Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Previous research has shown that people often feel crowded when the environment gets in their way. This suggests that suitable measures of environmental constraint may be predictive of perceived crowding and environmental satisfaction. This study tests the hypothesis that environments that constrain the activities of their inhabitants less will be perceived as having greater quality and their inhabitants will be more satisfied with them. An office environment is used as a test case.

How the physical environment constrains worker movements is assessed with several new quantitative measures. These measures vary depending on the difference between the size and shape of space that workers require for their activities and the space that is available. The spatial requirements of office activities were estimated from videotaped records of the routine activities of workers. A computer program developed for this study computed values for the measures of constraint for each of 194 workstations. These estimates of environmental constraint were then used to explain some of the variance observed in worker attitudes about their environment.

The findings support the study hypothesis. Furthermore, the measures and methods developed for this study suggest a new approach to reduce crowding in our built environments and improve inhabitant environmental satisfaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baum

Koman

(1976). Differential response to anticipated crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 26–536.

Brill

Margulis

Konar

(1984). Using office design to increase productivity. Buffalo: Workplace Design and Productivity, Inc.

Desor

J. A.

(1972). Towards a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 79–83.

Ellis

(1985a). A functional, disaggregated approach to office productivity and environment. In Dolden

M. E.

Ward

(Ed.) The impact of the work environment on productivity. AIA, Washington, D.C.: The Architectural Research Centers Consortium, Inc.

Ellis

(1985b). Office productivity. Facilities, 3(1).

Heimsath

(1977). Behavioral architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jockusch

(1985). The changing office - some recent German developments and issues. In Dolden

M. E.

Ward

(Ed.) The impact of the work environment on productivity. AIA, Washington, D.C.: The Architectural Research Centers Consortium, Inc.

Joreskog

K. G.

Sorbom

(1978). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood (Version IV ed.). Chicago: National Educational Resources.

Korman

(1982). Corporations ignore productivity possibilities. Facilities Design and Management (Nov/Dec).

10.

Lantrip

D. B.

(1986). ISOKIN: A quantitative model of the kinesthetic aspects of spatial habitability. In Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting, 1 (pp. 33–37). Dayton, OH: Human Factors Society.

11.

Lantrip

D. B.

(1988) The design and analysis of space for haptic and kinesthetic habitability. Masters Thesis (unpublished), University of Washington.

12.

Lantrip

D. B.

(1990). The built environment as a constraint to human freedom: An activity-based stochastic model. In Selby

R. I.

Anthony

K. H.

Choi

Olrand

(Ed.) 21st Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA). Denver, CO: EDRA, Inc.

13.

Lantrip

D. B.

(1993) Environmental constraint of human movement: A case study of the effects on office worker environmental satisfaction and self-rated productivity. Dissertation, University of Michigan.

14.

Marans

R. W.

(1989). Generative evaluations using quantitative methods: A case study. In Preiser

W. F. E.

(Eds.), Building evaluation (pp. 249–265). New York: Plenum Press.

15.

Marans

R. W.

Spreckelmeyer

(1981). Evaluating built environments: A behavioral approach. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center (SRC) and Architectural Planning Research Laboratory.

16.

Marans

R. W.

Yan

(1989). Lighting quality and environmental satisfaction in open and enclosed offices. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 6(2), 118–131.

17.

Quinn

(1977). Effectiveness in work roles: Employee responses to work environments. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

18.

Ramsey

Sleeper

H. R.

(1981). Architectural graphic standards (7th Edition ed.). New York: Wiley and Sons.

19.

Schiffenbauer

A. I.

(1979). Designing for high density living. In Aiello

J. R.

Baum

(Eds.), Residential crowding and design (pp. 229–240). New York: Plenum Press.

20.

Spreckelmeyer

K. F.

(1993). Office relocation and environmental change: A case study. Environment and Behavior, 25(2), 181–204.

21.

Stokols

(1972). On the distinction between density and crowding. Psychological Review, 79, 275–277.

22.

Sundstrom

Town

Brown

Forman

McGee

(1982). Physical enclosure, type of job and privacy in the office. Environment and Behavior, 14(5), 543–559.

23.

Wise

J. A.

(1988). The quantitative modelling of human spatial habitability (NASA Contractor Report No. NCR177501). College of Architecture & Urban Planning, University of Washington, Seattle.

24.

Worchel

Teddlie

(1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 30–40.

Predicting Satisfaction with the Office Environment by Measuring Constraints to Worker Activities

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References