Explanation of the basic qualitative model for spatial resilience in the architecture of high-constraint work spaces with a human-centered approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Moharam Ghahremani Darvish 1
farhang mozafar 2
seyed bagher hoseini 2
fatemeh mehdizadeh seraj 2
1 Doctoral student of Iran University of Science and Technology Semnan University faculty member
2 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Iran University of Science and Technology
10.22034/jssta.2024.448847.1155
Abstract
Previous studies have proven the relationship between comfort, health and productivity in typical work spaces. In certain workspaces, such as industrial cleanrooms, resilience becomes more difficult for employees, as strict standards restrict access, movement, and severe interactive and visual limitations. The aim of this research is to find a way to compensate for such shortcomings in the mentioned spaces. The current research is exploratory in terms of purpose and practical in terms of use, and qualitative in terms of data collection techniques. First, documentary studies were conducted in the field of key concepts, quality of space, dimensions of resilience and theoretical foundations of the subject, in order to extract the components affecting the space and its qualitative goals. Then, in order to collect field data, in-depth interviews with experts in the relevant fields, the focus group method was used. Based on this, visual comfort and sound comfort respectively have the highest impact in environmental compatibility to provide spatial desirability; Ergonomic compatibility and sensory-emotional compatibility were evaluated with moderate impact and lower priority in this regard. The result is that the provision of visual and acoustic comfort is the leader in shaping the qualitative model of the desirability of special spaces such as industrial clean rooms. The results of the research were conducted to the form of a comprehensive model as "integrated human-centered model in the interaction between the resilience of the architectural space and the factors of the desirability of the space". According to the field findings and extracted content propositions, visual comfort has the greatest impact on spatial resilience. The results of the research, compared to previous researches, show that, the factor “success” is strongly influenced by the factor “visual comfort”. Finally, the research proposes a multifaceted model for spatial resilience in the architecture of high-constraint work-spaces.
Keywords
Clean room#Employee health#Space resilience# Work environment stress#Work space flexibility
Subjects
  1. Bluyssen, P., et al., AIRLESS: A European project to optimise indoor air quality and energy consumption of HVAC-systems. 2001.
  2. Godish, T., Indoor environmental quality. 2016: CRC press.
  3. Maleki, S.N., Design criteria for enhancing the vitality of residential areas, in Department of Architecture and Environmental Design, . 2013, Iran University of Science and Technology: iran.
  4. Küller, R. and C. Lindsten, Health and behavior of children in classrooms with and without windows. Journal of environmental psychology, 1992. 12(4): p. 305-317.
  5. Esteves, L. S., & Williams, J. J. (2017). Managed realignment in Europe: a synthesis of methods, achievements, and challenges. Living Shorelines, 157-182.

6          Whyte, W. (2010). Cleanroom technology:       fundamentals of design, testing and operation. John Wiley & Sons.

7               Pulwarty, R., et al., Risk to Resilience: Climate change, disasters and the WMO-UNDRR Centre of Excellence. Bulletin Nº, 2022. 71(1).

  1. Abi-Hashem, N., On cultural resiliency. The Australian Community Psychologist, 2011. 23(2): p. 23-31.
  2. Southwick, S.M., et al., Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European journal of psychotraumatology, 2014. 5(1): p. 25338.
  3. Winwood, P.C., R. Colon, and K. McEwen, A practical measure of workplace resilience. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2013. 55(10): p. 1205-1212.
  4. Attaianese, E. Environmental Design and Human Performance. A Literature Review. in Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VIII: Ergonomics and Human Factors in Manufacturing, Agriculture, Building and Construction, Sustainable Development and Mining 20. 2019. Springer.
  5. Ostroff, E., Universal design: an evolving paradigm. Universal design handbook, 2011.
  6. Uyaroğlu, İ.D., Resilience in interior architecture education: Distance universal design learning in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 2021. 2(2): p. 234-249.
  7. Holl, S., House: Black Swan Theory. 2007: Princeton Architectural Press.
  8. Spence, C., Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2020. 5(1): p. 46.
  9. Verschaffel, B., The interior as architectural principle. Palgrave Communications, 2017. 3(1): p. 1-8.
  10. Lee, K., The Interior Experience of Architecture: An Emotional Connection between Space and the Body. Buildings, 2022. 12(3): p. 326.
  11. Cha, S., et al. Defect analysis and cost-effective resilience architecture for future DRAM devices. in 2017 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). 2017. IEEE.
  12. Vink, P., Comfort and design: principles and good practice. 2004: CRC press.
  13. Vischer, J.C., The concept of environmental comfort in workplace performance. Ambiente Construido, Porto Alegre, 2007. 7(1): p. 21-34.
  14. Bazley, C., et al., Interior effects on comfort in healthcare waiting areas. Work, 2016. 54(4): p. 791-806.
  15. Bluyssen, P.M., M. Aries, and P. van Dommelen, Comfort of workers in office buildings: The European HOPE project. Building and Environment, 2011. 46(1): p. 280-288.
  16. Vischer, J.C., Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Architectural science review, 2008. 51(2): p. 97-108.
  17. Kim, J. and R. De Dear, Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall workspace satisfaction. Building and Environment, 2012. 49: p. 33-40.
  18. Kim, J., et al., Gender differences in office occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ). Building and environment, 2013. 70: p. 245-256.
  19. Abbaszadeh, M., Study of intervening effect of environmental responsible attitude on the relationship of between place attachment and environmental responsible behavior. Journal of Applied Sociology, 2016. 27(2): p. 61-80.
  20. Herbig, B., A. Schneider, and D. Nowak, Does office space occupation matter? The role of the number of persons per enclosed office space, psychosocial work characteristics, and environmental satisfaction in the physical and mental health of employees. Indoor Air, 2016. 26(5): p. 755-767.
  21. Oldham, G.R. and N.L. Rotchford, Relationships between office characteristics and employee reactions: A study of the physical environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983: p. 542-556.
  22. Knasko, S.C., Ambient odor's effect on creativity, mood, and perceived health. Chemical senses, 1992. 17(1): p. 27-35.
  23. Wolkoff, P., T. Salthammar, and E. Woolfenden, Emission cells and comparison to small chambers for materials emissions testing. Gefahrstoffe-Reinhaltung der Luft, 2005. 65(3): p. 93-98.
  24. Schweitzer, M., L. Gilpin, and S. Frampton, Healing spaces: elements of environmental design that make an impact on health. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 2004. 10(Supplement 1): p. S-71-S-83.
  25. D'Oca, S., et al., Introduction to an occupant behavior motivation survey framework. 2016.
  26. Frontczak, M., et al., Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor air, 2012. 22(2): p. 119-131.
  27. Yildirim, K., A. Akalin-Baskaya, and M. Celebi, The effects of window proximity, partition height, and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2007. 27(2): p. 154-165.
  28. Heinzerling, D., et al., Indoor environmental quality assessment models: A literature review and a proposed weighting and classification scheme. Building and environment, 2013. 70: p. 210-222.
  29. Lee, T.K., S.H. Cho, and J.T. Kim, Residents’ adjusting behaviour to enhance indoor environmental comfort in apartments. Indoor and Built Environment, 2012. 21(1): p. 28-40.
  30. Bin, A.S. and A. Shmailan, The relationship between job satisfaction, job performance and employee engagement: An explorative study. Issues in Business Management and Economics, 2015. 4(1): p. 1-8.
  31. Lai, A., et al., An evaluation model for indoor environmental quality (IEQ) acceptance in residential buildings. Energy and buildings, 2009. 41(9): p. 930-936.
  32. Humphrey, S.E., J.D. Nahrgang, and F.P. Morgeson, Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of applied psychology, 2007. 92(5): p. 1332.
  33. Astolfi, A. and F. Pellerey, Subjective and objective assessment of acoustical and overall environmental quality in secondary school classrooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2008. 123(1): p. 163-173.
  34. Wong, S.C.-k. and J.S. Li, Will hotel employees’ perception of unethical managerial behavior affect their job satisfaction? A study of Chinese hotel employees in China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2015. 27(5): p. 853-877.
  35. Frontczak, M. and P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Building and environment, 2011. 46(4): p. 922-937.
  36. Marans, R.W. and X.-y. Yan, Lighting quality and environmental satisfaction in open and enclosed offices. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 1989: p. 118-131.
  37. Veitch, J.A., et al., A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2007. 27(3): p. 177-189.
  38. Choi, Y. and D.R. Dickson, A case study into the benefits of management training programs: Impacts on hotel employee turnover and satisfaction level. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 2009. 9(1): p. 103-116.
  39. Schakib-Ekbatan, K., A. Wagner, and C. Lussac. Occupant satisfaction as an indicator for the socio-cultural dimension of sustainable office buildingsdevelopment of an overall building index. in Proceedings of Conference: Adapting to Change: New Thinking on Comfort. 2010. Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings (NCEUB) Windsor.
  40. O’Connell, D., et al., A Resilience Checklist–a Guide for Doing Things Differently and Acting Collectively (Resilience Checklist Version 1.0 July 2020). 2020, Canberra: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation ….
  41. Khormaee, F., Focus Groups. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2007. 13(52): p. 67-81.
  42. Elo, S. and H. Kyngäs, The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 2008. 62(1): p. 107-115.
  43. shahbazmoradi, s.s., mohamadreza, Management and advanced models of human resources (concepts and models of strategic approach, human capital and human resources architecture). 2013, Tehran, iran: Tofighe Danesh. 5.
  44. Kallio, H., et al., Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 2016. 72(12): p. 2954-2965.
  45. Danaee Fard, H.k., hosein, Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, ed. 4. Vol. 1. 2016, Tehran, Iran: Mehraban Publishing Institute. 22.
  46. Flick, U., The SAGE handbook of qualitative Research Design. 2022: Sage.54.
  1. Creswell, J.W. and J.D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2017: Sage publications.

  • Receive Date 16 March 2024
  • Revise Date 25 May 2024
  • Accept Date 13 July 2024