Chinazzo, G. and Wang, N. (2026) How buildings shape occupant movement: A systematic review and framework. Buildings & Cities, 7(1), pp. 504-522. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The built environment influences human behaviour, including physical activity, with implications for occupant health and wellbeing. While urban-scale factors affecting the movement of people in cities have been widely studied, the role of building-scale factors in shaping occupant physical activity in buildings remains underexplored. This systematic review highlights this uncharted research avenue and synthesises evidence from studies across disciplines. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 42 articles are systematically reviewed. Investigated building-level factors are categorised into design and operation attributes, and their impact is analysed across different activity levels. Some of the design-related attributes considered (i.e. spatial layout, presence and types of places of interest, and stair features) emerge as significant factors influencing movement in buildings. In contrast, evidence on operational factors, such as temperature and daylight, remains limited and inconsistent. Given the limited number of studies on the topic and the wide range of building programmes, populations and contextual conditions investigated in the literature, no generalisable conclusions can be drawn. A conceptual framework and research agenda are proposed to guide future studies on how the design and operation of buildings can actively promote movement and improve public health. PRACTICE RELEVANCE This review highlights the often-overlooked role of occupant physical activity in the context of healthy and sustainable buildings, whose focus has traditionally been on thermal comfort, air quality and other health-related occupant responses, such as sleep quality and stress. By integrating physical activity into the building performance umbrella, this study encourages researchers, designers, architects, engineers and public health practitioners to recognise physical activity as a critical outcome of building design and operation. This study also aims to inspire future research to establish stronger cause-and-effect relationships and provide evidence-based, actionable movement-supportive strategies—such as optimising layouts, enhancing access to shared spaces and adjusting operational building systems—that can be directly applied for designing, renovating, and operating buildings to promote healthier and more active lifestyles.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | active design; active living; building design; building operation; indoor environmental quality; occupant behaviour; occupant health; physical activity; sedentary behaviour |
| Index terms: | sedentary behaviour, designer, systematic literature review, conceptual framework, sleep quality, future study, research agenda, engineer, presence, public health, built environment, lifestyle, practitioner, active design, strategy, air quality, evidence, building system, thermal comfort, human behaviour, building operation, population, physical activity, occupant behaviour, building performance, programme, building design, movement, meta-analysis, sustainable building, architect, health and wellbeing, indoor environmental quality |
| Subjects: | profession, theoretical framing, health behaviours and lifestyles, sustainable construction, research management, health conditions and diseases, evaluation and assessment methods, management, project controls, user focus, architectural design, environmental health, mental health and wellbeing, research evaluation and metrics, environmental engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, quality assurance, research design and methodology, engineering systems, practitioner, climate science, demography, environmental science |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Time Control, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Quality Management |
| 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