Ergonomics in the Built Environment: Survey of the Factors Related to the Corporate Work Environment Linked to Activities of High Concentration

  • Cristiane Nonemacher CanteleEmail author
  • Giovanna NonemacherEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


One of the aims of ergonomics in built environments is to evaluate the adaptability of these spaces to the users’ activities. In this sense the intervention is not only restricted to the physical and dimensional needs, but also in understanding the formal and aesthetic needs in order to provide them with a pleasant and productive space. It is known in this context that some poorly designed environments can generate an unhealthy load on the physical, psychological and social aspects of work affecting the efficiency of the whole productive process. In this sense, the main goal of the study was to survey the real conditions of the work environment and the working conditions idealized by its users, making a statistical comparison of both. In this way, it is concluded that ergonomics should be considered in environmental projects in order to recommend Ergonomics concepts in relation to the physical aspects, characteristics of users, tasks and their respective expectations. For one cannot conceive the study of the built environment without the search for the understanding of the user’s perception about this space. It is in fact the element that suffers the most impact from the sensations that the environment can transmit and its behavior is influenced by the environment where it carries out its activities.


Ergonomics Built Users Dimensional needs Productive space 


  1. Abrantes AF (2001) Ergonomics in the office environment. Technical Article. Accessed 10 Feb 2018
  2. Bins Ely VH, Turkienicz B (2005) Attribute grid method: evaluating the relation between user and environment. Built Environ, 5(2)Google Scholar
  3. Bins Ely, VH (2003) Ergonomics + Architecture: seeking a better performance of the physical environment. In; Annals of the 3rd international congress of ergonomics and usability of human interfaces - technology: products, programs, information, constructed environment - ERGODESIGN. LEUI/ PUCRIO, Rido de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  4. Diniz R et al (2013) In: Barbosa, Rengel, Raposo (orgs) Ergonomics design usability interaction. Juiz de Fora: ERGODESIGN/UFJF, 183 pGoogle Scholar
  5. Ettinger K, (1964) Direction and productivity. direction, organization and business administration. Teaching Manual 1. IBRASA, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  6. Guérin LA, Ville et al (2001) Understand the work to transform it. Translation: Giliane MJ, Ingratta, Marco Maffei. Edgar Blucher, São Paulo 200 p Original title: Comprendre le travail pour le transformer la pratique de l’ergonomieGoogle Scholar
  7. Guimarães BM (2010) LIA (org) Macroergonomics: putting concepts into practice. In: Monographic series ergonomics c.1, FEENG/UFRGS, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  8. Guimarães BM (2010) LIA, Historic, environment. In: Process Ergonomics vol 1, 5th edn., FEENG/UFRGS, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  9. IDA (2005) Itiro, Ergonomics design and production, 2nd edn. SP: Blucher, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  10. Mont’alvão C, Villarouco V (2001) A new look at the project. 2AB, TeresópolisGoogle Scholar
  11. de Moraes AM, Mont’alvão C (2007) Ergonomics: concepts and applications, 3rd edn. 2AB, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  12. Moraes, AM (2009) User. In: Coelho LA (org) Key concepts in design. New ideas, Rio de Janeiro, pp 90–93Google Scholar
  13. de Moraes AM (2004) (Org) Ergodesign of the built and inhabited environment. iUsEr, Rios de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  14. Oliveira RG, Mont’alvão C, Rangel M (2013) A critical view on the methodologies used in the ergonomics of the built environment - the constellation of attributes. In: International congress of ergonomics and usability of human interfaces - technology: product, information, built environment and transport - ERGODESIGN. Judge of Fora- MG, UFJFGoogle Scholar
  15. Robbins SP (2006) Administration: changes and perspectives. Translation by Cid Knipel Moreira. Saraiva, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  16. Santana AMC (1996) The ergonomic approach as a proposal to improve work and productivity in food services. Master’s Degree - Graduate Program in Production Engineering/ UFSC, FlorianópolisGoogle Scholar
  17. Santos N et al (1997) Anthropo technology: the ergonomics of production systems. Genesis, CurititbaGoogle Scholar
  18. da Silva LB (2001) Analysis of the relationship between productivity and thermal comfort: the case of the typists of the data processing and collection center of the Federal Savings Bank of the state of Pernambuco. Florianópolis: Master’s Degree - Graduate Program in Production Engineering, UFSCGoogle Scholar
  19. Vidal MC (2003) Rodriguez. guide to ergonomic work analysis (AET) at the company. Virtual Scientific, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  20. Villarouco V (2002) Ergonomic evaluation of architectural design. In: 2002 Brazilian ergonomic congress, vol 6, Anais, ABERGO, RecifeGoogle Scholar
  21. Villarouco V (2008) Building an ergonomic environment assessment methodology-AVEA. In: Annals of the 14th Brazilian congress of ergonomics. Abergo, Porto SeguroGoogle Scholar
  22. Villarouco V Reflections on the ergonomics of the built environment. In: Bulletin of the Brazilian ergonomic associationGoogle Scholar
  23. Villarouco V, Andreto LFM (2008) Evaluating performance of workspaces under the ergonomics approach of the built environment. Production 18(3):523–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wah L (1998) Effective office. HSM Manag 1(10)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cavaletti Professional Seating S.AErechimBrazil
  2. 2.ImedPasso FundoBrazil

Personalised recommendations