Davis Habitabilidad

download Davis Habitabilidad

of 62

Transcript of Davis Habitabilidad

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    1/62

    constructionengineering ITR M R P RresearchAuut17laboratory Identification and Classification of Human Needs In hie MilitaraiitCONCEPTUALIZATION OF HABITABI]LITYEXPRESSIONS FOR THE HABITABIELITY

    DATA BASE

    MCC byT. A.Davis

    DDCUSEP14 197611

    Li~

    - ~Approved~~ for public release; distribution unlimited.

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    2/62

    ITh e contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, orpromotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial indorsement or app7oval of the use of such commercial products.The findings of this report are no t to be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, unless so designated by other

    authorized documents.

    kj

    DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN ITIS NO LONGER NEEDEDDO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR

    I

    .01

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    3/62

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS 0 AGE (Whon Date Entered)S"REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORMCR RD82. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3., . PIENT-S CATALOG NUMBER IiINTERIM "r p ' _._NCEPTUALIZATION OF COEABITABILIRESSIO

    TH E HABITABILITY DATABASE, -Y" 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

    7. AUT OR - 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(')T. A Davis9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMeNT, PROJECT. TASKCONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSP.O. Box 4005 4A7C2719AT03-0O-001Champaign, IL 1820I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12, REPORT DAT,

    Au g s i-97 6.___6014. MONITORING ENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from ControllingOffice) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

    Unclassified-Sa. DECL !.SSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING

    SCHEDULE- 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

    17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

    18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESCopies are obtainable from National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 2215119. KE Y WORDS (Continue on reverse side if neceasary and identify by block number)

    ' , o. STRACT (Continue on reverse sid. If neceasary and Identi y by block number)*.Habitability is efined and documents containing statements on habitabilityare identified within the context of the Corps of Engineers facility delivery

    process. This process is escribed as a cycle of events that includes masterplanning, construction programming, project development, design, and constructionThree generic and ten specific habitability expressions are conceptualizedwhich relate properties of occupant activities (physical, physiological,and mental) to properties of facilities (dimensions of length, width, light"land sound levels, temperature, etc.). Three expressions of cost-effectivenessDD ,AN73 1473 EDITION OF , OV 65 IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED ', .

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W e Data Entered)

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    4/62

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)Block 20 continued.Aire conceptualized as ratios of the dollar cost of a facility, facility

    property, or property categories divided by units of occupant needs forhealth, safety, performance and satisfactions. Structural, content, andtechnical assumptions are given, and data categories are defined by example.Nurther steps toward the development of prototype expressions are outlined.k

    \4

    ItM

    iNils

    ......................~ CODS

    / UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(W/hen Data Enterad)

    ifill

    All

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    5/62

    FOREWORDThis research was conducted for the Directorate of Military Con-

    struction, Offize of the Chief of Engineers (OCE), under Project' 1.01.012 4A762719AT03, "Architectural Research and Development in Supportof Military Facilities," Task 01, "Architectural Criteria for Planningand Design of Military Facilities for Meeting Human Requirements," and WorkUnit 001, "Identification and Classification of Human Needs in the MilitaryFacilIity."

    v! OCE technical monitors for this work unit were Richard Cramer andRobert Shibley.

    The work was performed by the Architecture Branch (HPA), FacilitiesHabitability and Planning Division (HP), Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratory (CERL), Champaign, Illinois. Dr. Roger L. Brauer was PrincipalInvestigator and Thomas A. Davis was Associate Investigator. Mr. RobertPorter is Chief of HPA, and Dr. Robert Dinnat is Chief of HP.

    COL M. D. Remus is Commander and Director of CERL, and Dr. L. R.) Shaffer is Deputy Director.

    K3

    L.Li

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    6/62

    CONTENTS

    DD FORM 1473FOREWORD 3LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 6

    1 INTRODUCTION ...... .... .......................... oBackgroundApproachPurpose of Report

    9 THE CORPS FACILITY DELIVERY PROCESS ... .............. .I.Major ActivitiesDocuments Containing Habitability StatementsHabitability Statements

    3 DEFINITIONS ..... ... .......................... . 16Research GoalsHabitability ConfigurationHabitability PropertiesContextual PropertiesHabitability ExpressionsHabitability Properties CategoriesHabitability Expression Strengths

    HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS ..... ........... 34GeneralHealth of IndividualsSafety of IndividualsPerformance of IndividualsSatisfaction of Individuals

    HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS ... ............GeneralPerformance of Organizations

    HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONS FOR GROUPS .... .............. .. 45GeneralHealth of GroupsSafety of GroupsPerformance as Sum of IndividualsPerformance of OrganizationsSatisfaction of Groups

    7 HABITABILITY COST-EFFECTIVENESS EXPRESSIONS .. .......... .. 50GeneralSpecific Cost-Effectiveness Expressions

    4

    4,

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    7/62

    CONTENTS (cont'd)

    8 ASSUMPTIONS ...... ........................... 54Content AssumptionsStructural AssumptionsTechnical Assumptions9 SUMMARY AN D RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 58Summary

    RecommendationsREFERENCES 59DISTRIBUTION

    4

    I

    j.~7J

    4l

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    8/62

    FIGURES

    Number Page1 Cycle of Activities in Corps Facility Delivery Process 122 Relationship of Documents Containing Habitability 12Statements and Major Activities of Facility Delivery

    Process3 Elements of Habitability-Significant Statements 144 Interrelationships of Habitability Statements 155 What Are Relationships of Needs to Facilities? 166 Habitability as Relationships Between Personnel 17

    Needs and Built FacilitiesI 7 Habitability and Occupants 18

    - 8 Habitability, Occupants, and Occupant Needs 199 Habitability Contextual Category Relationships 2010 Habitability Paradigm 2111 Habitability Properties and Property Categories 2412 Contextual Properties and Property Categories 2813 Habitability and Contextual Properties 2914 Sample Priority Matrix and Prediction Model Format 5215 Comfort Frequency Count 57

    TABLES1 Occupant Habitability Properties 222 Facility Habitability Properties 233 Occupant Contextual Properties 264 Facility Contextual Properties 27

    6

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    9/62

    TABLES (cont'd)Number Page

    5 Occupant Activities 316 Metabolic Rates for Occupant Air Climate Categories 327 Habitability Expression Form 348 Individual Health Habitability 359 Individual Safety Habitability 36

    10 Individual Performance Habitability 3711 Individual Satisfaction Habitability 3812 Thermal Sensation Scale 3913 Organization Performance Habitability 43-i4 Planning Formula for Determining Floor Space Require- 44ments for an Instructional Laboratory15 Group Health Habitability 4516 Group Safety Habitability 4617 Group Performance Habitability 4718 Group Performance Habitability 4819 Group Satisfaction Habitability 49

    iiii

    7

    T, .- n

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    10/62

    SPREGEDIM~ P ANk.DCNOT VIU4ED

    CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONSFOR THE HABITABILITY DATA BASE

    1 INTRODUCTIONBackground

    This report is part of an overall study to develop procedures togenerate, evaluate, and communicate criteria which relate personnel re-quirements to architectural requirements. Specifically, the researchwill develop procedures which (1) identify physical, social, and psycholo-gical (personnel) requirements; (2) identify functional and technical(architectural) requirements; (3) ccurately define relationshipsbetween personnel requirements and architectural requirements so thatcriteria can be developed from them; and (4) provide a means for collect-ing, analyzing, storing, and retrieving such relationship data in orderto support criteria development and habitability research.

    To date, work on the first three requirements has centered on develop-ment of an "objective definition of habitability," while the fourth re-quirement has been addressed by development of a prototype "HabitabilityData Base" (HDB).

    AproachA theoretical position on facility evaluation' was analyzed for

    application to data categorization, storage, and retrieval in the HDB.Research literature to be stored in the HDB was coded, analyzed, andcompared to the theoretical position. Data category inductions weremade from the research literature and the theoretical position modified.The modified theoretical position is reported herein. This modifiedtheory will be compared to habitability research data, habitabilityexpressions developed from the conceptualizations herein, and the theoryfurther modified as necessary to be consistent with the expressions.

    During this approach to an objective definition of habitabilitythree kinds of habitability statements were identified: requirements,expressions, and criteria. Each kind of statement was subjected tointensive analysis to ascertain its structure, content, and method ofZ; formulation. A study of habitability criteria has been reported by

    T. A. Davis, "Evaluating for Environmental Measures," Proceedings ofthe 2nd Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference,EDRA IT, Archea and Eastman, eds. (1970).

    9

    ktol

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    11/62

    Davis 2; habitability requirements are studied by Davis' in onceptuali-zation of Habitability Requirements for the Habitability Data Base, andhabitability expressions are conceptualized in his report.

    Purpose of ReportThe purpose of this report is o set forth a conceptualization of

    the term "objective definition of habitability." The conceptualizationis tructured as a set of mathematical functions containing propertiesof facilities related to properties of occupants. The objective defini-tion is xpected to be useful in hree applications. Two of theseapplications support the need to predict the utility and effectivenessof environments to be built for human occupancy through the generationand communication of criteria for facility evaluations an d designs,and through design evaluations:

    1. To form a basis for determining which habitability performancecriteria need to be formulated as defined in R 415-20.' These criteriafind application in he master planning, construction programming, projectdevelopment, design, and construction of Army facilities.

    J 2. To justify the structure and content of the habitability per-formance criteria found primarily in he Department of the Army Technical4.Manual (DA/TM) 5-800 series the Department of Defense (DOD) 4270.1,s andthe DA Design Guide (DG) series. These criteria find application in he*master planning, construction programming, project development, design,construction of Army facilities.

    The third application also supports the new construction applica-tions, plus the need to allocate resources to existing facilities forrehabilitation and maiptenance:

    3. To conceptualize procedures with which to allocate dollarsL:cost-effectively to the separate properties and constructs of existingand planned facilities. This procedure equates facility dollar costs

    to occupant needs.

    ST. A. Davis, "Formulating Habitability Criteria From Research Infor-mation," Programming for Habitability, W. F. E. reiser, ed. (Depart-ment of Architecture, University of Illinois, 1974).T.. Davis, Conceotualization f Habitability Requirements for theHabitability Data Base, Interim Report D-69 (Construction EngineeringResearch Laboratory [CERL], 1976).4 Department of the Army, Project Development and Design Approval,AR 415-20 (March 1974).5 Department of Defense, Construction Criteria Manuzl, DOD 4270.1(March 1968).

    10

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    12/62

    2 THE CORPS FACILITY DELIVERY PROCESSMajor Activities

    In ts mission of delivering facilities for DA occupancy, theCorps of Engineers engages in ive major activities:61. Master planning2. Construction programming3. Project development4. Design% 5. Construction.

    The interrelationships of these activities ar e depicted in igure 1as a cycle of events beginning and ending with "occupancy."

    Documents Containing Habitability StatementsDocumentation of the policies and procedures which structure thefacility delivery process, as well as the requirements and criteriaJwhich specify the facility to be built, contain sentences which statethe known, the believed-to-be, the desirable, and/or the expectedrelationships between the occupants and the facilities to be built for

    their activities. All such statements are operationally defined here tobe descriptive of "habitability." AlthQugh the word "habitability" maynever occur in a given document, all documents which were found tocontain a significant number of statements on the relationships betweenoccupants and facilities have been labeled "documents containing habi-tability statements." Three such documents have been identified: ' (1) Ithe DOD 4270.1, (2)te DA Design Guides, and (3) he TM 5-800 series.Habitability information is ccasionally found in ther policy guidance,

    S but these three documents are specifically designed to include suchWi information.

    Three other documents were identified which establish policy on thetypes of habitability statements to be included in "habitability docu-ments": (1) R 210-20, (2) R 415-15, and (3) R 415-20.The relationship between these documents is hown in igure 2, hich

    also shows their relationship to the five major activities of the facilitydelivery process.

    W. reiser and R. rauer, Analysis of MC A Cycle Procedures for Impacton the Habitability of Facilities, Technical Report (CERL [Draft]).Preiser and Brauer[I's

    ll 1

    1~%

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    13/62

    OCCUPANCY EXISTINGCONSTRUCTION

    MASTERCONSTRUCTION PLANNING

    CONSTRUCTIONDESIGN PLANNING

    PROJECTDEVELOPMENT

    Figure 1. Cycle of activities in the Corps facility delivery process.

    ACTIVITY POLICY SUBSTANCE

    MASTER PLANNING AR 210- 20CONST. PROGRAMMING AR 415-15 DOD 4270. 1-11PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AR 415-2 TM 5-800 SERIES

    (DESIGN ,, DESIGN GUIDESi CONSTRUCTION

    Figure 2. Relationship of documents containing habitability statementsand major activities of facility delivery process.

    12,iI

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    14/62

    Habitability StatementsWithin the habitability documents above, five kinds of statements

    have been identified which are significant to habitability:1. Occupant needs2. Habitability requirements3. Habitability expressions4. Habitability criteria5. Facility specifications.

    These statements are used to develop the logic which translates occupantactivities into instructions to architects; they describe the desirableor preferred properties of a facility. The word "occupant" is ullydefined below to include individuals, groups of individuals, or organi-zations using facilities for their own purposes.Occupant needs are statements describing occupant health, safety,

    performance, and satisfaction. Because they constitute the four cate-gories for which habitability expressions are conceptualized, needs arefully defined in a separate section below.

    Facility specifications ar e statements containing descriptive orprescriptive terms for items such as materials, equipment, and floor plansto be provided in a facility. An example is "a ecture classroom30 x 50 ft" (HDB document 010). Specifications are normally includedfor engineering, architectural, or economic reasons rather than forhabitability purposes.Habitability requirements, expressio,s, and criteria were identifiedin reliminary work 8 for the HD B which ripports the work reported here.The essential differences in he statenit.its can be seen by examiningthe elements of each as shown in igure 3.Habitability requirements are statements of occupant objectives,goals, intentions, values, etc., for facilities in rder that occupant

    needs can be fulfilled in hem. An example is Whenever human beingsare present in losed spaces, the gaseous products of respiration,combustion from chemical processes, and excessive heat dissipated shouldbe promptly and effectively removed by ventilation" (HDB document 028).A systematic approach to the generation of habitability requirementsfrom occupant needs is escribed ina separate report.

    T. A. avis, "Systemizing Man-Environment Information: Toward aModel of Man-Environment Relations," Man-Environment Systems, Vol 4(1974), pp 181-184.9 T. A. avis, Conceptualization of Habitability Requirements fo r theHabitability Data Base, Interim Report D-69 (CERL, 1976).

    13

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    15/62

    cc,

    4L

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    16/62

    Habitability expressions, the subject of this report, are used toexpress assumptions, generalizations and research findings. The arestatements of occupant activities as a function of facility properties.An example is: disease transmission is a function of floor area per manin sleeping spaces. Habitability expressions are generally and specif-ically defined in the following sections.

    Habitability criteria are habitability statements that can be usedeither prescriptively for new facilities, or as standards against whichan existing facility can be evaluated. An example is: "Inside heatingdesign temperatures.. .should conform to the following: living and admin-istrative areas - inactive employment 70F..." (HDB document 028). Asystematic approach to the formulation of habitability criteria fromhabitability requirements and expressions is described in an earlierpublication.

    The relationships among these five kinds of statements 3re depictedin Figure 4 as a sequence of events from occupant to completed facility.Two events (or processes) in Figure 4 have not been discussed here:generalizations and designs. Generalizations are statements which takespecific needs, requirements, or expressions and claim that they areprobably valid for other or larger situations."1 Designs are facilityconceptualizations contained in plans and specifications, decor cata-logues, or any other document which identifies a specific physicalfacility for an occupant need.

    OCCUPANT FACILITY

    OCCUPANT NEEDS FACILITY DESIGN

    :HABITABILITY REQUIREMENTS HABITABILITY CRITERIA

    HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONS GENERALIZATIONS

    Figure 4. Interrelationships of habitability statements.U T. A. Davis, "Formulating Habitability Criteria From Research Infor-

    mation," Programming for Habitability, W. F. E. Preiser, ed. (Depart-ment of Architecture, University of Illinois, 1974).Davis, "Formulating Habitability Criteria From Research Information."

    15

    !" j

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    17/62

    3 DEFINITIONSResearch Goals

    Within the context of the facility delivery process described above,this research project has the goal "to objectively define the relation-ships between Army personnel needs and the design of physical spacesand environmental features."'2 To clarify these terms, the followingdefinitions have been adopted.

    "To objectively define" means to synthesize and combine quantifiedrelationship statements into mathematical expressions. The statementscontain measurements quantifying properties of built facilities (e.g.,' length, width, and distance to a wall), related to measurements quanti-fying properties of occupants and their activities (e.g., their physicalbehavior, physiological states, and/or opinions, attitudes, and beliefs).

    "The relationship between" refers to the fit of built facilitiesto Army activities (i.e., the Army as an organization) and to Amypersonnel activities (a s individuals acting alone or in groups).

    "Amy personnel needs" is a shortened expression for the need toAca-y ot.t Army tasks in built facilities within acceptable lewls ofnuman hialth, safety, and satisfaction.

    "The design of physical spaces and environmental features" refersto the built facilities which are occupied (or to be occupied) byArmy personnel. This phrase does not refer to the process of designitself, or to plans and/or specifications for facilities.a The problem posed by the above definitions can be simply statedas follows: what are the relationships between Army personnel needsand the built facilities they occupy (or are to occupy)? This questionis portrayed in Figure 5.

    RMY WHAT ARE THE iLT jNEEDS RELATIONSHIPS FACILITIES

    Figure 5. What are relationships of needs to facilities?

    , "Identification and Classification of Human Needs in the Military Facil-ity " FY75 Final Research and Investigation Program (CERL, July 1974).16.'

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    18/62

    In the definitions which follow, the phrase "Army personnelneeds" is operationally defined in sections entitled "Occupants" and"Occupant Needs." The phrase "Army Built Facilities" is operationallydefined in sections entitled "Habitability Properties" and "ContextualProperties." Finally, the phrase "What is the Relationship" is definedin sections entitled "Habitability," "Habitability Expressions," and"Habitability Expression Strengths."Habitability

    Habitability is the word used to describe the degree of fit of builtfacilities to occupants' needs. The more a facility fosters or "allows"the needs of the occupants, the better the fit; i.e., the more habitablethe facility. Habitability, then, is a construct used technically hereto represent the phrase "the relationship between" as defined above an dportrayed in Figure 5. This construct is shown in Figure 6.

    , ARMY- ARMYPERSONN4EL BUILT7 _______ ~ HABITABILITFY ANEEDS FACILITIESFigure 6. Habitability as relationships between personnel

    needs an d built facilities.This definition treats habitability as a system in which occupants

    V interact with built facilities. The "degree of fit" is the state of thesystem at a particular time and place. The habitability expressionsconceptualized below quantify those states.Occupants

    q For habitability purposes, the word "occupants" is substitutedfor "Army personnel." Occupants are operationally defined to includethree categories of users of built facilities:

    1. Individual2. Group3. Organization.An individual is one person acting alone. A group is two or more indi-viduals acting as a formal or informal team, committee, or task force.Examples of the latter are committees on safety, value engineering, costreduction, etc.--who might make recommendations on policy, but do not

    17

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    19/62

    publish official policy statements (except for their own internal pro-cedures).

    Groups are treated either or both of two ways: as the sum ofindividuals of which they are composed, or as organizations if theycan and do issue official policy statements. An organization is theArmy and/or one of its administrative subdivisions. For this purpose,an organization is a paper concept. With the exception of the commanderof an administrative unit, statements made by members (either individualsor groups) of an organization are usually considered to be theirs asindividuals (or groups) unless the organization officially publishesthem as policy. The three categories of users are shown in Figure 7,which is a further analysis of the elements of Figure 6.

    1NDjV dUAL HABITABILITY BUILT:-OUP FACILITIES:ORGANIZATION

    Figure 7. Habitability and occupants.

    Occupant NeedsFour categories of "needs" have been inferred from DOD and DAliterature containing construction information:1. Health2. Safety3. Performance4. Satisfaction.

    "Health" represents the concepts inferred from phrases such as "wel-fare," "life-support," "protection from thermal hazards," "maintenanceof necessary physiological states." Health applies to individuals aloneand in groups, but not to organizations.

    "Safety" represents the concepts inferred from phrases such assafe range of acoustical noise," "safe (and adequate) passageways,""safety factors, including minimization of .... " As with health,safety applies to individuals alone and in groups, but not to organi-zations.

    "Performance" represents the concepts inferred from phrases suchas "functional requirements," "human performance," "human engineering,""t o perform operation and maintenance tasks," "efficient arrangement ofworkplaces." Performance applies to all three categories of occupants.

    18 -

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    20/62

    "Satisfaction" represents the concepts inferred from such phrasesas "minimize discomfort," "satisfactory," "adequate," "attractive,""acceptable," "nonrestrictive," "minimizing psychophysiological stressand fatigue." Satisfaction applies to individuals alone and in groups,but not to organizations.

    Formal operational definitions of these needs are given in Chapter4. Under normal (noncombat) conditions, the four categories of needscan be considered in ascending order in the study of habitability: thehealth and safety of personnel as necessary pre-conditions to all taskperformance, and all three as necessary a priori conditions to individ-ual satisfaction. The four needs categories are shown by occupantcategory in Figure 8, which is a continued analysis of Figures 6 and 7.

    ORGANIZATION NEEDSVASE PERFOWO#4NCE

    ,G. OUP NEEDS SBHEALTHIAFETY* HABITABILITYTARMYPERFORNANCE AND FACILITIES , TI~UFAcTiON AILTE

    CINDIVIDUAL NEEDSSIfLT$, SAFETY, TA SKPPfFR11AN4E . AND'[,..S&TlSFACT ON

    Figure 8. Habitability, occupants, and occupant needs.Hbitability Configuration

    This section is an analysis of the configuration in which habita-bility occurs. Elements of the configuration are:1. OccupantHabitability properties

    Contextual properties2. Facility

    Habitability propertiesContextual properties

    3. Equipmentii 19

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    21/62

    The configuration includes elements both without and within the directhabitability relationship. Elements within include habitability proper-ties of both occupant and facilities, plus any equipment (furniture,machines, etc.) which is present in a setting. Elements without includecontextual properties of both occupant and facilities. In other words,habitability occurs within a context of organizational climate, roleexpectancies and rewards, learning, productivity, and so on. And withina built facility, other man-equipment and man-man kinds of activitiesoccur which are contextual to the study of habitability. The relation-ships among these categories are shown in Figure 9, which is an elabor-ation of Figure 8.

    Figure 9 also indicates that the study of occupant-equipment rela-tionships is in the field of human factors (or time and motion study,ergonomics, etc.) Similarly, the study of equipment-facility relation-ships is shown to be expressed by engineering data.

    .. r 'i FURNISHINGS

    OCCUPHUTAN

    Figure 9. Habitability contextual category relationships.It an be observed that under normal conditions the study of the occu-pant-equipment (or man-made) interface is ot concerned with consider-ations of habitability as defined above. Studies of habitabilityusually show little concern for the anthropometry, for example, of theman-machine interface. On a larger scale, studies of such factors asorganizational climate and learning are usually unconcerned with habi-tability. On the other hand, habitability studies seldom consider suchfactors as organizational climate and learning, probably because it isdifficult to claim their improvement (under "normal" conditions) as aS result of improved habitability alone.

    ' One conclusion that can be drawn from the above observations isi that wide ranges of habitability conditions are considered "normal". , enough to be ignored by those who study humans and human activities inthe facilities they occupy.A second conclusion is hat in rder to generalize habitability

    data, the study of habitability must consider a wide range of contextual

    20

    FACTOR EN

    DATA DAT

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    22/62

    variables, which include all other influences such as socio-organiza-tional, economic, psychophysiological, and natural setting elements.

    A third conclusion is hat the study of habitability must take intoaccount a wide range of tasks of occupants of facilities, each of whichmay have special and unique habitability requirements.

    The above observations and conclusions lead to an operationalstatement of a paradigm for the study of habitability as depicted inFigure 10. In his paradigm the equipment context has been combinedwith the facility context; in ther words habitability occurs in hecontext of occupants in a facility containing equipment/furnishings.These terms are specified to the level of measurable properties inthe sections which follow.

    ~~1 ~~OCCUPANT AZIT

    }CCUANT HABITABILITY 4ILITY jONTEXT CONTEXTFigure 10. Habitability paradigm.

    Habitability PropertiesMeasures of properties of occupants and facilities must answerspecific habitability questions such as:- How healthy are the air, water, sound levels, light levels, etc.?- Ho w safe are the work stations, corridors, doors, etc.?- Ho w functional are the work statiQns, equipment, etc.?- How comfortable are the air, sound, lighting, etc.?- How closely do the color scheme, equipment configurations, etc.,conform to occupant preferences?

    On a more general level, further questions can be posed:- How aesthetically pleasing are the configuration, arrangement,

    color scheme, etc., of a room?- What is the motivation of each individual occupant as a resultof the built facility appointments and arrangements?What is he morale of the operating unit as a result of the

    built facility appointments and arrangements?These questions about habitability are not in a form which can beanswered directly. To be answerable, each question must first be put

    21

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    23/62

    fin a specific form that identifies the occupants, their needs, and thebuilt facilities being occupied.jI

    Both the questions an d answers must contain data on propertieswhich are descriptive of both occupants and facilities. Categoriesof properties which yield measures of properties responsive to habit-ability ar e as follows: for individuals and groups--physical, physio-logical and mental accivities; fo r organizations and groups--structuraland content activities; and for built facilities--the space; light;~sound; air climate; and chemical, structural, motion and "other" radia-tion environments. Tables 1 an d 2 contain listings of these categoriesplus examples of habitability properties which occur in ach category.Figure 11 shows their relationships in a habitability diagram.

    JJTable 1

    Habitability Properties

    Scale Category Habitability PropertiesIndividual Physical Activities Body posture, involvement, and move-

    ment; time beginning, end; frequency;etc.Physiological Blood pressure, respiration rate,Activities sense acuities, etc.Mental Activities Units of learning, manipulation, etc.;

    opinions, attitudes, and beliefsabout properties of built facilities.

    Organization Structural Activities Changes in ob specs, lines ofauthority and responsibility,communication nets, operationalpolicies and procedures, etc.

    Content Activities Changes in opulation counts ofstructural nodes; changes in nputsand outputs, etc.Group as Sum (Same as Individual) Average, standard deviation, maximum,of Individuals minimum, etc., of individual pro-perty measured.Group as (Same as Organization) (Same as Organization).Organization

    22

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    24/62

    -- -Table 2

    Facility Habitability Properties

    Scale Category Habitability PropertiesStation Space Length, width, height, shape,location, etc., of assigned volumes.

    Light Light sources, direction, backgroundlimits, glare of surfaces, etc.

    Sound Sound sources, direction, backgroundand intermittent decibels, reflection

    K} from surfaces, etc.IAir Climate Temperature, humidity, radiation flowand amount, air velocity, etc.Structure Nominal descriptions of materials

    (steel, wood, etc.) and finish (paint,paper, etc.) of floor, ceiling, walls,openings, utilities and furnishings.Motion Floor deflection, building sway, accel-eration and deceleration of convey-ances, etc.Air Chemicals Concentrations of ai r particles andgases emitted by the facility and

    yielding odor, taste, etc.Other Radiation Other than light and sound; frequency

    and amplitude of nuclear, infra-red,radio, TV, etc., radiation from thefacility.Room or (Same as Station) (Same as Station)Functionali Area, Build.-ing, Vehicleor Complex

    23

    I

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    25/62

    1j3( 0 g . - . W,

    .9 0a Wtn tn M EJ~

    UU

    0 -1)r 005-04-)CL.U

    .J 0D 4-)

    w -.w~~ ~. -:. 59C- -oj)

    o w.0

    0 w 0C...t 4L < .=Lt-x.. Lo

    ---- ---- 4 0 44L.

    I.-w W

    0.8

    42

    fb.

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    26/62

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    27/62

    Table 3Occupant Contextual Properties

    Scale Category Contextual PropertiesIndividual Physical Height, weight, gross motion limita-Capacities tions and capabilities, etc.

    Physiological Normal blood pressure, respirationCapacities rate, sense acuities, etc.Mental I.Q., advancement scores, opinionsCapacities attitudes, and beliefs about contex-

    tual properties.0'Biography Socio-economic data such as birthdate, age, race, income, education,previous experience, etc.Needs Health, safety, task performance,and satisfactions.

    Organization Structure Job specifications, lines of author-ity and responsibilities, communica-tion nets, operating policies andprocedures, etc.

    Content Population counts at structural nodes;inputs and outputs, etc.History Age, income levels, growth counts,previous structures and contents,eetc., socio-economic data.

    Needs Task performance.Group as Sum (Same as Average, standard deviation, maximum,of Individuals Individual) minimum, etc., of individual measures

    of properties.Group as Organ- (Same as (Same as Organization).ization Organization)

    26

    U-1i &

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    28/62

    Table 4/ Facility Contextual Properties

    Scale Location Contextual PropertiesStation Location Stations per room, building, etc.;other stations, rooms, and relation-ships; compass directions, geographiclocation and features, elevation, etc.

    Air Climate Average, maximum, minimum, temperature,rainfall, wind velocity, humidity, sun-shine, etc.

    Weather Air climate at time of observation.Equipment Nominal descriptions of machinery and

    furnishings, plus utilities required.Air Chemical Atmospheric concentrations of airparticles and gases yielding odor,

    taste, etc.Other Radiation Frequency, amplitude, direction, etc.,of other (not the sun), nonfacility

    radiation (e.g., nuclear, infra-red,radio, TV, etc.)

    Room, Func- (Same as (Same as Station).tional Area, Station)Building,Vehicle,Complex

    27

    77lik

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    29/62

    FACILITY FACILITYCONTEXTUAL CONTEXTUALPROPERTIES PROPERTYCATEGORI ES

    WEATHEREQUIPMENT >

    '* I AI R CLIMATE 2 I .LATITUDE AIR CHEMICAL0

    ELEVATION LOCATIONETC. RADIATION

    I s-)3i:>d: CL

    S311LDVdVD -4-,

    CLC

    AHVSIHI8NOI1VZINV9O 0

    S3180931.V)S31183dOJd A183dO~dI1 vOiX3INO) ivnIX31NO)lNvdfl)o iNvdf))o

    28

    -------

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    30/62

    (CONTEXTUAL DATA HABITABILITTY DATA

    a)

    NOIIVIO~h0 a .1~3 o -LNCIIVA313 NOIYO1 0

    4-)

    r-

    ORGANIZATION~ BIOGRAPHYHISTORY -PHYSIOLOGICAL _

    CAPACITIES 0PHYSIAL w.CAPACITIESHEIGHT _ _ _ _ _ _

    LLw 0 0

    w ow

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    31/62

    When an occupant property is hown to be the function of several facil-ity properties, the FH subscript i is eferred to a table of values ofmore than one facility property. This is he state of the art today.The most sophisticated habitability expressions occur in ir climate,where occupant satisfaction votes in a given context have been shown tobe a function of several air climate properties. 1 4

    A more general case occurs when occupant and facility propertiescan be expressed as functions of each other in a given context. Thisrepresents a situation such as the following:1. Occupants cold as a function of air temperature.2. Air temperature raised as a function of occupant body heat.3. Occupants comfortable as a function of air temperature.

    These three interactions can be expressed as follows:f(OH i) = f(FH i) [Eq 2]

    Again, the subscript i can be replaced by a table of values to indicatemore than one property is nvolved.

    Th e most general case occurs when occupant and facility propertiescan be expressed as functions of each other in or e than on e occupantcontext (OC) and/or facility context (FC):

    f(OH i, OCi) = f(FH i, FCi) [Eq 3]In he habitability expressions conceptualized in hapters 4

    through 6, he form of Eq 1 is sed. Each expression is one-directionaland the contextual properties are removed from the expression and statedas an a priori condition to it.

    Habitability Properties CategoriesContinuing the definitions of terms, the "objective definition"called for in he description of research goals above should ultimately

    express the interaction of all occupant properties with al l facilityiproperties in ll contexts of al l Army occupants at their activitiesin ll built facilities. This is he situation expressed by Eq 3. The

    state of the art today is t the level of expressions in he modifiedform of Eq 1: for a given occupant and facility context, OH = f(FH.).An example of this expression is: occupant air comfort votes (OH) Are afunction of facility properties (FHi) f temperature, humidity, radiation,etc. This example is xplained in etail below.

    14 P. 0. Fanger, Thermal Comfort (Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press,1970).30

    --

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    32/62

    To move from the one-directional Eq 1 to the two-directional Eq 2,the habitability properties of occupant activities must be packaged intocategories that are compatible with facility habitability propertycategories. Six of the facility categories are relevant to facilitydesign (space, light, sound, air climate, motion, and structure), andtwo are more relevant to environmental design (air chemicals and otherradiation). The occupant categories suggested above are physical,physiological, and mental. These categories were selected for theirutility in categorizing data into a data base rather than for theirrelevance to the facility categories. Thus 16 categories of occupanthabitability properties that are relevant to the eight facility cate-gories must be established--eight for individuals and eight for organi-zations.

    One occupant habitability property category coded in the HDB couldbe relevant for matching occupant data to facility categories. Occupantactivities (not necessarily occupant responses) are coded as shown inTable 5.

    Table 5Occupant Activities

    1. Gross motor (body and limbs)2. Micro motor (digits, facial expressions, etc.)3. Mental performance4. Mental opinions, attitudes, and beliefs (OAB's)5. Physiological performance6. Perceptual performance7. Emotions8. Social structural activity9. Social content activity

    4!One other category is suggested for individual occupants from a

    table in Fanger which lists metabolic rates for different levels ofactivity."5 A visual inspection of Fanger's table indicates that fivecategories could represent individual activity levels (see Table 6)which could be used for the development of habitability expressionsfor air climate.

    The two examples suggested in Tables 5 and 6 show that to be rele-vant to facility habitability properties categories, occupant habita-bility properties categories must:

    P. 0. Fanger, Thermal Comfort (Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press,1970), p 24.

    4.- 7-,717

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    33/62

    Table 6Metabolic Rates for Occupant Air Climate Categories*

    Sedentary0 60 kcal/hr m2 e.g., sleeping, seated quietly, standing still,relaxed.Low61 - 120 kcal/hr m, e.g., walking on the level to 4.0 km/hr,while packing boxes, filling bottles, standing and machine sawing,general lab work, light machine work.Medium

    11- 80u kcal/nr mi2, e.g., walking on the level to 6.2 Km/flr;standing and operating pneumatic hammer; replacing tires, machine" j fitting, etc.

    - i, L 181 - 240 kcal/hr mmolds in a m, e.g., standing and sawing by hand, tippingmolds in a foundry, heavy machine work, pick and shovel work, etc.Very High241-plus kcal/hr m2 , e.g. standing and planing by hand, roughing infoundry, tending furnace, removing slag, digging trenches.

    *Information from P. 0. Fanger, Thermal Comfort (Copenhagen: DanishTechnical Press, 1970), p 24.

    32

    - - ... . _f.b,

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    34/62

    1. Represent properties of occupant activities2. Be independent of facility settings3. Be countable and measurable for all occupant activities and

    facility settings.

    Habitability Expression StrengthsThree categories of habitability expression strengths are suggested:correlations, producer-product, and cause-effect. Correlations are the

    weakest, and simply mean that there are concomitant variations in botha property of a built facility and in a property of an occupant (e.g.,occupant comfort votes varying concomitantly with air temperature). Cor-relation statements are not involved in causality.Cause-effect expressions are the strongest, and mean that a propertyof a built facility is necessary and sufficient for an occupant activity

    (e.g., under normal atmospheric conditions, striking a bell is necessaryand sufficient to produce a ringing). Cause-effect expressions willseldom be available, because the built facility is normally supportiveof rather than the cause of occupant activities.Between the categories of correlations and cause-effect there isa probabilistic or nondeterministic category called producer-product.These expressions can be used for habitability statements specifyingnecessary built facilities for occupant activities (e.g., artificialillumination in order to read in a windowless room). They are usefulto structure habitability expressions, but do not contribute countsor measures to the content of the expressions. In other words, theysuggest which properties are to be included, but not how much.

    33

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    35/62

    14 HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS

    GeneralIn the discussions of individual habitability below, specific

    properties of individuals' activities are used as examples. In ll fourneed categories, although specific examples may not be given, there isalways the potential of relating physical, physiological, and/or mentalproperties to facility properties. For the sake of continuity andunderstanding, the same table format will be used throughout the nextthree chapters to relate specific terms to generic terms in habitabilityexpressions. The basic format is shown in Table 7.

    Table 7Habitability Expression Form

    NEED CATEGORYEEI TEM)SEIIEMOCCUPANT

    PROPERTIESCATEGORIES

    HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIP

    CATEGORIESPROPERTIESOCCUPANT

    'I,

    34

    fill

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    36/62

    Health of IndividualsIndividual health habitability is depicted in Table 8. For an y

    specific combination of occupant and facility contexts, individualhealth habitability can also be expressed as a mathematical functioncorresponding to Eq 1; for example:

    individual attendance rate, etc.- f(temperature, air velocity, etc.) [Eq 4]

    Eq 4 has potential for expressing adverse climatal situations or heavypollutant conditions, where the attendance rate might be minutes pe rhour or per day, and the facility properties extreme. Other potentialapplications include physiological measurements such as blood pressureas a function of background noise or respiration rate as a function ofair velocity, polluting gases (ppm), smoke (ppm), etc.

    Table 8Individual Health Habitability

    HEALTHSGENERIC TERM SPECIFIC TERMS

    OCCUPANT INDIVIDUALATTENDANCE RATE, BLOOD

    PROPERTIES PRESSURE, MENTAL HEALTHSCORES, ETC.SITTING INTERACTIVE,CATEGORIES STANDING ACTIVE, ETC.

    *HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIP

    SPATIAL, SONIC, LUMINOUS,CATEGORIES CLIMATAL, ETC.

    TEMPERATURE, AIR VELO-PROPERTIES CITY, "NOISE" db, ETC.

    FACILITY WORK STATION

    35

    44

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    37/62

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    38/62

    per time unit; and effectiveness, which concerns the quality of theoutput. For example, given a person assembling some hardware items,both the number of assembiies completed per time unit (efficiency) andthe number that are acceptable (effectiveness) could be influenced bysuch factors as floor area, light levels, and temperature.

    Both efficiency and effectiveness are indicated in Table 10:efficiency by "gross output" and effectiveness by "net output" per timeunit. For any specific combination of individual and facility contexts,they can be expressed as a single mathematical function corresponding toEq 1; for example,

    individual output (gross, net)/time unit= f(floor area, temperature, (light level, etc.) [Eq 6]

    Table 10Individual Performance Habitability

    [:7 I2M PERFORMANCE SOCCUPANT INDIVIDUAL

    PROPERTIES GROSS AND NET OUTPUT PERTIME UNIT.

    CATEGORIES SITTING INTERACTIVE,STANDING ACTIVE, ETC.

    HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIPIQ-CATEGORIES SPATIAL, SONIC, ETC.PROPERTIES TEMPERATURE, LIGHT LEVEL,FLOOR AREA, ETC.

    FACILITY WORK STATION

    37

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    39/62

    Satisfaction of IndividualsIndividual satisfaction habitability is depicted in Table 11. Forany specific combination of occupant and facility contexts, it can be

    expressed as a mathematical function as follows; for example'individual votes, etc.= f(temperature, sound level, light level, etc.) [E q 7]

    _Table _1Individual Satisfaction Hauitability

    SATISFACTIONGENEIERMI SPECIFIC IERMS

    OCCUPANT INDIVIDUALPROPERTIES AESTHETIC, COMFORT, ETC.- VOTES;PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS, ETC.CATEGORIES SITTING INTERACTIVE, STANDING

    ACTIVE, ETC.

    HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIP

    CATEGORIES SPATIAL, SONIC, ETC.PROPERTIES TEMPERATURE, LIGHT LEVEL,

    FLOOR AREA, ETC.FACILITY WORK STATION

    The term "satisfaction" is used here to represent responses. indicating comforts, aesthetics, and preferences. Much of the currentresearch on habitability elicits satisfaction votes which are usedto express occupant opinions, attitudes, and/or beliefs. By way ofillustration, Fanger's seven-point psychophysical scale of thermal sensa-tion 6 for individual predicted mean votes is shown in Table 12. From

    lb P. 0. Fanger, ThermaZ Comfort (Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press, 1970). K38

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    40/62

    these definitions, satisfaction ranges can be operationally defined asfollows:maximum 2.5 - 5.5minimum 3.6 - 4.5average 3.0 - 5.0

    Table 12Thermal Sensation Scale

    Individual Thermal AggregatingSensation Scale Aggregate SatisfactionCold i.0 - 1.5 DissatisfactionCool 1.6 -2.5 More dissatisfaction thansatisfactionSlightly Cool 2.6 3.5 More satisfaction thandissatisfactionComfortable 3.6 - 4. 5 SatisfactionSlightly Warm 4.6 - 5.5 More satisfaction thandissatisfactionWarm 5.6 -6.4 More dissatisfaction thansatisfaction

    JtHot 6.5 -7.0 Dissatisfaction

    To complete the illustration, the following is n example of Eq 7. Theexample, from Fanger, established the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) for alarge group of persons as a function of the level of their exertion,clothing, air temperature, relative air velocity, and air humidity.'7

    p. 0. anger, Thermal Comfort (Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press, 1970).

    N39

    -'_97K

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    41/62

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    42/62

    Habitability expressions for individual preferences have been re-ported earlier, 18 and are available for family housing as a computerIcalculation of predicted occupant satisfaction votes resulting fromfurniture and equipment selections.

    4''

    D. L. Dressel, et al., Predictors of Satisfaction With Housing Interiors,Technical Report D-48/ADAOIII87, Vol III (CFRL, April 1975).

    14

    I j N

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    43/62

    5 HABITABILITY EXPRESSIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONSGeneral

    As a consequence of restricting the discussion of organizationhabitability to performance, only one facility modeling unit is rele-vant. Functional activities take place in space (work stations, rooms,etc.) over time. Considerations of other environmental modeling unitssuch as climate and sound are not relevant to an organization per se,but only to the individuals and groups of individuals considered assuch.

    : IPerformance f OrganizationsPerformance habitability for organizations is depicted in Table 13.As with individuals, it represents both efficiency and effectivenessmeasures. For any specific combination of occupant and facility con-

    texts, it can be expressed as a mathematical function as in the fol-lowing example:

    organization gross and/or net output/time unitf(number of rooms, stations per room, rooms per building, etc.) [Eq 8]

    An example of a mathematical expression of organization training isshown in Table 14, which is a planning formula for determining floorspace requirements for an instructional laboratory. But by solving theequation in Table 14 for A, the average number of students (output) ineach session (time) can be expressed as a function of practice equipment,floor area per equipment item, floor area per student, and area oflaboratory, as follows:

    = BxF.y A :(BxE)+D

    This formula is in the same form as Eq 8.

    pt

    42

    7, ;4f.-

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    44/62

    Table 13Organization Performance Habi tabi l y

    PERFORMANCEI GENERIC TERMS SPECIFIC TERM J

    OCCUPANT ORGANIZATION

    PROPERTIES GROSS OR NET OUTPUT PER TIME UNIT.CATEGORIES CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION, AUTO REPAIR,

    ETC.

    HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIP4 L 4

    CATEGORIES SPATIAL

    NO. OF ROOMS, STATIONS PER ROOM,AREA PER STATION, ETC.FACILITY STATION, ROOM OR BUILDING.

    43

    1 -

    *'

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    45/62

    I iia)a) 4-Q - :S- 9-- o to=Ho "-o ) a 4-- a) =,c'

    0 0 . . a' 0S- U Q4-) 4-C t 4-CO

    F- "4- 0 CO .0-0 CO CO O- 0ro - S Wv - 5U0) 0 0S- S.C 0S- - - S~- 00 0 0 . a) 0c.-04-4J0 4-s--u. 4-Q) CES- a) .4-30o -0 4-) 0 - aW) ( C a) Ci"0-- 0L. E (D 0 0- 0- (0:

    FD

    O,- * * l$ 3 -. 0. -Ca 0 aO 0

    S. - 4- -

    0 0-4-

    V) 0-C.. -0 L) (n.Mr- 4-3' 4) C. - 00 S- too- .-) 00 o" o -

    o a+0a)U0 o s4-) M ->)

    II a L

    0)S C) S-S 4-)4

    44

    0

    +-)_g_Du a c a Ca, u )- o -

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    46/62

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    47/62

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    48/62

    IPerformance of Group as Sum of Individuals

    Task performance habitability of a group of people, as indicatedby efficiency and effectiveness measures, is depicted in Table 17. Forany specific combination of group and facility contexts, it can also beexpressed as a mathematical function:

    = group output (gross, net)/time unitf(floor area, temperature, light levels, etc.) [Eq I]

    Table 17Group Performance Habitability

    PERFORMANCE

    GENIC TERMSJ SPECIFIC TERMOCCUPANT GROUP

    PROPERTIES FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS, ETC.OF GROSS AND NET OUTPUTS PERTIME UNIT.

    CATEGORIES SITTING INTERACTIVE, STANDING ACTIVE, ETC.

    HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIP

    ACATEGORIES SPATIAL, SONIC, ETC.PROPERTIES TEMPERATURE, LIGHT LEVEL, ETC.FACILITY ROOM, FUNCTIONAL AREA

    BUILDING.

    47

    1?

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    49/62

    Performancp of Group as OrganizationsPerformance habitability of groups measured as organizationalefficiency and effectiveness is epicted in able 18. For any specificcombination of group and facility contexts, it an also be expressedas a mathematical function; for example,

    group output (gross, net)/time unit- f(number of rooms, stations per room, area per station, [Eq 12]etc.)

    Table 18Group Performance Habitability

    C PERFORMANCEGNRCTERMS SPECIFIC TERM

    OCCUPANT GROUP

    PROPERTIES NUMBER OF GROUPS, POPULATIONCOUNTS OF EACH, INPUTS, OUT r JTS,TIME, ETC.

    CATEGORIES CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION, ADMINIS-TRATION, ETC.

    HABITABILITY RELATIONSHIP

    KlCATEGORIES SPATIALPROPERTIES NUMBER OF ROOMS, STATIONS PERROOM, ETC.FACILITY STATION, ROOM, FUNCTIONAL AREA,Pc BUILDING.

    48

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    50/62

    Satisfaction of GroupsThe satisfaction habitability of groups of people is depictedin Table 19. For any specific combination of group and facilitycontexts, it can also be expressed as a mathematical function; fo rexample,

    frequency distributions, etc., of group votes, etc.= f(temperature, sound level, light level, etc.) [Eq 13]As with individual satisfaction habitability, group satisfactionhabitability can be expressed in terms of satisfaction votes, physical

    movements, and physiological measurements.

    Table 19Group Satisfaction Habitability

    SATISFACTIONENERIC TERMS SPECIFIC TERM

    OCCUPANT GROUP

    PROPERTIES FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS, ETC.;PHYSICAL [e.g. VANDALISM RATE],MENTAL OR PHYSIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES.CATEGORIES SITTING INTERACTIVE, STANDINGACTIVE, ETC.

    RELATIONSHIP

    CATEGORIES SPATIAL, SONIC, ETC.PROPERTIES TEMPERATURE, LIGHT LEVEL, ETC.FACILITY STATION, ROOM, FUNCTIONAL AREA.

    49

    .77

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    51/62

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    52/62

    An example of the application of Eq 16 can be developed usingpredictors of satisfaction with housing interiors.19 Figure 14 shows a"Sample Priority Matrix and Prediction Model Format" for refrigerators,in hich number of items to be improved is rrayed against physicalimprovements. This can be translated into a cost-effectiveness expres-sion by substituting "dollar cost" for "physical improvements," andunits of satisfaction" (distance long the scaling line) for "number ofitems to be improved." Dollars can then be divided by units of satis-faction, and the cost-effectiveness of each improvement calculated.

    As an example of the above, values for the variables in igure 14can be assumed as follows:adequate freezer space = $100adequate refrigerator space = $250good repair = $50increased mean satisfaction: one item =15 unitsincreased mean satisfaction: two items =45 unitsincreased mean satisfaction: three items = 55 units.

    The cost-effectiveness of providing each level of aggregation ofitems is hen as follows:

    C-E one item = $100/15 = $6.66/unit of staisfactionC-E two items = $100 + 250/45 = $7.77/unit of satisfactionC-E three items = $100 + 250 + 50/55 = $7.36/unit of satisfaction.Thus, the cost per unit of satisfaction is owest for one item; i.e., thefurnishing of one item is he most cost-effective of the three possibilities.

    ' D. L. ressel, et al., Predictors of Satisfaction With Housing Interiors,Technical Report D-48/ADAOIII87, Vol III (CERL, April 1975).

    fil

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    53/62

    IThe single item which has I F YOUthe strongest relation IMPROVE IMPROVEto satisfaction, andis the single best ONEprediction ofsatisfaction. TW OThe combination of THREEtwo items which hasthe strongestrelation to satis- Wfaction, and isthe best combinationof two items forprediction of satis- < wUfaction. ij ,

    New mean response Existing meandue to improvement response.of issue.

    ONE ITEMIF: F

    Freezer space Freezer spaceadequate inadequate

    THEN: Satisfactory -::Unsatisfactory

    Increased mean Existing mean !evellevel of satisfaction of satisfaction.due to improvement ofpreceding issue (s).

    Figure 14. Sample priority matrix and prediction model format. FromD. L. Dressel, et al., Predictors of Satisfaction WithHousing Interiors, Technical Report D-48/ADAOIIl87, Vol II(CERL, April 1975).

    52

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    54/62

    TWO ITEMSIF:

    Freezer space Freezer spaceadequate T_ inadequate

    AND IF:Refrigerator ,/ .. : Refrigeratorspace adequate "space inadequate

    THEN:Satisfactory -: - :Unsatisfactory

    THREE ITEMSIF: Freezer space _ Freezer space

    adequate 4inadequateAND IF:

    Refrigerator Refrigeratorspace adequate : space inadequate

    AND IF:In good repair C).I1 . in poor repair

    THEN:Satisfactory : : - Unsatisfactory

    Refrigeration features should include:1) completely automatic defrosting2) increased freezer space (as opposed to present size)3) larger refrigerated space.

    1A Refrigerators should be of the side-by-side, double-door style.

    "Q%"

    Figure 14 (cont'd)

    153 -__5i 77

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    55/62

    8 ASSUMPTIONS

    Content AssumptionsHabitability is he construct used here to describe the degree offit (i.e., the quality or effectiveness) of built facilities to Army

    and Army personnel for: (1) ask or functional performance; (2) elfare(health and safety); and (3) atisfactions (comforts, aesthetics, andpreferences). To describe this degree of fit in ny particular situation,three content assumptions are made:

    1. It is ssumed that properties of occupant activities and offacility physical objects can be used to express habitability.2. It is ssumed that the minimum contextual properties data

    needed for facility and occupant is s follows:a. Facility descriptions--location, climate, and weatherat time of observation.b. Occupant descriptions--physical, physiological, and

    mental capacities; biography; and needs.3. It is ssumed that habitability and contextual propertiescan be represented in abitability expressions by counts or measurements.

    Structural AssumptionsThe basic structural assumption is hat occupant-facility relation-ships can be meaningfplly studied in he relationship mode as shownin igure 2. Beyond that, the expressions conceptualized above do not

    indicate the potential complexity of the interactions between theseveral properties of a category or between the several categories ofproperties of a facility as they may be reflected in ccupant activities.As an indication of this complexity of interactions, the following assump-tions are made, patterned after Klapper's "emerging generalizations"about mass communications.2" For simplicity, these assumptions do notrefer to property categories, but are written only in erms of propertiesof facilities.

    The first assumption states that each property of a facility hasmaximums and minimums above and below which the property will beperceived as unsatisfactory for human use:

    2u J. T. Klapper, "What We Know About the Effects of Mass Communications:The Brink of Hope," Comnunication and Culture, A. G. mith, ed. (Holt,Rinehart, and Winston, 1966).

    54

    hk ,

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    56/62

    I There are extreme conditions (too much or too little) inwhich any property of a facility can be a direct cause for occupantdiscomfort or disfunction.

    The next two assumptions state that the built facility is only oneof many factors which make up the total context of a functional setting,and that it interacts with the other factors toward a steady (predic- table) state:

    2. The built facility does not ordinarily serve as a necessary andsufficient cause for occupant performance and comfort, but instead, actsamong and/or through a complex of mediating factors that make up thetotal context of a setting.

    . 3. These mediating factors are such that they typically renderthe built facility a contrib tory agent, but not the sole cause, ina process of reinforcing existing conditions (rather than changing them).

    The next assumption states that when the built facility does notcontribute to change, either the other mediating factors will not be

    U acting or there will be a "snowballing" effect:4. When the built facility does function as an agent of perceived' change, one of two conditions is likely to exist. Either (1) he medi-ating factors to that perception will have been rendered inoperative bythe agent of change; or (2) he mediating factors will also be impellingtoward change.

    The final assumption states that the separate properties of afacility are independent variables which interact with each other:

    5. The role of the built facility either as a contributory agentor as a direct affect or effect on human performance and comfort isinfluenced by the interaction between the several properties of a facility.

    Each property of a facility is thus described as working independentlyamong several other properties acting on an individual at any one time:it may cause unsatisfactory affects or effects in extreme situations,but it normally acts only as a necessary but not sufficient contributorto human satisfactions.

    Technical AssumptionsThe approach taken here is a further development of the author'sstatement of theoretical considerations regarding the evaluation of

    55

    -I;

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    57/62

    -- built environments in terms of human comforts and satisfactions.2" Fourasic technical assumptions which apply to the manipulation of opinion,j attitude, an d belief properties of occupants are as follows:1. It is assumed that humans are able to match the degree ofintensity of facility properties (e.g., ai r warmth) to words representing

    subjective feelings (e.g., a scale from cold to hot). 222. It is ssumed that the words representing degrees of intensity

    of subjective feelings can be expressed as frequency counts that will formbinomial distributions of satisfaction or comfort23 as shown in igure 15.3. It is ssumed that an interval scale can be arrayed besideth e words representing degrees of intensity of subjective feelings,

    and that the resulting numerical expressions can be equated to facilitytimuli algebraically. 2

    4. It is ssumed that the numerical expressions of intensity ofsubjective feelings will be additive for any single variable.25

    I

    L T. A. avis, "Evaluating for Environmental Measures," Roceedings of the2n d Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference, EDRA II,Archea and Eastman, eds. (1970).S. S. Stevens, "Ratio Scales of Opinion," Handbook of Measurement Assess-ment in Behavioral Sciences (Addison-Wesley, 1968).2L. E. Weaver, "The Quality Rating of Color Television Pictures,"Journal of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, Vol77 (June 1968), p 610.24Stevens.

    2sWeaver.

    56

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    58/62

    F~i i

    COMFORT":"RANGEiX

    jNUMBER ......... NUMBER OF

    . :::::: : X XX:::::::

    OF OCCUPANTSOCCUPANTS SATISFIED

    MEASURE OF ENVIRONMENT

    Figure 15 . Comfort frequency count.

    5

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    59/62

    9 SUMMARY AN D RECOMMENDATIONSSummary

    The purpose of this report was to conceptualize an approach to anobjective definition of Army and Army personnel facility habitability forapplication in he planning, programming, design, and occupancy of Armyfacilities. Basic terms have been defined; content, structural, andtechnical assumptions stated; and examples cited where possible. Thisconcludes the conceptual phase of habitability expression development.Recommendations

    Itis ecommended that the development of habitability expressionsbe continued through the prototype phase as follows:1. Review habitability Eqs 4 through 17, comparing them to theprocedures and activities of the Corps' facility delivery process.2. Select those habitability expressions most relevant to Corpsfacility planning, programming, design, and evaluation.3. Establish a priority list of habitability expressions for

    development into prototype expressions.4. Develop prototype expressions.

    41

    58

    .77

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    60/62

    CITED REFERENCES

    Davis, T. ., Conceptualization of Habitability Requirements for theHabitability Data Base , Interim Report D-69 (ConstructionEngineering Research Laboratory [CERL], 1976).

    Davis, T. A., "Evaluating for Environmental Measures," Proceedings of the2nd Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference,EDRA II Archea and Eastman, eds. (1970).

    Davis, T. A., "Formulating Habitability Criteria From Research Informa-tion," Programming for Habitability, W. F. E. Preiser, ed . (Depart-ment of Architecture, University of Illinois, 1974).

    Davis, T. A., "Systemizing Man-Environment Information: Toward a Modelof Man-Environment Relations," Man-Environment Systems, Vol 4(1974), pp 181-184.

    Department of the Army, Project Development and Design Approval, AR 415-20](March 1974).Department of Defense, Construction Criteria Manual, DOD 4270.1 (March 1968).Dressel, D. L. et al., Predictors of Satisfaction With Housing Interiors,

    Technical Report D-48/ADA011187, Vol III (CERL, April 1975).Fanger, P. ., Thermal Comfort (Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press, 1970)."Identification and Classification of Human Needs in the Military Facility,"FY75 Final Research and Investigation Program (CERL, July 1974).Klapper, J. T., "What We Know About the Effects of Mass Communications:The Brink of Hope," Communication and Culture, A. G. Smith, ed .(Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966).Preiser, W. and R. Brauer, Analysis of MCA Cycle Procedures for Impact

    on the Habitability of Facilities, Technical Report (CERL, [Draft]).Stevens, S. S., "Ratio Scales of Opinion," Handbook of Measurement Assess-ment in Behavioral Sciences (Addison-Wesley, 1968).

    ' Weaver, L. E., "The Quality Rating of Color Television Pictures," Journalof the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, Vol 77(June 1968), p 610.

    UNCITED REFERENCESAckoff, R. L., et al., Scientific Method (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962).CSI Performance Specifications (Construction Specifications Institute, 1972).

    59

    -7172 N4

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    61/62

    UNCITED REFERENCES (cont'd)Department of the Army, Construction Space Planning Criteria for U.S. Army

    Service Schools, TM 5-843-1 (July 1970).Dressel, D. L. and R. L. Brauer, Initial Report on Systematizing Infor-

    mation to Identify and Relate Behavioral and Physical Design Para-meters, Interim Report D-41/AD#757627 (CERL, March 1973).

    Maslow, A. H., "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychol. Rev., Vol 50,1 Westmoreland, GEN Wm., The Army's Master Program for the Modern Volunteer

    Army: A Program for Professionals (Government Printing Office, 1971).

    .60

    ~j' 1

    60

    t

  • 7/29/2019 Davis Habitabilidad

    62/62

    CERL DISTRIBUTIONChief of EngineersATTN: DAEN-MCZ-S (2)ATTN: DAEN-ASI-L (2)ATTN: DAEN-RDATTN: DAEN-MCE-A/R. CramerDepartment of the ArmyWASH DC 20314CommanderU.S. Army Foreign Science andTechnology Center220 7th St, NECharlottesville, VA 22901

    CommanderU.S. Army Science and TechnologyInformation Team - EuropeAPO New York 09710CommanderU.S. Army Science and Technology

    Center - Far East OfficeAPO San Francisco 96328Defense Documentation CenterATTN: TCA (12)Cameron StationVAlexandria, VA 22314Library of Congress (2)Exchange and Gift DivATTN: American & BritishWASH DC 20540Defense Logistics Studies Information

    Exchange (2)U.S. Army Logistics Management CenterATTN: AMXMC-DFt Lee, VA 23801