design Principles and Practices, 4(6), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1874/CGP/v04i06/37979