Advertisement

An In-Depth Analysis of Workers’ Attitudes Towards an Underground Facility in USA with a Focus on Breaks and Breakrooms

  • Vinita Venugopal
  • Kian-Woon Kwok
  • George I. Christopoulos
  • Chee-Kiong Soh
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

With the increase in urbanization and industrialization and the ever-increasing problem of space, sustainable solutions such as underground work places are on the rise. However, considering the huge investments required to make such spaces a success, in-depth studies regarding various aspects of underground workplaces (UW) need to be made. One such factor that determines this success is breakrooms. Though several studies have identified breakrooms to be a major factor in employee health and satisfaction, this hasn’t been explored in the context of UW.

In this paper, we present an analysis of a qualitative study conducted in Missouri, USA on 73 underground workers to understand worker attitudes and behavior during breaks and towards breakrooms.

According to our analysis a wider variety of food choice (cafes, food courts or well stacked and hygienic vending machines), restorative elements (such as outdoor gardens, indoor greenery, pictures of landscapes or virtual windows), private rest spaces for employees to get some personal time and the ability to communicate with the outside world (connectivity, Wi-Fi, landlines etc.) are important factors that need to be considered while designing such spaces.

Keywords

Underground workplaces Breakrooms Breaks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based on research/work supported by the Land and Liveability National Innovation Challenge under L2 NIC Award No. L2NICCFP1-2013-2. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the L2 NIC.

References

  1. 1.
    UN-DESA, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2016 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division United NationsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seng LT (2017) Biblioasia: land from sand- Singapor’s Reclamation StoryGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murdoch L (2016) The Sydney Morning Herald: Sand wars: Singapore’s growth comes at the environmental expense of its neighboursGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deymers J (2014) Inc.com: 10 Essentials of the most successful companies’ break roomsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jensen N (2013) Huffpost: the truth about break roomsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, Fiksdahl-King I, Angel S (1977) A pattern languageGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park G (2010) Staff break roomGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahl Lassen A, Thorsen AV, Haapala I, Lennernäs Wiklund M, Nyberg M, Beck AM, Fagt S (2017) Food at work around the clock–the nordic model: report from a nordic workshop, 4 November 2016, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lowden A, Moreno C, Holmbäck U, Lennernäs M, Tucker P (2010) Eating and shift work—effects on habits, metabolism, and performance. Scand J Work Environ Health, 150–162Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gorton D, Carter J, Cvjetan B, Mhurchu CN (2010) Healthier vending machines in workplaces: both possible and effective. New Zealand Med J (Online) 123(1311)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nejati A, Rodiek S, Shepley M (2016) Landscape and urban planning: using visual simulation to evaluate restorative qualities of access to nature in hospital staff break areas, 148, pp 132–138Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grinde B, Patil GG (2009) Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(9):2332–2343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647):420–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan R (2001) The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environ Behav 33(4):507–542MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson CW, Travlou P (eds) (2007) Open space: people space. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Felstehausen GINNY (1990) A framework for examining the interdependence of family and work: family environment theory. J Vocat Home Econ Educ 8(1):53–63Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ray EB, Miller KI (1991) The influence of communication structure and social support on job stress and burnout. Manag Commun Q 4(4):506–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ylinen J (1989) Spatial planning in subsurface architecture. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 4(1):5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vinita Venugopal
    • 1
  • Kian-Woon Kwok
    • 2
  • George I. Christopoulos
    • 3
  • Chee-Kiong Soh
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Humanities and Social SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Nanyang Business SchoolNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations