Chan, I Y S and Chen, H (2024) Towards an integrative analysis of underground environment and human health: A survey and field measurement approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(5), pp. 1807-1834. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Due to land resource scarcity, sustainable urban development in high-density cities has long been challenging. As such, many cities are formulating plans to “dig deep”, resulting in more citizens working and/or staying underground for longer periods of time. However, owing to the particularities of underground space, the factors involved in the creation of a healthy environment are different from those involved in aboveground developments. This study thus aims to investigate the influences of various underground environment factors on users' health through a holistic approach. Design/methodology/approach: To achieve this aim, 12 underground sites and 12 corresponding aboveground sites are selected for a large-scale questionnaire survey, resulting in 651 survey samples. The survey covers post-occupancy evaluation of health (physical and psychosocial), underground environmental quality (visual, thermal, acoustic comfort, indoor air quality and ventilation), space design and greenery. Independent-sample T-test, Pearson correlation, multiple regression modelling and structural equation modelling are used to investigate whether significant differences exist between health of underground and aboveground users, and to develop an underground environment-health model for unveiling the significant associations between underground environment factors and users' health. To cross validate the results, an objective field measurement study is further conducted on six underground sites. The objective measurement results are used to cross validate the survey results. Findings: The questionnaire results provide the following evidence: (1) health of underground users is significantly poorer than that of their aboveground counterparts; (2) underground development users' health is significantly affected by space design, greenery and environmental quality in terms of thermal comfort, indoor air quality, ventilation and acoustic comfort but not visual comfort; and (3) amongst the various identified factors, space design has the strongest predicting effects on human health. The field study echoes the survey findings and further unveils the relationships between different environmental factors and human health. Originality/value: The results shed light on the importance of distinguishing between underground developments and aboveground ones in various guidelines and standards, especially those related to space management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | integrative analysis; physical health; psychosocial health; underground environment |
| Index terms: | density, indoor air quality, survey, thermal comfort, sustainable urban development, questionnaire, comfort, field study, holistic approach, methodology, field-measurement, environmental factor, visual comfort, environmental quality, modelling, post-occupancy evaluation, multiple-regression, evidence, structural equation modelling, human health, ventilation, land |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, environmental health, environmental engineering, analytical methods, research methods, data collection methods, business, sustainability assessment, occupational health and safety management, environmental science, sustainability and resilience, evaluation methods, air quality, public and environmental health, statistical analysis, real estate economics |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here