An In-Depth Analysis of Workers’ Attitudes Towards an Underground Facility in USA with a Focus on Breaks and Breakrooms
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.
KeywordsUnderground workplaces Breakrooms Breaks
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.
- 1.UN-DESA, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2016 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division United NationsGoogle Scholar
- 2.Seng LT (2017) Biblioasia: land from sand- Singapor’s Reclamation StoryGoogle Scholar
- 3.Murdoch L (2016) The Sydney Morning Herald: Sand wars: Singapore’s growth comes at the environmental expense of its neighboursGoogle Scholar
- 4.Deymers J (2014) Inc.com: 10 Essentials of the most successful companies’ break roomsGoogle Scholar
- 5.Jensen N (2013) Huffpost: the truth about break roomsGoogle Scholar
- 6.Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, Fiksdahl-King I, Angel S (1977) A pattern languageGoogle Scholar
- 7.Park G (2010) Staff break roomGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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.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
- 15.Thompson CW, Travlou P (eds) (2007) Open space: people space. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
- 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