Beyond Comfort in Built Environments

Every person on the planet lives a significant portion of his or her life in a built indoor environment. Ideally, the built environment serves as protection from the extremes of the outdoor environment and is preferably comfortable. The first ‘built environment’ was a painted cave. The cave served as a shelter and the wall paintings represented a connection to nature and events occurring outside of the cave. Today, most people live and work in separate built environments. A comfortable built environment may attract visitors; have a positive effect on employee work performance and well-being. This thesis gathered and studied new information on traditional physical comfort issues, but also considered emotional and psychological comfort in traditional and non-traditional interior environmental design. Additionally, the studies took pre-comfort experiences and expectations into account and the importance of studying comfort over time. The following factors for a comfortable built environment are addressed in this PhD thesis, because they have been studied infrequently and are important:  ‘being in control’ of the built environment  a built environment that ‘stimulates people interaction’  and a built environment that has ‘sensory variability’ The case studies selected for this thesis include at least one or more of these three elements. The theoretical hypothesis is that by designing built environments, beyond the physiological realm, where occupants have more control, have pleasant interactions with one another, and occupy a space with sensory variability, increases the probability of creating and providing a comfortable environment. The objective of this PhD thesis is to present the theoretical effects with affirmed empirical data gathered in a natural environment. The underlying foundation is to gain more knowledge about the psychological and emotional aspects of comfort including a holistic approach to improve the process of designing built environments. To substantiate this question the locations of the case studies in this book were in different interior environments. The environments included a dance studio, professional offices, airplanes, control rooms, and healthcare waiting areas. In Chapter 2a, patterns of discomfort were studied throughout the workweek and during the day in three different countries for three different occupations. The comparison study was about discomfort, accumulation, and fluctuation over the course of the day and the workweek. Physical discomfort increased during the day and was maximal in the middle of the week in all three studies. A peak in discomfort during the week suggested that the variation in the environment or ‘sensory variability’ of the tasks in all three studies was lacking. The element of ‘stimulating people interaction’ was present in this study because “people” made the participants most comfortable and uncomfortable in the working environment. Chapter 2b is a further analysis of one of the studies mentioned in Chapter 2a. A self-assessment survey documented the physical, psychological and emotional comfort levels of participants throughout the day and workweek for an engineering office. The element ‘sensory variability’ was present due to variation in the environments sensed by the human body during waking, travel to work, being at work and at the end of the workday. The need for sensory variability was evident and possibly improved through layout rearrangement (and sometimes walls) of the office cubicle and computer desktop screens (identical in all cases). The element of ‘stimulating people interaction’ was present in this study because “people” made the participants most comfortable and uncomfortable in the working environment. Chapter 3 comprises of two studies. It is a comparison study of built environments with and without windows. The first study was a project for an office layout for two United States government entities sharing one large space. The project followed a participatory process and suggested design guidelines to divide the larger space into two smaller spaces. The new design provided the employees an outside view i.e. window, which gave them more control of the indoor temperature and increased ‘sensory variability’ with a view of the outdoors. The second study considered the effect of windows on creativity and comfort in a dance studio. Subjects gave their opinion (through a survey) regarding physical comfort and creativity in a room with windows and without windows. The element of ‘sensory variability’ was found in the dance studio (project two), with the variation of light or no natural light due to the windows or no windows. Chapter 4 concerns a study on aircraft interiors and the study of the influencing factors on comfort. Assessment of comfort used key words from the trip reports of 10,032 passengers, as well as a scale for the overall comfort of the flight duration. The lack of leg room was the factor influencing comfort the most, but service by flight attendants ‘people interaction’ was the second most important factor and also had a large effect on the comfort experienced by passengers. Chapter 5a shows the challenges of replicating an older control room design of the 90s in France into a new facility of 2016 in the USA. Ideally, a control room designed ergonomically for safety, usability, provides end-users the capability of system control and ‘being in control’. However, technological feasibility, budget, and space constraints made it difficult to implement an ergonomically ideal situation. Challenges included change in technology, cultural differences, new codes, regulations and standards. Additionally, noise, room and equipment, layout, workstations and temperature were dominated by the space constraints of an older design and older technology. Chapter 5b discusses a participatory design process applied to nine control rooms and includes the element of ‘being in control’ of the design of the built environment. A human factors specialist researched the expectations of a culturally and professionally diverse design team throughout a yearlong participatory design process. This participatory design process resulted in active participation as team members influenced and partly controlled the design process to provide a comfortable optimal working environment for control room operators, but the team struggled with space, cost constraints, and management to meet this goal. Chapter 6 focused on the importance of including ‘sensory variability’ for the interior design of healthcare waiting areas. A Feng Shui expert, using Feng Shui principles, designed one waiting area. The doctor using some Feng Shui principles and some western design principles designed another one and the third waiting area used only western design principles. The interior design effects on patient comfort were studied. 'Sensory variability’ is an important element in the Feng Shui design approach. The element of ‘sensory variability’ was most often present in the interior designed by the Feng Shui expert and showed the highest comfort level for the patients. Chapter 7 is a theoretical treatise on designing future control rooms and all three elements; ‘being in control’ of the environment, ‘stimulating people interaction’ and ‘sensory variability’ are discussed for a holistic design guideline process. The design process includes future solutions for heating, lighting, and other physical, psychological, and emotional environmental design aspects as well as, advancement in technology, automation and robotics, a multi-disciplined, multicultural, and human-centric collaborative workforce. The empirical data gathered in these case studies indicate that ‘being in control’, ‘stimulating people interaction’ and ‘sensory variability’ play a role in the appreciation and comfort of interior built environments. The participatory design cases and the windows case indicate the importance of ‘being in control’. Being involved in the interior design process increases comfort as it is part of one’s own action, but it also takes into account the purposed activities, which take place in the room. The office cases and the aircraft interior case demonstrate that the interaction with other people may be influential in creating comfort. Interior environments should be designed to ‘stimulate interactions between people’. The window view case and the Feng Shui waiting area study show the potential of paying attention to ‘sensory variability’ in the built environment. A built interior environment, which includes the three aforementioned elements, has a greater possibility of creating comfort, but more research is necessary to understand the principles and affirm the effects. This is a first step towards a holistic approach to comfort, utilizing eastern and western concepts, and ergonomic principles to create comfortable built environments. The goal is to go beyond the physiological and include the psychological, emotional, and socio-cultural aspects in a multi-discipline design process. Further research will help define specifically, which design approach of ‘being in control’, ‘stimulating people interaction’ and designing for ‘sensory variability’ is effective.