Creagh, R; McGann, S; Jancey, J; Blackford, K; Tye, M; Tindall, R and Sal Moslehian, A (2025) Workplace circulation design and movement: a case study of three Australian campus buildings. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 21(4), pp. 665-680. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
This paper explores the interconnections between a building's spatial qualities and office workers' health behaviours, specifically focusing on physical activity, circulation route usage, and sitting time. A mixed methods approach was adopted to examine three workplace buildings, using spatial analysis, physical activity measurement, and a survey of 99 participants. The findings revealed statistical differences in movement patterns among workers in the three case studies. The analysis highlighted the predominantly sedentary nature of the workplaces, staff's prioritisation of the quickest route, their willingness to incorporate personal physical activity into the workday, and the significant impacts of circulation space design on movement patterns. In response to the pressing need for increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour at work, a greater understanding of the embodied movement of workers must be central in workplace briefing, design, management, and research. We argue that circulation spaces in workplaces should be designed as more than just enablers of workplace functionality and emergency egress.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; circulation routes; health promotion; office work; physical activity; sedentary behaviour |
| Index terms: | sedentary behaviour, circulation, health behaviour, functionality, health promotion, movement, briefing, survey, case study, mixed method, physical activity, building design |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, architectural design, health behaviours and lifestyles, public and environmental health, scope management, design features, urban design |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Design Practice, Project Management, Urban Studies, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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