Content uploaded by Andrew Thatcher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Thatcher on Feb 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Green ergonomics: definition and scope
Abstract
The goals of ergonomics (i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, health, safety, and usability) are closely
aligned with the goals of design for environmental sustainability. In this paper the term “green
ergonomics” is conceptualised to describe ergonomics interventions with a pro-nature emphasis.
Green ergonomics is focused on the bi-directional connections between human systems and
nature. This involves looking at (1) how ergonomics design and evaluation might be used to
conserve, preserve, and restore nature and (2) how ecosystem services might be harnessed to
facilitate the improved wellbeing and effectiveness of human systems. The paper proposes the
scope of green ergonomics based on these bi-directional relationships in the areas of the design
of low resource systems and products, the design of green jobs, and the design for behaviour
change. Further suggestions for work on green ergonomics are made.
Keywords: green ergonomics, environment; pro-nature; sustainability
Relevance: Given the enormous environmental challenges facing modern industrial society
this paper encourages ergonomics science to embrace a pro-nature understanding of work
design and research. This paper sets out the role for green ergonomics based on an
appreciation of the human-nature connections that have been integrated with our
understanding of ergonomics science and practice.
1 Introduction
One of the greatest challenges now facing humankind involves understanding how to deal
with the degradation of our natural environment while still providing opportunities for every
human to aspire to a meaningful quality of life. According to scientists working on these issues
(Gupta, 1998; Oreskes, 2004; Vitsousek, 1994) human activity, especially over the last 150
years, has contributed significantly to the degradation of our planet’s natural resources and to
the inability of the planet’s systems to properly recover. This has resulted in severe disruptions
to the planet’s natural nutrient recycling patterns, to climatic systems, and to reductions in
biodiversity (Bates et al., 2008; Vitsousek, 1994). Of course, there are also many smaller
systems that show disturbances and that have also had negative, localised environmental
impacts. Despite our growing knowledge of these problems for at least three decades, the
situation appears to be getting worse (Cox et al., 2000; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2007). The degradation of the natural environment has also been linked to serious
negative human health and well-being effects (Pimentel et al., 2007; Schmitz, 2007) including
increases in respiratory problems, cancers, immune system defects, and birth defects, as well as
global warming effects that have accelerated poverty and led to malnutrition and the spread of
diseases that were previously unknown in certain geographical regions. There is also evidence
to suggest that the degradation of our natural environment has led to severe negative
implications for psychological wellbeing (Kellert, 2005) and even problems in human
development (Louv, 2005).
These problems have not gone un-noticed by ergonomics. Nearly two decades ago Moray
(1993) proposed that ergonomics should look to address issues of water and food shortages,
inefficient energy usage, pollution and waste, and rapid urbanisation. Helander (1997) too,
encouraged ergonomists to address “global environmental and social problems, such as the
pollution of the big cities” (p. 960) amongst other problems. Despite Helander’s (1997) and
Moray’s (1995) eloquent pleas for ergonomics to directly address these ecological disasters,
very little ergonomics research has considered these issues even though, as will be argued,
ergonomics is well placed to make a positive contribution. Moray (1995) argued that the role
of “ergonomics is to design a lifestyle support system that elicits the behaviour required to
reduce the severity of the global problems” (p. 1699). However, Sauer et al. (2004) noted that
despite Moray’s (1995) appeal there was still a growing need for pro-environmental
considerations in ergonomics interventions. In recent years there has been a rejuvenated
interest in addressing some of these issues within the ergonomics community, led by Steimle
and Zink (2006) who proposed the term “sustainable development and human factors”. To
date this has led to the establishment of an International Ergonomics Association Technical
Committee on “Human Factors and Sustainable Development” (Zink, 2008a), three sessions
facilitated by this Technical Committee at the 2009 IEA Triennial Congress in Beijing, four
sessions facilitated by this Technical Committee at the 2012 IEA Triennial Congress in Recife,
the establishment of a special interest group on “green ergonomics” within the United
Kingdom-based Institute for Ergonomics and Human Factors (IEHF) (Hanson, 2010), a book
on sustainable development with a macroergonomics focus (Zink, 2008b), one keynote
address at an IEHF 2010 Conference, a keynote address at the 2012 IEA Triennial Congress,
and two lead articles in recent editions of the HFES Bulletin (Hedge, 2008; Sanquist, 2008).
This paper focuses on a smaller subset of interventions within the broader domain of
“sustainability and human factors” by defining the term green ergonomics, or ergonomics that
promotes an understanding of the role of human-nature connections in meeting the goals of
ergonomics. Pimentel et al. (2007), noted that humans are inextricably connected to our
natural environment and any strains on this system will have significant negative implications
for human health, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness; aspects which ergonomics has a
particular interest in optimising. The International Ergonomics Association (2009) defines
ergonomics as “the scientific discipline concerned with understanding the interactions among
humans and other elements of a system” and to “design in order to optimize human well-being
and overall system performance”. Specifically, human well-being and system performance are
about designing tasks, objects, machines, jobs, environments, processes, and systems that are
usable, effective, efficient, healthy, and safe (Dul and Weerdemeester, 2008). In an era where
many natural resources are dwindling and where our products, behaviours, and actions have
major consequences on the sustainability of our environment and the planet, we need to
examine how ergonomics can play a role in the reduction of negative environmental impacts.
Even the emergence of the discipline of ergonomics, attributed to Jastrzebowski (2001), was
originally published in a journal whose English translation is “Nature and Industry”.
In Section 1 the principles of “human factors for sustainable development” are introduced by
way of background. This is followed by an introduction to the principles and theoretical
justification for the term green ergonomics that is used to describe the endeavours that
ergonomists should be encouraged to engage in to ensure a usable, effective, efficient, healthy,
and safe inter-generational future which incorporates a pro-nature view. In section 2 the scope
of green ergonomics is proposed based on (a) conserving, preserving, and restoring nature and
(b) on humans benefitting from nature. This is explored by way of critically examining
examples of related research and by way of suggesting opportunities for future work. A fuller
treatment of the opportunities for green ergonomics is presented in Hanson (this issue).
1.1 Sustainable development and human factors
The term “sustainable development and human factors” is based on the World Commission
on Environment and Development’s definition of sustainable development as “development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (Brundlandt, 1987). Sustainable development has come to be
understood as a complex balancing of economic capital, societal capital, and natural capital
called the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002; Elkington, 1998).
The link between these three forms of capital is based on the assumption that poverty often
exacerbates the negative effect on the environment through the over-exploitation of scarce
resources (e.g. the overgrazing of limited land, deforestation for agricultural land and fuel, the
degradation of limited arable land through poor agricultural methods; the use of outdated
industrial machinery, and the polluting of limited water supplies). The solution from a TBL
perspective is economic or social upliftment to reduce these environmental impacts.
Understandably, Steimle and Zink (2006) argued that sustainable development and human
factors needed to focus on human elements within the larger system (i.e. primarily social
capital but also economic capital). They drew on the notion of sustainable work systems from
Docherty et al. (2002) to emphasise the link between sustainable development and human
factors. According to Docherty et al. (2002), work that meets the physical, physiological and
psychological limits of human functioning and that allows sufficient rejuvenation opportunities
(i.e. recreation and rest) is sustainable. There are obvious synergies between Docherty et al.’s
(2002) goals and the goals of ergonomics including the focus on wellness at work and work-
worker alignment. Steimle and Zink (2006) encouraged ergonomists to make contributions
through: understanding employment practices (e.g. relevant work schedules), complementing
the design process of sustainability-oriented products, designing more efficient work systems,
ensuring the safe operation of complex systems that may result in ecological and economic
disasters, and through community ergonomics. Hanson (2010), preferring the term green
ergonomics, focused specifically on how ergonomics can assist in lessening our environmental
impact. She included focusing on the job requirements for the new green economy (e.g. the
challenges of off-shore wind farm jobs), developing systems and products that use less energy,
and assisting in understanding sustainable behaviour change.
Zink et al. (2008) used Dyllick and Hockerts’ (2002) TBL model of sustainable corporations
to demonstrate how human factors can contribute to sustainable development. Figure 1 gives
examples of how traditional ergonomics interventions fit on this triad. Interventions include
designing efficient systems (i.e. eco-efficiency), ensuring the health and safety of the humans in
the system (i.e. socio-efficiency), and the usability of systems by people (i.e. socio-
effectiveness). Scott (2008) takes the areas of application further, urging ergonomics
interventions to consider the upliftment of whole communities and societies.
[insert Figure 1 about here]
While Steimle and Zink (2006) and Zink et al. (2008) call for a balance between the three
dimensions of sustainable development, most ergonomics interventions have arguably focused
on economic (eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency) and social (socio-efficiency and socio-
effectiveness) aspects and have largely neglected the impact on natural systems (Thatcher,
2012). In the traditional ergonomics approach economic and human societal benefits and costs
are well-documented (see Hendrick, 1996), but the costs and benefits for nature are not. In
particular, there has been little focus on interventions that support eco-effectiveness and
sufficiency. McDonough and Braungart (2002) have noted that a focus on eco-efficiency and
socio-efficiency might actually exacerbate eco-effectiveness problems. In cases where systems
and products are (eco- and socio-) efficient they will be used or purchased more readily. If
they are not designed for eco-effectiveness then the problems for natural systems are
multiplied rather than resolved.
It is argued here that “human factors for sustainable development”, given its broader focus
on the entire triadic relationship, might best be envisaged as the broader term with green
ergonomics encompassed under this term to emphasise designs and interventions that facilitate
the connections between humans and nature. While green ergonomics serves to emphasise
natural capital in ensuring sustainable development it should, however, not be viewed as
independent from social and economic capital.
1.2 Defining green ergonomics
Green ergonomics is defined as ergonomics interventions that have a pro-nature focus;
specifically ergonomics that focuses on our affinity with the natural world. Green ergonomics
acknowledges that the planet (as a whole) is a closed system such that a disruption in one part
of the system will inevitably have repercussions for other parts of the system. Therefore, green
ergonomics acknowledges the bi-directional relationships with the natural environment;
humans influence the health of their natural environment and the health of the natural
environment, in turn, impacts on the health and wellbeing of humans – see Figure 2. This
approach should not be interpreted as being entirely nature-focused though. Suggesting a pro-
nature focus for green ergonomics does not mean that the other components of the TBL (i.e.
social and economic capital) are unimportant. While green ergonomics calls for a balance by
stressing the importance of natural systems (i.e. ergonomics interventions that look specifically
at the reciprocal connections between humans and nature), this necessarily also includes
humans and their economic and societal development needs. Green ergonomics focuses on the
development of human systems that integrate fully in a sustainable way with natural
environments.
[insert Figure 2 about here]
First, green ergonomics considers how human systems can facilitate the conservation,
preservation, and restoration of natural capital. Nature provides what Daily (1997) calls
ecosystem services; conservatively estimated to be valued, more than a decade ago, at US$33
trillion per year (Costanza et al, 1997). These services basically fulfil the following life
sustaining operations: provisioning services (e.g. food, minerals, pharmaceuticals, energy,
etc.), regulating services (e.g. water purification, waste decomposition, carbon sequestration,
etc.), habitat services (e.g. seed dispersal, crop pollination, resilience through genetic
variation, flood and drought mitigation, etc.), and cultural services (e.g. recreational
opportunities, aesthetic beauty, inspiration, serenity, etc.). Continued degradation of our
natural environment would make it difficult for these ecosystem services to cope. Damage to
these ecosystem services would also have significant negative physical and psychological
implications for humans. From an ergonomics standpoint it is not possible therefore to speak
of sustainable human well-being and effectiveness when the natural environment becomes
degraded and depleted. Natural environments that lack essential resources (e.g. nutritious
food, fresh water, clean air, plants for carbon sequestration, nutrient-rich soil, etc.) or contain
harmful waste products (e.g. volatile organic compounds, excessive collections of heavy
metals, etc.) can scarcely be considered places that facilitate human well-being and
effectiveness. From this perspective green ergonomics involves reducing the impact of human
systems on these ecosystem services through ergonomics design in order to avoid or diminish
natural (and by implication, humanitarian) crises.
Second, green ergonomics considers how the connections of humans with nature might
facilitate human wellbeing and effectiveness. Wilson (1984) has argued that humans have an
inherent affinity for connecting with nature; a concept he referred to as biophilia. This
manifests itself in a sense of wonderment and curiosity about the natural world around us.
According to Louv (2005), connections with nature form important components of childhood
development, including facilitating curiosity, novelty, mobility, and challenge. A component of
green ergonomics therefore examines the types of qualities necessary in our educational
environments and recreational facilities for children to enable more fuller childhood
development. As adults there is growing evidence that we perform better and have higher
measures of psychological wellbeing when the restorative properties of nature are available
(Hartig and Staats, 2006; Ulrich, 1984). However, while there is a long history of research on
the restorative properties of nature in the psychological literature (see Roszak et al., 1995),
work in the ergonomics literature is scarce. In the psychological literature, ecopsychology is
defined as enabling health and wellbeing through connecting with the health of the planet (see
Roszak et al., 1995). Building on these psychological concepts, green ergonomics looks at the
ways to incorporate the restorative and creative properties of nature into the design and
evaluation of workplaces, homes, and places of play. There is also growing evidence that
inspiration can be drawn directly from nature; a field of design known as biomimicry (Benyus,
1997). Green ergonomics has a role to play in understanding how we arrive at and interact
with biomimetic designs and biophilic designs. Finally, it should also be self-evident that a
healthy natural environment leads to better physical health. More time in nature means greater
opportunities for physical activity, psychological restoration, and social interaction with a
broad diversity of people.
Fiksel (2003) encouraged designers to consider taking a broader systems approach than
simply the use of a product. Within green ergonomics this means taking a life-cycle approach
(Guinée, 2002) considering all stages of the life cycle of a product or system since the
potential damage that a product or system can do to the environment is the sum of its
environmental impacts at each stage of the life cycle. This would involve pro-nature
ergonomics considerations at the design, production, utilisation, recycling, and disposal stages
(Wenzel et al., 1997). For example, a high consumption design cycle, waste products during
manufacturing, poor energy efficiency during use, low recyclability of components, and toxic
emissions during usage and disposal would represent poor green ergonomics design. From an
ergonomics point of view, the utilisation phase, specifically eco-efficiency, has traditionally
been the most important part of the life cycle given that most ergonomics products and
systems are designed for human use and this is where the most environmental impact is
expected to act (Wenzel et al., 1997). Green ergonomics emphasises that other stages in the
life cycle are also important.
In the following section the potential scope of green ergonomics is outlined, interspersed
with examples of existing empirical investigations that fall within the bounds of green
ergonomics. For a fuller treatment of the research and work opportunities for green
ergonomics interested are readers are referred to Hanson (this issue).
2 Scope of green ergonomics
A great deal of design and evaluation research with a pro-nature emphasis appears in print
outside of the “traditional” ergonomics literature. There is a plethora of work in the
psychology, design, sociology, and engineering literature across at least three decades which is
not covered in detail in the examples from which further inspiration might be drawn (for
examples see Becker and Seligman, 1978; Brandon and Lewis, 1999; Benyus, 1997; Collier et
al., 2008; Maloney and Ward, 1973; McCalley and Midden, 2002; Tennessen and Cimprich,
1995; Ulrich, 1984). In this section suggestions are made for possible green ergonomics
interventions and research.
2.1 Design of low resource systems and products
2.1.1 Conserving, preserving, and restoring nature
There are considerable opportunities for ergonomics interventions to improve the eco-
efficiency of products and for an expansion into eco-effective products. The work of Clauman
et al. (2011) and Hilliard and Jamieson (2008), is early evidence of the role that green
ergonomics could play in designing and evaluating products with pro-nature benefits. Hilliard
and Jamieson (2008) looked at the design of cognitive support tools for a solar-powered
vehicle. Unlike conventional fossil-fuel and bio-fuel vehicles, solar powered vehicles do not
carry their energy source on board but must draw their “fuel” from their environment. Solar-
powered vehicles therefore need different driving skills and information requirements
compared to on-board, fuel-based vehicles. This means providing information about the
vehicle’s functioning (e.g. solar array efficiencies, tyre pressure, and speed), traffic conditions
(e.g. traffic regulations, speed limits, and traffic reports), and the environment conditions (e.g.
cloud cover, weather conditions, and topographical details). Ergonomics is required in
designing an interface that lessens the additional cognitive burden on the driver. This is an
example of ensuring eco-efficiency with an eco-effective vehicle. In a more direct example of
an eco-effective design Claumann et al. (2009) designed a walking frame from sustainable
materials (in this case bamboo). Claumann et al. (2009) reported that the bamboo walking
frame provided equivalent support and had the added benefit of being more aesthetically
pleasing, lighter in weight, and cheaper than conventional metal walking frames. The list of
possible products could extend into every sphere of human interaction with the designed
environment but should also include the design of smart-meter interfaces to enable grid-
monitoring (Sanquist, 2008) and the design of programmable thermostats (Moezzi et al.,
2009). Moezzi et al. (2009) acknowledged though, that the actual use of many “energy
saving” devices does not always produce the intended energy reduction results and
recommended further study and re-design.
Another obvious role for green ergonomics is an involvement in the design of larger systems.
In one example, Mandavilli et al. (2008) investigated how the design of traffic circles could
reduce motor vehicle emissions and the fuel consumption of vehicles. In Mandavilli et al.’s
(2008) study stop-controlled intersections were replaced with single-lane traffic circles with
the resulting smoother traffic flow resulting in reduced carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbon emissions. In addition, vehicles spent less time at the
intersection and therefore less fuel getting to their destination. Replacing an existing control
mechanism with a different control mechanism is something that is familiar to many areas of
ergonomics. In this particular case, the introduction of a traffic circle changed the traffic
system functioning and had positive eco-efficiency and psychological well-being (i.e. drivers
arrived at their destinations sooner and with less traffic congestion) effects. Hanson (this issue)
lists a number of other important areas where green ergonomics could play a role for pro-
nature outcomes including designing systems to support the use of low energy transport
systems (e.g. designing cycling paths, bicycle storage facilities, and shower facilities at work
for cycling to work, or designing electricity recharge networks for electric cars, or designing
retail distribution systems to minimise travel), designing buildings and urban environments, the
design of retail supply chains, and examining the role of communication systems (that negate
the need to travel).
Because the majority of these studies only have small-scale eco-efficiency benefits it is
difficult to see how they would have a significant positive impact on the wider natural
environment unless these products are accepted on a worldwide scale. One possibility is that
the lessons learned from one product might be more widely applied to other products. Hilliard
and Jamieson (2008) for example, noted that aspects of the contextual advice systems for the
solar-powered vehicles might also be beneficial in enabling eco-efficiencies in conventional
vehicles. While eco-efficiency is obviously important it only involves proportional
improvements to the functioning of a product. Green ergonomics therefore also needs to look
at eco-effective design where the entire product has an expressed benefit (or neutral effect) on
natural systems. Examples of direct eco-effective design include cradle-to-cradle design
(McDonough and Braungart, 2002) and some biomimetic designs (Benyus, 1997).
2.1.2 Humans benefitting from nature
One of the most direct ways that humans may benefit from nature within the design field is
through biomimicry. Benyus (1997) defines biomimicry as “innovation inspired by nature” (p.
2). In short, biomimicry seeks to take advantage of 3.8 billion years of “design”, through
natural selection, which we find in nature in order to learn to develop optimal systems that
synergise with nature. Examples of biomimicry include the design of the “bullet” train’s front-
end based on a kingfisher’s beak to produce a quieter, faster, more energy efficient train and
the Eastgate building in Zimbabwe which is designed based on a termite mound to maintain
constant internal temperatures while reducing building energy use. Biomimetic design is not
integrated with ergonomics at this point although there are a large number of opportunities. In
one example of biomimetic design applied to ergonomics, Wise and Taylor (2002) examined
how fractal structures commonly found in natural settings (e.g. winding rivers, the shapes of
clouds, uneven horizons, and the branching structure of trees) might be applied to the design
of knowledge work environments. However, follow up empirical work is yet to be published
in the ergonomics literature.
One of the obvious places for green ergonomics to make an impact on improving individual
wellbeing is in the built environment. The psychological literature is replete with examples of
the benefits and preferences for views of nature (Stone, 2003; Tennessen and Cimprich, 1995)
as is the illumination engineering literature (Heschong et al., 2002) and ventilation engineering
literature (Fisk and Rosenfeld, 1997). In ergonomics there has been a great deal of work on
environmental ergonomics including trying to understand sick building syndrome. Hedge
(2000) provided a review of studies investigating interventions related to lighting (especially
daylight) and indoor air quality (including the use of indoor plants to remove pollutants),
concluding that there were well-established human well-being and effectiveness benefits for
these interventions. In particular, a set of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) green building credits applies specifically to indoor environmental quality including
components such as daylight, reduced glare, external views, removal of toxic compounds from
the air, and fresh air (Hedge, 2008). Unfortunately while these credits synergise well with the
benefits noted by Hedge (2000) there have been few mainstream empirical contributions
appearing in the ergonomics literature evaluating how these pro-nature aspects of green
buildings impact on wellbeing and productivity (for an example see Thatcher and Milner,
2012). There are great opportunities in evaluating the wellbeing and productivity benefits of
the pro-nature aspects of indoor environmental quality. The LEED rating system has also
recently added appropriate workplace layout and tools that meet ergonomics standards as an
innovation credit (Hedge, 2008). This credit is important to demonstrate that ergonomics is a
relevant component of green buildings but the pro-nature implications are not obvious and
require further exploration.
From a slightly different perspective on the built environment, some ergonomics research has
investigated the parameters of an office setting that lead to creativity (Ceylan et al., 2008; Dul
and Ceylan, 2011). This research found that the relevant characteristics that stimulated
creativity included natural daylight, external windows (allowing diffused light, fresh air
circulation, and aesthetic views), views to nature, and the presence of plants. These office
environment “designs” are pro-nature in that they expose the office worker to more “natural”
environmental conditions, although it must be noted that the authors focused on the creativity
benefits and not specifically the gains from connecting with nature. Further research is
required to understand what other aspects of human functioning and wellbeing at work might
be positively influenced by connections with the natural environment.
2.2 Design of green jobs
2.2.1 Conserving, preserving, and restoring nature.
Hanson (this issue) also noted the importance in understanding the role of ergonomics in
dealing with the challenges of an expansion into “green jobs”, including jobs in the dangerous
conditions of offshore wind farms and tidal energy farms, the heat conditions associated with
solar power installation, the change in working conditions related to organic farming, and job
design related to recycling plants (see also Engkvist et al., 2011). This involves examining
how the jobs themselves are designed, determining what health risks can be ameliorated, or
devising selection processes for people with the right characteristics for performing these jobs
effectively and safely. For the majority of these jobs the role of ergonomics would be to
facilitate the smooth operation of jobs that enhance eco-efficiencies. There are also instances
where the design of the job/task itself would lead directly to pro-nature outcomes. In an
example of task analysis and job design, Torres et al. (2009) considered the task design of
mussel farmers to enable sustainable farming practices. They suggested that monitoring of the
water quality, monitoring of the mussel lifecycle, and investigations to assess possibilities for
waste usage were tasks that would assist environmental conservation for sustainable mussel
farming. These are tasks that facilitate stewardship over the natural environment, conservation
of natural resources; and also ensure longevity in mussel farming operations.
2.2.2 Humans benefitting from nature
Most of the research on the relationships between well-being and the psychologically
restorative function of nature is found in literature outside of the ergonomics domain (see
Hartig and Staats, 2006; Kellert, 2005; Ulrich, 1984). While research has looked at the
ergonomics of leisure and recreation activities (see Atkinson and Reilly, 1995) this work
seldom considers the regenerative and restorative properties of time spent with nature. There
are therefore also opportunities for green ergonomics to look at the impact of work-rest cycles
that incorporate nature as well as the beneficial effects of time spent in nature and its impact
on productivity and wellbeing in traditional office environments.
2.3 Ergonomics design for behaviour change
2.3.1 Conserving, preserving, and restoring nature.
Perhaps the most important role for green ergonomics would be in facilitating larger,
systemic behaviour change. However, while related disciplines such as psychology (e.g.
Maloney and Ward, 1973), sociology, and economics have a long history of empirical work in
attempting to understand energy conservation behaviour, related work in ergonomics is
limited. Sanquist (2008) and Sanquist et al. (2010) raised a number of interesting possibilities
for the role of ergonomics in behaviour change including understanding the use and design of
energy feedback systems (e.g. such as energy consumption meters, fuel consumption displays,
etc.) and control systems (e.g. thermostat controls), and macroergonomic approaches that
assist whole organisational systems to understand and conserve their energy use. Sanquist et
al. (2010) focused on energy as the natural resource of interest, but it is easy to see how the
role of ergonomics might be applied to behaviour change for conserving, preserving, and
restoring other natural resources such as water, air quality, or biodiversity. However, not all
ergonomics studies of feedback systems have produced positive results. For example,
Flemming and Jamieson (2009) found that an ecological interface (including functional
information) did not reduce energy or water wastage compared to conventional feedback
interfaces
A significant component of the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’
(DEFRA) pro-environmental strategy is an attempt at understanding and influencing pro-
environmental behaviours and behaviour change (Collier et al., 2008); a task where green
ergonomics would be well-placed to contribute (Hanson, this issue; Karwowski, 2008; Moore
et al., 2011; Sanquist et al., 2010). This could be done through deepening our understanding
of the dynamics of sustained behaviour change, the presentation of energy usage patterns to
users (Hanson, 2010), keeping eco-efficiency in conscious awareness (Amel et al., 2009),
developing lean manufacturing processes that take nature into account (see Paez et al., 2004),
or contributing to the design of smart cities and smart grids (Ahram et al., 2010). Further,
green ergonomics could also apply the lessons learned from the design of warning signs
(Laughery and Wogalter, 1994) to the design of eco-labelling of products; informing users
about appropriate practices used in the design and manufacturing of a product to ensure more
responsible consumer behaviour.
Another way of affecting behaviour change is through training interventions. The work of af
Wahlberg (2006; 2007) serves as an interesting appetizer for a wide range of green
ergonomics training interventions. The researcher looked at the short-term (af Wahlberg,
2006) and long-term (af Wahlberg, 2007) effects of a training programme designed to get city
bus drivers to adopt more fuel-efficient driving styles. Unfortunately neither the short-term nor
long-term training effects were particularly encouraging, although fuel efficiencies were noted
for the trained drivers when additional feedback equipment was installed. The list of possible
training applications could include the appropriate use of products and systems in an eco-
efficient manner, learning how smart grids and other energy saving systems operate, training
on how to use products more eco-efficiently or eco-effectively, training on how to use larger
systems (e.g. green buildings) appropriately, and training to facilitate appropriate behaviour
change for the conservation, preservation, and restoration of our natural capital.
2.3.2 Humans benefitting from nature
Behaviour change that allows humans to appreciate the benefits of nature is the last aspect
to consider within the scope of green ergonomics. Again, this is a goal that has been more
coherently explored in psychology (e.g. Louv, 2005), education (Sterling, 2001), and the
biological sciences (e.g. Wilson, 1984) than in ergonomics. Green ergonomics could draw
inspiration from the ecopsychology (Roszak et al., 1995) movement and how our
understanding of our engineered environments might be adapted to facilitate more human-
nature connections of a positive kind, how we might learn about our natural environment in a
safe context, and how we design spaces for appreciation of nature.
3 Conclusions
A number of existing ergonomics interventions cited in the previous section only have a
moderate pro-nature emphasis. While the purpose is not to criticise these initiatives, after all
some eco-efficiency is better than none, small-scale eco-efficiencies are insufficient to fully
integrate ergonomics with a TBL understanding encapsulated by green ergonomics. What is
needed is green ergonomics interventions that address pro-nature needs more directly, that are
scalable to the broader environment, and that interface with economic and social capital needs
of communities. This paper intended to demonstrate the manifest and inherent synergies
between natural capital and ergonomics science. In considering the vast environmental
challenges (i.e. green-house gas emissions, fossil fuel energy shortages, and clean water
problems) facing our planet resulting from anthropogenic causes, Karwowski (2008; p. 122)
questions whether “effectiveness, safety, and ease of performance [is] all that the HF/E
discipline is about” and urges us to “consider changing the focus of [the] HF/E profession” to
take natural systems into account. Orr (2002) offers green ergonomics a platform for defining
itself as the “meshing of human purposes with the larger patterns and flows of the natural
world and the study of those patterns and flows to inform human actions” (p. 20), an aim very
close to what is claimed to be done in ergonomics. The overlaps between ecological and
ergonomics science are obvious and demonstrated in Schmitz’ (2007) statement on the
challenge of ecological science to understand “the intricate dependencies between humans and
nature in society’s endeavour to sustain long-term health and well-being” (p. 3). This paper
provides both an incentive to recognise the synergies between nature and ergonomics, as well
as a scope for potential future research and design.
References
Ahram, T.Z., Karwowski, W. and Amaba, B., 2010. User-centered systems engineering and
knowledge management framework for design and modeling of future smart cities. (pp. 1752-
1756). Proceedings of the. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting.
Amel, E.L., Manning, C.M. and Scott, B.A., 2009. Mindfulness and sustainable behaviour:
pondering attention and awareness as means for increasing green behaviour. Ecopsychology, 1
(1), 14-25.
Atkinson, G. and Reilly, T. (Eds.), 1995. Sport, leisure, and ergonomics. London: E & FN
Spon.
Bates, B.C., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Wu, S. and Palutikof, J.P. (Eds.), 2008. Climate change and
water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC
Secretariat, Geneva.
Becker, L. and Seligman, C., 1978, Reducing air-conditioning waste by signaling it is cool
outside. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (3), 412 -415.
Benyus, J.M. (1997). Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. New York: William
Morrow.
Brandon, G., & Lewis, A., 1999. Reducing household energy consumption: a qualitative and
quantitative field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 (1), 75-85.
Brundlandt, G.H., 1987. Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ceylan, C., Dul, J. and Aytac, S., 2008. Can the office environment stimulate a manager’s
creativity? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18 (6), 589-602.
Claumann, J.R.H. Lupion, M.R. Pereira R.M., M.R. and Scabello, G.M., 2009. Natural fiber
as sustainable technology and ecologic and economically right alternative in making
supporting device of ramble: an experimental research. International Ergonomics Association
17th Triennial Congress, 9-14 August 2009, Beijing, China.
Collier, A., Reeves, K, Stamp, P. and Muckle, R., 2008. A framework for pro-environmental
behaviours. DEFRA Report, January 2008 [Online] Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/
[Accessed 22 September 2011].
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groots, R., Farber, S., Grasso, S., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruello, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and Van Den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.
Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Jones, C.D., Spall, S.A. and Totterdell, I.J., 2000. Acceleration of
global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature, 408
(6809), 184-187.
Daily, G.C., 1999. Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth's life support systems.
Conservation Ecology, 3 (2), 14, [Online] Available from: URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art14/ [Accessed 22 September 2011]
Docherty, P., Forslin, J. and Shani, A.B. (Eds.), 2002. Creating sustainable work systems:
emerging perspectives and practice. London: Routledge.
Dul, J. and Ceylan, C., 2011. Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54
(1), 12-20.
Dul, J. and Weerdmeester, B., 2008. Ergonomics for beginners: a quick reference guide. 3rd
ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 11 (2), 130-141.
Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century business.
Oxford: Capstone.
Engkvist, I.-L., Svensson, R. and Eklund, J., 2011. Reported occupational injuries at Swedish
recycling centres – based on official statistics. Ergonomics, 54 (40), 357-366.
Fiksel, J., 2003. Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environmental Science and
Technology, 37 (23), 5330-5339.
Fisk, W.J. and Rosenfeld, A.H., 1997. Estimates of improved productivity and health from
better indoor environments, Indoor Air, 7 (3), 158-172.
Flemming S.A.C. and Jamieson, G.A., 2009. Display design and energy conservation
performance: a microworld study. International Ergonomics Association 17th Triennial
Congress, 9-14 August 2009, Beijing, China.
Guinée, J.B. ed., 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO
standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gupta, A., 1998. Ecology and development in the third world. London: Routledge.
Hanson, M., 2010. Green ergonomics: embracing the challenges of climate change. The
Ergonomist, 480, 12-13.
Hanson, M., this issue. Green ergonomics. Challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics, this
issue.
Hartig, T. and Staats, H., 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of
environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26 (3), 215-226.
Hedge, A., 2000. Where are we in understanding the effects of where we are? Ergonomics, 43
(7), 1019-1029.
Hedge, A., 2008. The sprouting of “green” ergonomics. HFES Bulletin, 51 (12), 1-3.
Helander, M.G., 1997. Forty years of IEA: some reflections on the evolution of ergonomics.
Ergonomics, 40 (10), 952-961.
Hendrick, H.W. (1996). Good ergonomics is good economics. Santa Monica, CA: Human
Factors & Ergonomics Society.
Heschong, L., Wright, L.R. Okura, S., Klein, P.D., Simner, M., Berman, S. and Clear, R.,
2002. Daylighting impacts on human performance in school. Journal of the Illuminating
Engineering Society, 31 (2), 101-114.
Hilliard, A. and Jamieson, G.A., 2008. Winning solar races with interface design. Ergonomics
in Design, 16 (2), 6-11.
International Ergonomics Association, 2009. What is ergonomics? [Online] Available from:
http://www.iea.cc/browse.php?contID=what_is_ergonomics [Accessed 22 September 2011].
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate change 2007 – The physical
science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jastrzebowski, W.B., 2001. An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work based on the
truths drawn from the science of nature. In: W. Karwowski, ed. International encyclopedia of
ergonomics and human factors. London: Taylor & Francis, 129-141. (Original work
published 1857).
Karwowski, W., 2008. Building sustainable human-centred systems: a grand challenge for the
human factors and ergonomics discipline in the conceptual age. In: K.J. Zink, ed. Corporate
sustainability as a challenge for comprehensive management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag,
117-128.
Kellert, S.R., 2005. Building for life: designing and understanding the human-nature
connection. Washington: Island Press.
Laughery, K.R. and Wogalter, M.S., 1994. Human factors perspectives on warnings:
selections from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meetings (1980-1993) Vol I.
Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Louv, R., 2005. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Chapel Hill, NJ: Algonquin Books.
Maloney, M.P., & Ward, M.D., 1973. Ecology: let’s hear it from the people. American
Psychologist, 28 (7), 583-586.
Mandavilli, S., Rys, M.J. and Russell, E.R., 2008. Environmental impact of modern
roundabouts. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38 (2), 135-142.
McCalley, L.T. and Midden, C.J.H., 2002. Energy conservation through product-integrated
feedback: the roles of goal-setting and social orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology,
23 (5), 589-603.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to cradle. Remaking the way we make
things. New York: North Point Press.
Moezzi, M., Iyer, M, Lutzenhiser, L. and Woods, J., 2009. Behavioral assumptions in energy
efficiency potential studies. Report prepared for California Institute for Energy and
Environment’s Behavior and Energy Program, May, 2009.
Moore, D., Drury C. & Zink, K.J., 2011. HF/E in sustainable development. In M. Anderson
(Ed..), Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors, (pp. 347-354). Boca Raton: CRC
Press.
Moray, N., 1993. Technosophy and humane factors. Ergonomics in Design, 1 (4), 33-39.
Moray, N., 1995. Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-first century.
Ergonomics, 38 (8), 1691-1707.
Oreskes, N., 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306 (5702), 1686.
Orr, D.W., 2002. The nature of design. Ecology, culture, and human intention. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W. and Zurada, J., 2004. The lean
manufacturing enterprise: an emerging sociotechnical system integration. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14 (3), 285-306.
Pimentel, D., Cooperstein, S., Randell, H., Filiberto, D., Sorrentino, S., Kaye, B., Nicklin, C.,
Roszak, T., Gomes, M.E. and Kanner, A.D., Eds., 1995. Ecopsychology: restoring the earth,
healing the mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Sanquist, T.F., 2008, Human factors and energy use. HFES Bulletin, 51 (11), 1-3.
Sanquist, T., Moezzi, M., Vine, E., Meier, A., Diamond, R. and Sheridan, T., 2010.
Transforming the energy economy – the role of behavioral and social science (pp. 763-765).
Proceedings of the. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting.
Sauer, J., Wiese, B.S. and Rüttinger, B., 2004. Ecological performance of electrical consumer
products: the influence of automation and information-based measures. Applied Ergonomics,
35 (1), 37-47.
Schmitz, O.J., 2007. Ecology and ecosystem conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Scott, P., 2008. Global inequality, and the challenge for ergonomics to take a more dynamic
role to redress the situation. Applied Ergonomics, 39 (4), 495-499.
Steimle, U. and Zink, K.J., 2006. Sustainable development and human factors. In: W.
Karwowski, W., ed., International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (2nd ed.).
London: Taylor & Francis, 2258-2263.
Sterling, S., 2001. Sustainable education: re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: Green
Books.
Stone, N.J., 2003. Environmental view and color for a simulated telemarketing task. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1), 63-78.
Tennessen, C.M. and Cimprich, B., 1995. Views to nature: affects on attention. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15 (1), 77-85.
Thatcher, A., 2012. Early variability in the conceptualisation of “sustainable development and
human factors”. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41 (1),
2892-3899.
Thatcher, A. and Milner, K., 2012. The impact of a ‘green’ building on employees’ physical
and psychological wellbeing. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and
Rehabilitation, 41 (1), 3816-3823
Torres, M.K.L., Teixeira C.S. and Merino, E.A.D., 2009. Ergonomics and sustainable
development in mussel cultivation. International Ergonomics Association 17th Triennial
Congress, 9-14 August 2009, Beijing, China.
Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science,
224 (4647), 420-421.
Vitousek, P.M., 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology, 75 (7),
1861-1876.
af Wahlberg, A.E., 2006. Short-term effects of training in economical driving: passenger
comfort and driver acceleration behavior. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36
(2), 151-163.
af Wahlberg, A.E., 2007. Long-term effects of training in economical driving: fuel
consumption, accidents, driver acceleration behavior and technical feedback. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37 (4), 333-343.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M. and Alting, L., 1997. Environmental assessment of products. Vol.
1. London: Chapman & Hall.
Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wise, J.A. and Taylor, R.P., 2002. Fractal design strategies for enhancement of knowledge
work environments (pp. 854-858). Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Zink, K.J., 2008a, New IEA Human Factors and Sustainable Development Technical
Committee. HFES Bulletin, 51 (10), 3-4.
Zink, K.J., ed., 2008b. Corporate sustainability as a challenge for comprehensive
management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
Zink, K.J., Steimle, U. and Fischer, K., 2008. Human factors, business excellence and
corporate sustainability: differing perspectives, joint objectives. In: K.J. Zink, ed. Corporate
sustainability as a challenge for comprehensive management. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag, 3-
18.
Figure 1. Corporate sustainability and ergonomics interventions (adapted from Zink et al.,
2008; p. 13).
Figure 2. Bi-directional relationships for green ergonomics.
Figure 1. Corporate sustainability and ergonomics interventions (adapted from Zink et al.,
2008; p. 13)
Economic
Capital
Social
Capital
Natural
Capital
Eco-Efficiency
Eco-Effectiveness
Sufficiency Ecological Equity
Socio-effectiveness
Socio-Efficiency
Occupational Health &
Safety
Usabilit
y
Customer/stakeholder orientation
Socio-technical work systems
design
Energy efficiency
Efficient resource
use
Ecological change management
e.g. participatory approaches
Continuous
improvement/
TQM
Employee
wellbeing
Macro-ergonomics
Decision Support Systems
Figure 2. Bi-directional relationships for green ergonomics.
HUMANS NATURE
Humans benefitting
from nature
Humans benefitting
from nature
Humans benefitting
from nature
Humans benefitting
from nature
Humans
conserving,
preserving, and
restoring nature
Restorative design
Eco-efficient design
Recycling and sufficiency initiatives
Lifecycle considerations
Ecosystem services
Biomimicry and inspiration from nature
Physical and psychological restoration and
recreation
