nter

unring,

Keywords:ErgonomicsSustainable developmentLiterature survey

dev

among humans and other elements of a system, and the professionthat applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in orderto optimize human wellbeing and overall system performance(IEA, 2010) and it considers both a social goal (human wellbeing)

ed with the jointtechnical systemsthat ergonomics

nsition to sustain-013; Martin et al.,). Even though aachieving transi-

, 2001; Rodriguez,2012; Ryan and

ducted by Martinet al. (2013) reported that only seven articles on ergonomics,design and sustainability were in ergonomics journals and thusthere is a lack of clear published contributions from ergonomics tosustainable development, showing still very weak sign of ergono-mists tacking sustainability issues.

Since the demands in dealing with the issues related to sus-tainable development are increasing (IISD, 2013) and the goals ofergonomics and sustainable development are somewhatcongruent, integrating ergonomics into the eld of sustainable

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 82 (0)52 217 2716; fax: 82 (0)52 217 2708.E-mail addresses: shupingx@gmail.com, maverickhkust@unist.ac.kr,

maverickhkust@hotmail.com (S. Xiong).1

Contents lists availab

Applied Erg

.e ls

Applied Ergonomics 46 (2015) 67e75Both authors contributed equally to this work.needs (WCED,1987), sustainable development has been becomingthe center of attention and concerns for researchers as well aspractitioners in various elds such as design, engineering andbusiness over the past few decades (Barbier, 1987; Lele, 1991;Palmer et al., 1997; Wise, 2001; McLennan, 2004; IISD, 2013).Sustainable development is usually considered to have environ-mental, economic and social dimensions which should be balancedand jointly optimized (Blevis, 2007; Hanson, 2013; Zink, 2014).Ergonomics (or its synonym human factors) is the scienticdiscipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions

development are human centered and concernoptimization of the elements of complex socio-(Legg and Brown, 2010; Zink, 2014), implyingcould play an important role in assisting the traable development (Moray, 1995; Dekker et al., 22013; Zink and Fischer, 2013; Bolis et al., 2014few case studies on how ergonomics can help intion to sustainability have been reported (Wise2004; Legg and Brown, 2010; Miller et al.,Wilson, 2013), a recent literature review conDened as meeting the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

tioned two dimensions of sustainability.Statements above indicate both ergonomics and sustainable1. Introductionhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.07.0060003-6870/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomicstrends and convergent areas where ergonomics can play an important role in sustainable development.The results show that methods and techniques, human characteristics, work design and organization,health and safety and workplace and equipment design are the top ve frequently researched areas inergonomics. Ergonomics has an opportunity to contribute its knowledge especially to industrial andproduct design, architecture, health and safety and HCI (especially for energy reduction issues)categories of sustainable development. Typical methodologies and general guidance on how tocontribute the expertise of ergonomist to sustainable development are also discussed.

2014 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

and an economic goal (overall system performance) (Dul andNeumann, 2009), these two goals are corresponding to aforemen-Accepted 7 July 2014Available online 29 July 2014 and sustainable development over the past two decades (1992e2011), in order to identify their researchReceived 24 November 2012 become a hot topic of various disciplines even though the role of ergonomics in it is seldom reported orconsidered. This study conducts a systematic survey of research publications in the elds of ergonomicsErgonomics and sustainable developme(1992e2011): Research trends and howsustainable development

Ayubkhon Radjiyev 1, Hai Qiu 1, Shuping Xiong*, KyDepartment of Human and Systems Engineering, School of Design and Human EngineeMetropolitan City 689e798, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

a b s t r a c t

The need for sustainable

journal homepage: wwwSociety. All rights reserved.in the past two decadesgonomics can contribute to

gHyun NamUlsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan

elopment has been widely recognized and sustainable development has

le at ScienceDirect

onomics

evier .com/locate/apergo

2.2. Classication scheme and trend analysis

The retrieved and ltered research publications in ergonomicsand sustainable development were classied into 11 and 9 cate-gories (Table 2) respectively based on an established classicationowchart (Fig. 1). The 11 ergonomics categories were adopted fromclassication scheme for ergonomics proposed by the Ergonomics

Table 1Journal titles and the corresponding numbers of papers during the investigatedperiod in the eld of ergonomics.

Journal title Investigatedperiod

Number ofinitiallyretrievedpapers

Number ofpapers afterexclusion

Applied Ergonomics 1992e2011 1522 1352Ergonomics 1992e2011 2484 2227Ergonomics in Design 1995e2011 396 242Human Factors 1992e2011 1208 1012Human Factors and

Ergonomics inManufacturing

1996e2011 473 355

International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics

1992e2011 1786 1490

International Journal ofOccupational Safety and Ergonomics

1995e2011 534 497

Occupational Ergonomics 1998e2011 175 172The Japanese Journal of

a1992e2011 501 291

Table 2Categories used to classify publications in ergonomics and sustainable development.

Ergonomics categories(N1 11)a

Sustainable developmentcategories (N2 9)

Human characteristics AgricultureWorkplace and equipment

designArchitecture

Social and economic impactof the system

Economy

Environment Environment and social issuesInformation presentation

and communicationEducation

Display and control design Industrial and product designWork design and organization Human-computer interface (HCI)Health and safety Health and safetySystem characteristics Renewable energy and

technologyMethods and techniquesGeneral

Ergonomics 46 (2015) 67e75development might offer promising solutions to solve sustainabil-ity related problems (Moray, 1995; Ryan and Wilson, 2013; Zinkand Fischer, 2013) and open a window of opportunity for thediscipline of ergonomics to devote attention to global problems(Haslam and Waterson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013). A number ofefforts have been initiated in recent years to call for ergonomics tobecome more involved with sustainability. Steimle and Zink (2006)initially applied the term sustainable development to ergonomics(or human factors), and special IEA technical group on HumanFactors and Sustainable Development (chaired by Professor KlausJ. Zink and Professor Colin G. Drury) has been established afterwardin 2008. A special issue titled Ergonomics and Sustainability wasalso recently published in Ergonomics in 2013. However, since theperspective on sustainable development is relatively new for er-gonomists, very few publications are available on where and howergonomics can contribute well to the sustainable development(Thatcher, 2009; Haslam and Waterson, 2013). Following, the maingoal of this study is to identify the research trends and theconvergent areas of ergonomics and sustainable developmentthrough a systematic survey of the relevant research publicationsover the past two decades (1992e2011). The ndings from thisstudy are expected to provide some preliminary answers to thebasic question: where and how can ergonomics contribute to sus-tainable development?

2. Methodology

2.1. Literature searching strategy and inclusion criteria

All 24 ergonomics journals in the Ergonomics List 2004 devel-oped by Dul and Karwowski (2004) were initially considered tosearch peer-reviewed English language publications in the eld ofergonomics. Among 24 journals, 5 (Ergonomia-Italy, Ergonomia-Poland, Ergonomics-Australia, Ergonomics-New Zealand,Ergonomics-South Africa) are regional/national journals, 3 (LeTravail Humain, Tijdschrift voor Ergonomie, Zentralblatt frArveitsmedizin Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie) are non-Englishlanguage journals, 2 (Ergonomics International, Workplace Ergo-nomics) are not included and accessible in the major online data-bases of Web of Science, Scopus and Ergonomics Abstract, 2(Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin, Ergonomist)serve as the forum for Human Factors and Ergonomics Societymembers to exchange society news and events, 1 (InternationalJournal of Cognitive Ergonomics) has ceased publication since2002. These 13 journals were further excluded and thus 11 journalslisted in Table 1 were selected to study the research trend in er-gonomics. From 1992 to 2011, in total 9717 papers were published,1551 were excluded based on the following ltering rules, thus,8166 papers were further reviewed and analyzed.

(1) Review, comments, erratum and advertisement papers;(2) Papers being judged without substantial contents in

ergonomics.

Since the meaning of the term sustainable has shifted andevolved over the years (Haslam and Waterson, 2013) and sustain-able development covers a wide range of topics across many dis-ciplines in natural sciences, professional and applied sciences, andsocial sciences (Rodriguez, 2004), it is difcult to use a list of a fewjournals to represent the entire research eld of sustainabledevelopment. Thus, a general keyword search was conducted ononline databases through a commonly used reference managementsoftware package-EndNote X5(Thomson Reuters). In this study,three very general keywords sustainable development or sus-

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied68tainable design or eco designwere used to retrieve peer-reviewedEnglish language publications from 1992 to 2011 from three onlinedatabases-Web of Science (WoS), EBSCO and PubMed. The Booleanoperators or among those general keywords were used to ensurethe inclusion of publications as broad as possible at the beginningand then to lter out articles judged to be outside of scope ofsustainable development. The databases were chosen for theircoverage of literature relating to sustainable development and theiraccessibilities through EndNote and our university libraries. Overall5648 papers were retrieved in the initial searches, 3015 wereexcluded if they are duplicated or can't pass through the similarltering rules applied to ergonomics, and thus 2633 papers wereleft for further review.

ErgonomicsTheoretical Issues in

Ergonomics Science2000e2011 348 309

Zeitschrift Fr Arbeitswissena 1999e2011 290 219Total 1992e2011 9717 8166

a These two non-English language journals are also reviewed since they provideenough information (title, keywords, abstract) in English for most papers.a Adopted from Ergonomics Abstracts (2004) and Karwowski (2005).

ErgoA. Radjiyev et al. / AppliedAbstracts (2004) and Karwowski (2005). All 9 sustainable devel-opment categories except humanecomputer interface (HCI) hadbeen widely mentioned in published books and review papers(Lele, 1991; Holmberg and Sandbrook, 1992; Adams, 2006;Atkinson et al., 2007). The only category created by the authorswas HCI.

Fig. 1 shows the established classifying process for researchpublications in ergonomics and sustainable development. Eachpaper was reviewed and then classied into corresponding cate-gory by the authors in the order of title-keywords-abstract-full text.For most papers, the combined information from title, keywordsand abstract was sufcient to classify them into the correspondingcategories. Otherwise, the content analysis of the full text will befurther conducted. Considering one single paper sometimes could

Fig. 1. A owchart for classifying publications innomics 46 (2015) 67e75 69cover more than one primary category, it is allowed to givemaximum two categories for a paper. Additionally, to minimize thepossible bias in the classication and ensure the obtained resultsare reliable, all papers were reviewed and classied by two authorsindependently at the rst stage. If there are discrepancies betweenrst two authors' classications for some papers, the third or fourthauthor is involved to resolve the discrepancies at the second stage.

After the publications were classied, the trend analysis wasperformed: (1) to identify what are the key domains and researchtrends of ergonomics and sustainable development; and (2) todiscover the possible convergent areas between ergonomics andsustainable development. By doing so, we expect to know whereand how ergonomics can possibly contribute to sustainabledevelopment.

ergonomics and sustainable development.

3. Results

Time trends in the percentages of papers published each year intotal publications of ergonomics and sustainable developmentduring the past two decades are shown in Fig. 2. Even though thetrends exhibit remarkable inter-annual uctuations, the generaltrends to increase are well pronounced, especially steadily growingfor ergonomics since 2002 and for sustainable development since2004. Further analysis on percentages of ergonomics and sustain-able development publications in total scientic publishing outputin Web of Science (WoS) reveals that ergonomics has had a rela-tively constant publication rate (~1%) in WoS in the period of1992e2007 and after that, the publication rate gradually declines to0.6% in year 2011, while sustainable development has seen an in-crease in publication rate (from less than 0.1% in year 1992 to 0.4%in year 2011), indicating sustainability issues are currently attract-ing more and more attention from the scientic community. Allrelated publications are further classied into aforementionedcategories (Table 2).

3.1. Classication results and research trends of publications in

past 2 decades.Some noticeable changing trends of the declines and de-

velopments on shares of sustainable development categories

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied Ergonomics 46 (2015) 67e7570ergonomics

Fig. 3 shows the spectrum of research areas in ergonomics basedon the classication scheme. It was found that there are fourleading areas (percentage >10%) in the ergonomics eld during thepast 2 decades: methods and techniques (19.2%), human charac-teristics (16.6%), work design and organization (14.8%), andhealth and safety (10.1%). Results in Fig. 4 further demonstrate thatalthough those 4 areas have been consistently ranked top 4 in theeld of ergonomics in each 5-year period, methods and techniquesand human characteristics are now less dominating than theywere in the past. methods and techniques and human charac-teristics contributed to a share of 21.0% and 17.2% respectively ofthe total number of publications in the rst 5-year period(1992e1996), but the relative shares decreased to 17.7% and 16.0%over the last 5-year period (2007e2011). On the other hand, theshares of work design and organization (from 13.7% to 15.7%) andhealth and safety (from 9.6% to 10.8%) are steadily increasing. Allother categories except workplace and equipment design (from7.5% to 9.0%) hold a similar share of the total number of publicationssince their relative changes are less than 1%.Fig. 2. Time trends in percentages of publications each year in total publications of erg3.2. Classication results and research trends of publications insustainable development

Figs. 5 and 6 show the overall (from 1992 to 2011) and periodic(each 5-year period) contributions of 9 categories to the eld ofsustainable development respectively. Fig. 5 illustrates that overallcontributions from each category of sustainable development aresomewhat uniform when compared with the contributions in er-gonomics. There are 6 out of a total of 9 categories that contributedmore than a share of 10% to the total number of publications:environment and social (16.1%), industrial and product design(13.2%), education (12.6%), health and safety (12.2%), renewableenergy and technology (12.1%) and architecture (11.4%), thus theyare relatively leading domains of sustainable development in the

Fig. 3. Overall contributions (%) from each category to ergonomics during the past 2decades (1992e2011).onomics and sustainable development during the past two decades (1992e2011).

Fig. 4. Periodic contributions (%) from each cate

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied Ergoduring the past 2 decades can be observed from Fig. 6. As time goesby, there are dramatic declines in the shares of both environment/social and agriculture, the domains which periodic contributionswere ranked rst and second during the rst 5-year period(1992e1996). More specially, during the period of 1992e1996environment/social issues of sustainable development covers26.4%, and agriculture alone made up 20.3% of the entire sus-tainable development eld. However, agriculture has dropped by62.6% and only accounts for 7.6% of the total share in the last 5-yearperiod (2007e2011), ranking the second-to-last place (8th) among

9 categories. Additionally, environment/social has dropped by43.9% and accounts for 14.8% of the total share in the last 5-year

Fig. 5. Overall contributions (%) from each category to sustainable development in thepast 2 decades (1992e2011).period. The rapid declines in the shares of agriculture and envi-ronment/social domains are counterbalanced by the steady de-velopments in industrial and product design (from 3.4% to 14.8%),architecture (from 4.7% to 11.4%), renewable energy and tech-nology (from 7.4% to 12.3%) and partially economy (from 4.7% to7.9%). The shares of other three categories including education,HCI, health and safety remain unchanged. In the last 5-yearperiod, environment/social (14.8%), industrial and product design(14.8%), health and safety (12.6%), renewable energy and tech-nology (12.3%), education (12.3%) and architecture (11.4%), are the

gory to ergonomics in each 5-year period.

nomics 46 (2015) 67e75 71top 6 areas in sustainable development.

3.3. Convergent research areas between ergonomics andsustainable development

Since categories used in ergonomics eld are not the same asthose in sustainable development, and a category in ergonomicseld is often intertwined with more than one category in sustain-able development eld, and vice versa, it is difcult to dene theexact one-to-one matching between ergonomics and sustainabledevelopment. Thus, the commonality and overlapping areas be-tween these two elds are inspected to nd the convergent areas orthe directions of ergonomics having high potential to make con-tributions to sustainable development. According to the trendanalysis, methods and techniques, human characteristics, workdesign and organization, health and safety, and workplace andequipment design were the most dominating research areas inergonomics. In the case of sustainable development, environment/social, industrial and product design, education, health andsafety, renewable technology and energy and architecture werethe most frequently researched areas.

Since human characteristics and methods and techniquescover broad issues related to physiological and anatomical aspects,psychology, individual differences, general methods and tech-niques, and measures on human performance etc (Salvendy, 1997;Karwowski, 2005) towards products and work systems, industrialand product design in sustainable development can be signi-cantly overlapped with them. In the eld of design for

ry t

ErgoFig. 6. Periodic contributions (%) from each catego

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied72sustainability, ergonomic design (User-Centered Design) isbecoming an important design strategy for design culture innova-tion, providing designers with the necessary knowledge regardinghuman characteristics (especially capabilities and limitations, be-haviors, needs and desires) during use and interaction with prod-ucts and systems (Tosi, 2012). Several methodological approachesin ergonomics such as direct observation, survey, trial tests,experimental measuring of physical and mental workloads can befurther applied in assessing the appropriateness and effectivenessof the user-product/system interaction. Additionally, health andsafety should be important for both ergonomics and sustainabledevelopment since it is the common classifying category in bothelds.

Workplace and equipment design and environmental ergo-nomics in ergonomics eld can be connected to sustainabilityfeatures of architecture that promote the wellbeing of the occu-pants and protect the environment through energy conservationand green buildings (Hendrick, 2000; Wise, 2001; Remijn, 2006;Miller et al., 2012; Hanson, 2013; Hedge and Dorsey, 2013;Thatcher, 2013). Similarly, health and safety along with workdesign and organization can also be the promising areas of er-gonomics to attain business sustainability in that it can contributeto the development of corporate social responsibility on consid-ering occupational health and welfare of workers in sustainablework systems (Genaidy et al., 2009, 2010; Bolis et al., 2014; Zink,2014). In general, work design is from relevant micro-ergonomics approach and organizational design is from macro-ergonomics principles (Hendrick, 2000; Zink, 2008; Guimar~aeset al., 2012). Some practice examples demonstrate that workdesign and organization has great potential to be developed forsocial sustainability in conjunction with economic sustainability(GAO, 1997; Baxter and Harrison, 2000; Docherty et al., 2009;Guimar~aes et al., 2012).o sustainable development in each 5-year period.

nomics 46 (2015) 67e75Social and economic impact of the system in ergonomics startsto grow and it is closely connected to sustainable development.Especially nowadays, ergonomics discipline aims to improve thecontribution to the global society. To achieve this goal, collaborativeapproach among federated ergonomics societies, NGO, enterprises,and governmental authorities is required (Caple, 2010). Approachesdealing with global problems, such as improving labor standards ofindustrially developing countries (Locke and Romis, 2006),changing operational decision toward environmentally friendly byimplementing new design of feedback (Flemming et al., 2008),reducing behavioral and cultural barrier toward sustainabledevelopment can be good references for sustainable developmentstrategy.

Fig. 7 summarizes the possible interconnections between sortedcategories in the elds of ergonomics and sustainable develop-ment. It indicated that the ergonomics expertise and knowledge(especially from the top ve frequently researched areas) could beincorporated into industrial and product design, architecture,health and safety, and HCI for more contribution to sustainabledevelopment.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Even though sustainability has stimulated considerablechanges in design, engineering and business professions over thepast decades, ergonomics has remained relatively absent fromthis paradigmatic revolution (Wise, 2001). In this study, insteadof providing a complete list of contributions on sustainabledevelopment which have been made from ergonomics, we focuson identifying the potential directions for better incorporatingergonomics to the sustainable development in the futurethrough literature survey, paper classication and the trendanalysis.

share

ErgoThe results from the trend analysis have shown where the po-tential areas in ergonomics can contribute to sustainable develop-ment (Fig. 7), another part of the question on how to contribute stillremains unanswered. There have been several attempts by scholarsand practitioners in the ergonomics eld to come up with anappropriate methodology or framework that can possiblycontribute to sustainable development (Marsot, 2005; Bucchianicoet al., 2012; Marano et al., 2012; Nadadur and Parkinson, 2013;Neumann and Village, 2012; Ryan and Wilson, 2013; Carayonet al., 2014; Davis et al., 2014; Norros, 2014; Zink, 2014).

To integrate ergonomics at the industrial and product designstage for sustainability, Marsot (2005) has suggested using qualityfunction deployment (QFD), a method to transform user demands

Fig. 7. Interconnection map between sorted categories (from the highest

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied(including ergonomic demands) and sustainability requirements(such as the use of materials friendly to environment and with longlife cycles) into engineering design characteristics for a product orsystem as a general tool. The effectiveness of the QFD for linkingergonomics and product design has been demonstrated by manystudies (Tsuda, 1995; Terninko, 1997; Wu, 1997; Haapalainen et al.,2000). Tosi (2012) recently applied User-Centered Design (UCD)approach into the design of everyday use products for environ-mental sustainability in terms of energy saving and resource con-servation. Two examples were introduced in Tosi's study todemonstrate the applicability of UCD approach. The rst exampleinvolves innovative design solutions for household kitchensregarding the preparation and consumption of food, especially inrelation to energy saving and waste reduction; while the secondexample is related to the design of an easily transportable, foldingand ultra-lightweight bicycle (intermodal bike) for sustainablemobility and intermodality. Furthermore, Nadadur and Parkinson(2013) highlighted the role of anthropometry from ergonomics insustainable development and proposed three ways in which itsconsideration is relevant to sustainability: reducing raw materialconsumption, increasing usage lifetimes and ethical humanresource considerations. They reported a global case study onworkstation seat design, with detail considerations of humananthropometry variability. Aside from the integration of ergo-nomics with industrial and product design for sustainability, Wise(2001) showed that principles of environmental ergonomics forbuilding occupant benets can be applied into sustainable buildingdesign. The potential of having a magic integration of ergonomicsand sustainable design for buildings have been demonstratedthrough architecture related projects with ergonomic inputs(Cardoso et al., 2006; Remijn, 2006; Hignett and Lu, 2009; Milleret al., 2012).

Aside from being applied into industrial and product designand architecture for sustainability, ergonomics can also be appliedinto HCI for sustainability (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Darby, 2006;Flemming et al., 2008), especially for environmental issues suchas energy reduction. Abrahamse et al. (2005) and Darby (2006)showed that feedback about energy usage, a consequence inter-vention, is successfully encouraging conservation behavior andreducing energy consumption in the developed world. Flemming

to the lowest) in the elds of ergonomics and sustainable development.

nomics 46 (2015) 67e75 73et al. (2008) reviewed the literature on how reductions in energyconsumption can be achieved through behavioral interventionsand they demonstrated a need for ergonomics in the sustainabilitydomain. Since ergonomist have the theory and technical expertiseto approach the feedback design problem systematically, ergo-nomics has an opportunity to contribute to better human-machinesystems for sustainable development on energy reduction (Harveyet al., 2013; Peffer et al., 2013). Recently, Lockton et al. (2010)developed an innovation tool-Design with Intent (DWI) methodto inuence the user behavior so that the environmental impact ofthe products can be reduced efciently.

Health and safety along with work design and organizationcan contribute to social sustainability by the sustainability of hu-man resources, the most important asset in enterprises and oursociety. Sustainability of human resources is based on enduringworkability and employability, which have been dominant ele-ments in ergonomics ever since (Zink, 2008; IEA, 2010). In thissense, ergonomics can contribute to designing sustainable worksystems which not only have to be able to function in their envi-ronment and to achieve economic or operational objectives, butalso have to preserve or enlarge human and social capital (Maguire,2001; Neumann and Village, 2012; Zink, 2014). In fact, the sus-tainability of human and social capital is one of the foundations ofeconomic sustainability and it is needed to secure environmentalsustainability (Docherty et al., 2009). A conceptual framework forintegrating ergonomics into designing sustainable work systemseffectively to eliminate the health hazards at source was recently

Ergoproposed by Neumann and Village (2012). Broad stakeholderparticipation (Vink et al., 2008), link between performance andhealth goals (Dul and Neumann, 2009), and process focused changetools are three essential elements of the proposed framework. Thegeneral strategies of ergonomic design for sustainability were dis-cussed by Marano et al. (2012) and Ryan and Wilson (2013). Itshould be noted that in order for ergonomics to successfullycontribute to sustainable development, an interdisciplinary design-driven and systems approach should play very important roles(Bucchianico et al., 2012; Carayon et al., 2014; Norros, 2014;Wilson,2014; Zink, 2014).

This study has some limitations. Firstly, even though more than8100 articles from ergonomics and over 2600 articles from sus-tainable development were selected for classication, we can'texhaust all related publications due to the interdisciplinary natureof the ergonomics and sustainable development. For example, thekeywords used to describe work in sustainable development mayvary across disciplines, and the popularity of using different key-words to describe similar work may change over time, thus threekeywords used in this study may bias the search and the ndingsmay not be fully representative for the research publications in theeld of sustainable development. Secondly, the classication of anarticle depends on not only each rater's professional knowledge,but also his/her personal judgments of substantial contribution toeach category, thus, subjectivity is unavoidable in this classifyingprocess. More rigorous criterion on article classication should befurther studied. Furthermore, most of identied areas for ergo-nomics contribution to sustainable development should beconsidered as areas of somewhat mature contribution only, theyare not necessarily the most promising areas of research since themost promising areas could be those that are not yet popular.Finally, regarding how to contribute ergonomics expertise andknowledge to sustainable development, this study only suggestedtypical methodologies and general guidance based on the surveyedliterature, the systematic implementation steps remain unknownand should be further studied. Nevertheless, the ndings from thisstudy could offer some hints on where and how ergonomics canbetter contribute to the eld of sustainable development.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Basic Science Research Programthrough the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF 2011-0022185). The authors would like to thank the reviewers and theeditor for their constructive comments and suggestions, whichhelped to improve the quality of this paper.

References

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T., 2005. A review of interventionstudies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25,273e291.

Adams, W.M., 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment andDevelopment for Die Twenty-rst Century. Report of the IUCN RenownedThinkers Meeting, 29e31 January (2006). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., 2007. Handbook of Sustainable Development.Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 27e254.

Barbier, E., 1987. The concept of sustainable economic development. Environ.Conserv. 14, 101e110.

Baxter, K., Harrison, D., 2000. A simple cost benet analysis for an ergonomicstrain-the-trainer program. In: Proceedings of the International ErgonomicsAssociation 2000/Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) 2000Congress, vol. 2, pp. 1e3. San Diego, CA.

Blevis, E., 2007. Sustainable interaction design: invention, disposal, renewal &waste. In: Proc CHI 07. ACM. ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 503e512.

Bolis, I., Brunoro, C.M., Sznelwar, L.I., 2014. Mapping the relationships betweenworkand sustainability and the opportunities for ergonomic action. Appl. Ergon. 45(4), 1225e1239.

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied74Bucchianico, G.D., Marano, A., Rossi, E., 2012. Towards a transdisciplinary approachof ergonomic design for sustainability. Work 41, 3874e3877.Caple, D.C., 2010. The IEA contribution to the transition of ergonomics fromresearch to practice. Appl. Ergon. 41, 731e737.

Carayon, P., Wetterneck, T.B., Rivera-Rodriguez, A.J., Hundt, A.S., Hoonakker, P.,Holden, R., Gurses, A.P., 2014. Human factors systems approach to healthcarequality and patient safety. Appl. Ergon. 45, 14e25.

Cardoso, V.M.B., Alencar, W.S., Santana, R.C.D., Mar, A.B., Maximo, F.H.D., 2006.Ergodesign service: ergonomic contributions to users of a university hospital.In: Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 16th WorldCongress on Ergonomics. 10e14 July, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Darby, S., 2006. The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption: a Review forDefra of the Literature on Metering, Billing, and Direct Displays. EnvironmentalChange Institute, University of Oxford.

Davis, M.C., Challenger, R., Jayewardene, D.N.W., Clegg, C.W., 2014. Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: a call for bravery. Appl. Ergon. 45, 171e180.

Dekker, S., Hancock, P.A., Wilkin, P., 2013. Ergonomics and sustainability: to-wards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics 56 (3),357e364.

Docherty, P., Kira, M., Shani, A.B., 2009. What the world needs now is sustainablework systems. In: Docherty, P., Kira, M., Shani, A.B. (Eds.), Creating SustainableWork Systems, second ed. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1e21.

Dul, J., Karwowski, W., 2004. An assessment system for rating scientic journals inthe eld of ergonomics and human factors. Appl. Ergon. 35 (3), 301e310.

Dul, J., Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl.Ergon. 40, 745e752.

Ergonomics Abstracts, 2004. Ergonomics Information Analysis Centre (EIAC). Schoolof Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University Of Birmingham,Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Flemming, S.A.C., Hilliard, A., Jamieson, G.A., 2008. The need for human factors inthe sustainability domain. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergo-nomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting, pp. 748e752.

GAO, 1997. Private Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive Results. US GeneralAccounting Ofce e Health Education and Human Services Division,Washington.

Genaidy, A.M., Rinder, M.M., Sequeira, R., A-Rehim, A., 2010. The role of human-at-work systems in business sustainability: perspectives based on expert andqualified production workers in a manufacturing enterprise. Ergonomics 53,559e585.

Genaidy, A.M., Sequeira, R., Rinder, M.M., A-Rehim, A., 2009. Determinants ofbusiness sustainability: an ergonomics perspective. Ergonomics 52, 273e301.

Guimar~aes, L.B., Ribeiro, J.L., Renner, J.S., 2012. Cost-benet analysis of a socio-technical intervention in a Brazilian footwear company. Appl. Ergon. 43,948e957.

Haapalainen, M., Kivisto-Rahnasto, J., Mattila, M., 2000. Ergonomic design of non-powered hand tools: an application of quality function deployment (QFD).Occup. Ergon. 2 (3), 179e189.

Hanson, M.A., 2013. Green ergonomics: challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics56 (3), 399e408.

Harvey, J., Thorpe, N., Fairchild, R., 2013. Attitudes towards and perceptions of eco-driving and the role of feedback systems. Ergonomics 56 (3), 507e521.

Haslam, R., Waterson, P., 2013. Editorial: ergonomics and sustainability. Ergonomics56 (3), 343e347.

Hedge, A., Dorsey, J.A., 2013. Green buildings need good ergonomics. Ergonomics 56(3), 492e506.

Hendrick, H.W., 2000. The technology of ergonomics. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 1,22e33.

Hignett, S., Lu, J., 2009. An investigation of the use of health building notes by UKhealthcare building designers. Appl. Ergon. 40, 608e616.

Holmberg, J., Sandbrook, R., 1992. Sustainable development: what is to be done? In:Holmberg, J. (Ed.), Policies for a Small Planet. Earthscan, London, pp. 19e38.

IEA Technical Information, 2010. Human Factors and Sustainable Development.Available from: http://www.iea.cc/ (accessed 30.10.13.).

IISD, 2013. The Sustainable Development Timeline, sixth ed. Available from: http://www.iisd.org/rio5/timeline/sdtimeline.htm (accessed 30.10.13.).

Karwowski, W., 2005. Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science,engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible sys-tems. Ergon. (Invited Plenary Paper) 48 (5), 436e463.

Legg, S., Brown, C., 2010. Achieving transition to sustainability: lessons from humanfactors and ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference onSustainability Engineering and Science, 2010 November. Auckland, NewZealand.

Lele, M.S., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev. 19 (6),607e621.

Locke, R., Romis, M., 2006. Beyond corporate codes of conduct: work organizationand labor standards in two Mexican garment factories. MIT Sloan School ofManagement, Massachusetts.

Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton, N.A., 2010. The Design with Intent Method: adesign tool for inuencing user behavior. Appl. Ergon. 41, 382e392.

Maguire, M., 2001. Methods to support human-centered design. Int. J. Hum. Com-put. Stud. 55 (4), 587e634.

Marano, A., Bucchianico, G.D., Rossi, E., 2012. Strategies and arguments of ergo-nomic design for sustainability. Work 41 (Suppl. 1), 3869e3873.

Marsot, J., 2005. QFD: a methodological tool for integration of ergonomics at thedesign stage. Appl. Ergon. 36, 185e192.

nomics 46 (2015) 67e75Martin, K., Legg, S., Brown, C., 2013. Designing for sustainability: ergonomics ecarpe diem. Ergonomics 56 (3), 365e388.

McLennan, J.F., 2004. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design: the Future of Archi-tecture. Ecotone LLC, Kansas City, pp. 2e8.

Miller, L., Dorsey, J., Jacobs, K., 2012. The importance of ergonomics to sustainabilitythroughout a building's life cycle. Work 41 (Suppl. 1), 2129e2132.

Moray, N., 1995. Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-rst century.Ergonomics 38 (8), 1691e1707.

Nadadur, G., Parkinson, M.B., 2013. The role of anthropometry in designing forsustainability. Ergonomics 56 (3), 422e439.

Neumann, W.P., Village, J., 2012. Ergonomics action research II: a framework forintegrating HF into work system design. Ergonomics 55 (10), 1140e1156.

Norros, L., 2014. Developing human factors/ergonomics as a design discipline. Appl.Ergon. 45, 61e71.

Palmer, J., Cooper, I., Vorst, R.V.D., 1997. Mapping out fuzzy buzzwords: who sitswhere on sustainability and sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 5 (2),87e93.

Peffer, T., Perry, D., Pritoni, Marco, Aragon, C., Meier, A., 2013. Facilitating energysavings with programmable thermostats: evaluation and guidelines for thethermostat user interface. Ergonomics 56 (3), 463e479.

Remijn, S.L.M., 2006. Integrating ergonomics into the architectural design pro-cesses: tools for user participation in hospital design. In: Proceedings of theInternational Ergonomics Association 16th World Congress on Ergonomics.10e14 July, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Rodriguez, E., 2004. User research and eco-ergonomics: encouraging environ-mentally effective behaviours in product users through the industrial designprocess. In: International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Sci-ence, Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Auckland, New Zealand, 6the9th July2004.

Ryan, B., Wilson, J.R., 2013. Ergonomics in the development and implementation oforganisational strategy for sustainability. Ergonomics 56 (3), 541e555.

Salvendy, G. (Ed.), 1997. Handbook of Human Factor and Ergonomics, second ed.Wiley, New York.

Steimle, U., Zink, K.J., 2006. Sustainable development and human factors. In:Karwowski, W. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and HumanFactors, second ed. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 2258e2263.

Terninko, J., 1997. The QFD, TRIZ and Taguchi connection: customer-driven robust inno-vation. In: The Ninth Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, June 10, 1997.

Thatcher, A., 2009. Ergonomics for sustainable development and hedonomics:incompatible or mutually compatible?. In: Proceedings of International Ergo-nomics Association (IEA), 9e14 August 2009, Beijing, China.

Thatcher, A., 2013. Green ergonomics: denition and scope. Ergonomics 56 (3),389e398.

Tosi, F., 2012. Ergonomics and sustainability in the design of everyday use products.Work 41, 3878e3882.

Tsuda, Y., 1995. QFD models for concurrent engineering development processes ofautomobiles. Concurr. Eng-Res. A 3 (3), 213e220.

Vink, P., Imad, A.S., Zink, K.J., 2008. Dening stakeholder involvement in partici-patory design processes. Appl. Ergon. 39, 519e526.

WCED, 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our CommonFuture. Oxford University Press, New York.

Wilson, J.R., 2014. Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Appl.Ergon. 45, 5e13.

Wise, J.A., 2001. Human factors and the sustainable design of built environments.In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th AnnualMeeting, pp. 808e812.

Wu, A., 1997. Integration of QFD, TRIZ, and Robust Design: Overview & Luggage CaseStudy. American Supplier Institute, Livonia.

Zink, K.J., 2008. New IEA Human Factors and Sustainable Development TechnicalCommittee. In: HFES Bulletin, vol. 51. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Zink, K.J., Fischer, K., 2013. Do we need sustainability as a new approach in humanfactors and ergonomics? Ergonomics 56 (3), 348e356.

Zink, K.J., 2014. Designing sustainable work systems: the need for a systemsapproach. Appl. Ergon. 45, 126e132.

A. Radjiyev et al. / Applied Ergonomics 46 (2015) 67e75 75

Ergonomics and sustainable development in the past two decades (19922011): Research trends and how ergonomics can contribu ...1 Introduction2 Methodology2.1 Literature searching strategy and inclusion criteria2.2 Classification scheme and trend analysis

3 Results3.1 Classification results and research trends of publications in ergonomics3.2 Classification results and research trends of publications in sustainable development3.3 Convergent research areas between ergonomics and sustainable development

4 Discussion and conclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferences