Architectural Risk of Buildings and Occupant Safety: An Assessment Protocol

  • Erminia Attaianese
  • Raffaele d’Angelor
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)


Architectural risk of buildings relates to the possibility that technical and environmental elements of buildings interiors and outdoor spaces, may create dangerous situations for health and safety of occupants due to their engineering properties and their state of preservation, maintenance and use. Despite dangerous situations arising from architectural features of buildings are mentioned but undervalued in safety regulations, and a limited number of built environment aspects are currently analyzed in standard assessments of health and safety on work, many evidences demonstrate the strong relation between injuries or diseases of occupants and technical and environmental features of life and work environments. From this background, the study presents a Protocol for the Assessment of Architectural Risk (ARAP) for working environment proposed by Laboratory of Applied and Experimental Ergonomics of University of Naples Federico II (LEAS), with the Campania Chapter of INAIL, the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work. Main results of an application of the ARAP Protocol to an office building are also presented.


Injuries prevention in buildings Work place Work environment 


  1. 1.
    WHO (2011) Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing (EDB), World Health Organization, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clements-Croome D (2006) Creating Productive Workplaces, 2nd edn. Routledge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO 9001 (2015) Quality management systems. RequirementsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roelofsen P (2002) The impact of office environments on employee performance: the design of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement. J Facil Manage 1(3):247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dilani A (2004) Design and Health III: Health Promotion Through Environmental Design. International Academy for Design and Health, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Attaianese E, D’Angelo R, Duca G (2013) Architectural risk and workplace safety: proposal for an assessment method. Ital J Occup Environ Hyg 4(2):81–88Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Attaianese E (ed) (2015) Valutare il rischio architettonico negli ambienti di lavoro, Fascicolo 2 della Collana RAS. INAIL Campania e Università di Napoli Federico II, Edicampus, Ricercare e Applicare la Sicurezza, RomaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    UNI 8290-1: 1981- Ediliziaresidenziale. Sistema tecnologico. Classificazione e terminologiaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manuele FA (2008) Prevention through design (PtD). Hist Future J Saf Res 39:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Attaianese E, d’Angelo R (2016) La, valutazione del rischio di natura architettonica per la sicurezza dei luoghi di lavoro: applicazione del Protocollo di Valutazione del Rischio Architettonico ad un edificio per uffici. RivistaItaliana di Ergonomia. Special Issue 1:129–133Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chew MYL, De Silva N (2003) Maintainability problems of wet areas in high-rise residential buildings. Building Research and Information 31(1):60–69 ScholarBank@NUS RepositoryGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyce PR, Wilkins A (2018) Visual discomfort indoors. Light Res Technol 50:98–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vischer J, Wifi M (2015) The effect of workplace design on quality of life at work. In: Fleury Bahi G, Pol E, Navarro O (eds) Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Contarp, Inail, Direzione Regionale Campania, Via Nuova PoggiorealeNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations