Polar Field Tent...참고하세요..

[Maximillien(박인화)]

시간 남아 돌아가시는 분들은

한번 읽어 보시면 좋을 것 같읍니다,,

Polar tent에 대해 가지고 있던 자료중 하나 올립니다,,

회원님들꼐 도움 되셨으면 좋겠읍니다,,

Polar Field Tent Shelters and Well-Being of Users
James J. Potter holds the Douglass Professorship of Architecture at the University
of Nebraska–Lincoln. He received his Ph.D. in man-environment relations
from The Pennsylvania State University. He has been involved in environmental
design research for more than 25 years, presenting numerous papers at professional
conferences and publishing a variety of research regarding his continuing
interest in how people perceive, use, and are affected by their environment. His
main research goal has been to better understand the impact of change on people’s
health and well-being. A secondary goal has been to better understand the
role the residential environment plays in people’s daily lives.
X. Winston Yan is an associate professor of architecture at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln. He received his doctoral degree from the University of Michigan.
He has been conducting research in areas of the built environment and behavior
since the 1980s.
Nathan S. Krug is an associate professor of architecture at the University of
Nebraska. He is the founder of the environmental design studio, a professional
architectural firm that pursues a holistic approach to architecture. His research
interests focus on energy conservation, technology as form determinant, and contextual
responsibility in the built environment.
Karl C. Kuivinen is the director of the Polar Ice Coring Office and codirector
of the Snow & Ice Research Group at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. His research
interests include the general areas of polar logistics, ice drilling technology
and Greenland paleoclimate reconstruction. He received his M.A. in geography/
climatology the University of Nebraska.
Marijane E. England is the assistant director of Science Support Services
for the Polar Ice Coring Office at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Her research
interests are operational research and information systems. She received
her Ph.D.in community and human resources from the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln.
Authors’ Note: The authors are very grateful for grant support from the College of Architecture
and the Office of Polar Ice Coring Research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Without their support, this project would not have been possible. The authors also wish
to thank the Office of Polar program at the National Science Foundation for providing the
study with valuable information.
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 399
Abstract
Polar research teams often spend extended periods of time away
from base stations, living and working in remote field camps of portable
tent shelters. This article reports on a study of the design and
use of portable field tent shelters being deployed in Antarctica and
other circumpolar areas. The purpose of the study was to determine
the effect of the shelters on health and well-being of their users from
an environment-behavior perspective. Preliminary analysis indicates
that although the design and use of field tent shelters were generally
satisfactory, there are areas in which the shelters had some adverse
bearing on health and well-being of a considerable number of shelter
users. This article concludes with suggestions that can be used for future
design and manufacture of portable field tent shelters.
The polar and circumpolar regions present a physical environment
that greatly challenges human habitation. The challenge often is compounded
by the very unusual social and psychological conditions: isolation,
enforced small group togetherness, restricted mobility, limited communication
and social contact, and the disruption of normal recreational
and professional activities (Suedfeld, 1987, 1991). Surviving in the polar
and circumpolar regions is a task no less difficult than surviving in undersea
or space habitats.
The extreme conditions become even harsher for those who have to
spend extended periods of time away from permanent research stations
and laboratories, living and working in remote field camps of portable
tent shelters. Depending on their research tasks, they stay in these portable
shelters anywhere from a few days to as long as several weeks. The
tent shelters are their only protection from the extreme physical conditions
and are part of their resources for coping with the impact of the
physical and social environment on their health and well-being.
Drawing results from a recently completed survey study of people
who used the field tent shelters in polar and circumpolar regions over the
past 5 years, this article provides a discussion of how the users’ well-being
is related to and sometimes affected by the design and use of portable
field tent shelters. For the purposes of this study, portable field tent shelters
are defined as those that are temporary and highly transportable.
Although human well-being covers a great number of issues and has
many dimensions, the discussion here focuses only on those aspects of
environmental psychology that have implications for the design and use
of the shelters. Specifically, this article centers on the following research
questions:
potter et al. in environment and 400 behavior 30 (1998)
1. To what extent do the design, deployment, and use of the shelters
affect users’ safety, health, and psychological well-being?
2. What performance factors are more important and contribute
more significantly to problems, with regard to issues under
investigation?
The literature search, to date, points out that the impact of the polar
environment on human beings has been largely ignored or considered
secondary to the real mission of polar research in the category of service
(Suedfeld, 1991). Attention has been given more to the impact of human
beings on the environment, such as waste disposal control and environmental
protection, and less on the impact of the environment on human
beings, other than the basic safety and survival issues (Oakley, 1986).
Of the literature dealing with the built environment in polar and circumpolar
regions, most studies focus on either the permanent research stations
or the large, semipermanent structures (ASA, 1991; Brier, 1969; Flanders,
1980; Floyd, 1974; Johnson, 1970; Kovacs, 1981; Ledingham & Keage,
1986; NCEL, 1991; Richter, 1979). Much less information is available on
the small, portable field structures transported on a sled, usually behind a
snowmobile (Chinn, 1983). The available literature related to portable shelters
is often 10 to 20 years old, and some shelters were reviewed in recreational
camping magazines that often lacked a systematic approach.
It also was revealed in the literature review that studies of field tent
shelters from the psychological and physiological perspectives of their
users tend to focus more on training for adaptation to the harsh conditions
and the isolated and confined environments (ICES) (Carrere, 1990;
Mocellin & L Suedfeld, 1991; Natani & Shurley, 1979; Suedfeld, 1991).
Relatively little has been written regarding the impact of the tent design
on the health and well-being of its occupants living in small tent shelters
in remote field camps under extreme climatic and social conditions for an
extended period of time.
Palinkas (1991) was one of the few to study the effects of physical and
social environmental stressors on the short-term and long-term health
and well-being of Antarctic winter-over personnel who stayed in a number
of permanent stations. The study revealed that station size and severity
of physical environment were significantly inversely associated with
symptomatology of the winter-over syndrome.
In a study to confirm‎ suggestions of anecdotal evidence that personnel
in isolated, polar work settings experience a sharp decline in motivation
and morale shortly after the halfway point of their mission—that is,
the “third-quarter phenomenon”—Steel and Suedfeld (1991) suggested
that individual arousal may be related to length of isolation and interactively
affected by significant events and people’s expectations regarding
the duration of their stay.
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 401
Carrere and Evans (1994) discovered design qualities of the built environment
that are important to psychological well-being of people in ICEs.
The qualities included the need for privacy, flexible and novel behavioral
settings, freedom to personalize the setting, and distinct work, recreational,
and soundproof multifunctional personal spaces for sleeping
and other individual uses as personal refuge. According to their study,
the physical confinement associated with ICEs may heighten the need for
privacy and for personal territory. Failure to provide adequate space for
personal needs, sleeping, working, and leisure activities can lead to low
morale and fatigue.
Another limitation of the previous studies resides in research methodology.
There is relatively little to be found in the literature that took
a systematic postoccupancy eval‎uation (POE) approach to better understanding
design and use of the various types of portable shelters. As a
proven, effective means of researching environment and behavior interaction
from a user perspective (Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Preiser,
Rabinowitz, & White. 1988), a POE study of the shelters is essential to
make the shelters not only a protection for survival but also an environment
promoting users’ well-being.
Method
Data collection for the study involved two steps. First, a telephone interview
of selected polar researchers was conducted to identify issues
pertinent to the investigation. The interview addressed issues concerning
both performance of the shelters and psychological well-being of users
as affected by the design and use of the shelters. Second, built on the initial
telephone interview, a more inclusive, less open-ended mail-in survey
questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was pretested with
several shelter users on the campus of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
who had been to polar and circumpolar regions many times. Input
from the pretest was integrated into the final version of the questionnaire.
The telephone survey was conducted during the months of September
and October 1995, and the mail-in survey was carried out from
January through March 1996.
Procedure
Study participants for the telephone interview and the subsequent selfadministered
questionnaire survey were identified from a pool of candipotter
et al. in environment and 402 behavior 30 (1998)
dates who went to Antarctica and other circumpolar regions and used field
tent shelters in the past 5 years. The pool of candidates was generated using
information from the Office of Polar Programs at the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the Polar Ice Coring Office at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln. A sample of 30 scientists of the pool was selected for the
telephone interviews, and more than 200 were identified to receive a copy
of the self-administered mail-in survey questionnaire. In total, 16 people
were interviewed by telephone and 106 returned the survey questionnaire.
Table I presents the statistics of the survey respondents with regard to
their overall experience in the polar and circumpolar regions. It should be
noted that many went to more than one polar and/or circumpolar area
and engaged in more than one trip. As indicated in Table 1, some had gone
to those areas for as long as 260 weeks (cumulatively) over several years.
Measures
The mail-in survey questionnaire is composed of five sections. The
first section collected general background information about respondents’
experience with different types of tent shelters in different polar
and circumpolar areas. The second section asked information relevant to
the climatic and weather conditions respondents encountered while in
those polar and circumpolar regions. The third section covered data pertinent
to physical aspects of the field shelter such as size, tent door types,
materials, colors, insulation, ability for personalization within tent shelters,
air quality, humidity, moisture buildup, noise conditions, and so on.
The fourth section dealt with use of the field shelter. The final section included
questions regarding the influence of design and use of the tent
shelters on users’ sense of well-being. In total, more than 150 questions
were included in the questionnaire, of which a majority used a structured,
closed-ended format.
Table 1. Experience of Survey Respondents
Number of Total Number Total Number of
Respondents of Times Gone Weeks Stayed
Polar and Who Went There Over There Over Median
Circumpolar Sites There the Years the Years (weeks)
Antarctica 74 1-26 1-180 25.0
Greenland 28 1-10 1-70 15.0
Alaska 31 1-40 1-260 15.5
Others (Siberia
and Iceland) 8 1-6 1-20 8.5
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 403
To study the impact of the design and use of tent shelters on users’
well-being, some data collection techniques used by several studies of environmental
psychology were adopted as a reference (Byrne, Barry, &
Nelson, 1963; Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974; Leon,
1991; Mackay, Cox, Burrows, & Lazzerini, 1978; Ursin et al., 1991). These
studies all used self-descriptive questionnaires as instruments to explore
various aspects of psychological well-being such as mood, stress, depression,
and anxiety. Although this research addressed issues in great depth
and detail from a perspective of clinical psychology, our study used part
of their well-being measurements in a more modest way. Only those
items relevant to, and potentially with implications for, the design and
use of the field tent shelters were included in the questionnaire. ‘The interitem
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .81 among the five variables
used to measure well-being—that is, loneliness, depression, nervousness,
restlessness, and weakness—and was .72 when additional measurements
of feeling frustrated, challenged, and threatened, and having sleeping
problems were included.
Analysis
Although the study aimed at eval‎uation of the tent shelter by the entire
sample population, it also took a comparative approach in data analysis
to see if any variations exist among the different types of field tent shelters.
Three categories of tent shelters were defined for the purpose of data
analysis. The first was the small, Scott and Arctic Oven type tents (abbreviated
as S&A hereafter), which usually are used by one, two, or up to four
people. The second category included all other small tent shelters, such as
Dome and North Face VE25 types of tents (abbreviated as D&N hereafter).
The last group was for the relatively larger, semipermanent types of tent
shelters such as the Jamesway and Polarhaven (abbreviated as J&P hereafter).
Samples of tent types appear in Figures 1 through 4.
There were two reasons to divide the small tent shelters into the two
categories—the S&A and the D&N. First, it became clear to the investigators
that the Scott-type tent shelters, although one of the oldest types,
were still the most commonly used in field camps for accommodating up
to four people. The relatively new Arctic Oven-type tent shelters have
become popular in recent years. Their abundant use and similar functions
make them reasonable to be singled out for an extensive eval‎uation
study. Second, slightly more than one third of the respondents responded
to the survey based on their experience with the S&A type tent
shelters, and another one third based responses on the D&N tent shelters.
This fact made the grouping a viable strategy for conducting comparative
statistical analysis.
potter et al. in environment and 404 behavior 30 (1998)
Including the relatively large and semipermanent shelters of J&P
types in the study was compelled by two considerations: their abundant
use in field camps and their design and use features that were distinctly
different from those of the smaller tents. Having this group allowed the
data analysis to see how significant the difference is between eval‎uations
of the smaller and larger tent users with regard to issues of safety, health,
and well-being, as well as seeing what could be learned from each type to
improve designs and use of the shelters.
Results and Discussion
The Built Environment
Data of this study indicate that respondents had a generally positive
overall eval‎uation of the shelters currently used by American polar researchers
and other support personnel. Table 2 gives a general eval‎uation
of the various types of field shelters based on respondents’ overall experience
with the shelters over the years. It should be noted that many re-
Figure 1. Scott Tent
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 405
spondents in this study had used more than one type of tent shelter and
had gone to more than one region over the years, as indicated in Table 2.
Although the overall eval‎uations of the shelters were generally positive,
further analysis of various aspects of the design and use of the shelters
does tend to suggest that users experienced problems in some areas
and improvement is needed.
Noise
The data of this study indicated that noise apparently was very problematic
with all types of tent shelters studied. As indicated in Figure 5,
noise was rated poorly by users of all three tent groups. Although the
noise problem is predictable considering the thin fabric layers (with little
sound-insulative property) of the tent shelters, noise coming from wind
and the slapping sound of tent materials during windy days caused a serious
sleeping problem with many people. As mentioned by a number
of the respondents, “it [wind] made enough noise to interrupt my sleep”
and “it was too loud, like thunder or a hurricane passing by.” For users
Figure 2. Weather Haven Tent
potter et al. in environment and 406 behavior 30 (1998)
of the J&P tent shelters, the problem of wind was further compounded
by human noise resulting from multiple occupancies in the tent shelters.
This in fact made the J&P shelters the most problematic and rated poorest
among the three tent groups with regard to noise conditions inside
tent shelters.
Air Quality
Air quality inside tent shelters was another area that varied among
users of different types of tents. As indicated in Figure 6, although the
mean scores of the eval‎uation by all three groups were on the positive
side, the number of those who complained was not insignificant. Among
them, J&P users felt there were more problems with the air quality than
the other two groups. The difference is quite significant. Information
gathered in the telephone interviews and from responses to some openended
questions of the survey tends to suggest that this might be largely
a result of the fact that J&P tents had a large number of occupants and
there was generally a lack of means of naturally ventilating them, such as
operable windows or mechanical ventilation.
Figure 3. Jamesway Tent
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 407
Table 2. General Eval‎uation of Field Tent Shelters
Types Ma Number of Respondents SD
S&A types
Scott tent 3.0 57 1.03
Arctic Oven 3.2 13 0.90
D&N types
Dome tent 2.9 15 0.80
North Face VE25 2.9 24 1.06
North Face (others) 3.1 12 1.17
Other types of small tents 3.2 24 0.92
J&P types
Jamesway 2.9 43 0.86
Polarhaven 3.5 13 0.88
a. Means are based on a 4-point scale with 1 = most negative and 4 = most positive.
Figure 4. Arctic Oven Tent
potter et al. in environment and 408 behavior 30 (1998)
Humidity
Extremely cold temperature in the polar and circumpolar regions results
in low relative humidity, which becomes a problem for many people.
According to the data, slightly less than half of them (42%) said the
air inside tent shelters was much too dry. Among the three tent groups,
J&P users seemed to have the most serious problem, as indicated in Fig-
Figure 5. Eval‎uation of Noise Condition by Three Tent Groups
Figure 6. Eval‎uation of Indoor Air Quality by Three Tent Groups
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 409
ure 7. Use of auxiliary heating systems, often without humidifiers, inside
the J&P tent shelters might have contributed to the low eval‎uation rating
of the J&P tents.
The low humidity apparently helped reduce problems related to indoor
moisture buildup, which can be a problem under normal climatic
conditions because of the high fabric density of tent materials. Only about
14% of the S&A tent users, 23% of the D&N users, and 20% of the J&P
users experienced problems with moisture buildup inside tent shelters.
The eval‎uation of moisture buildup inside the tent shelters became different
when cooking inside the shelters was considered. Although moisture
generated in cooking was not a concern for about two thirds of the
users who cooked almost daily, about one third did experience the problem.
Some respondents even commented that the situation was as serious
as “raining.”
Temperature
Eval‎uation of the field tent shelters with regard to their indoor temperature
shows a relatively less problematic situation and the least variation
among the three groups, as indicated in Figure 8. Although the
tent shelters provided 21 generally acceptable day and night temperature
inside the tent shelters, the dramatic fluctuation in temperature
between day and night in the polar and circumpolar areas apparently
presents some problems with inside day temperature. For example,
about 3 1 % of the D&N tent users and 41 % of the J&P tent users felt
that daytime temperatures were somewhat too warm. According to
Figure 7. Eval‎uation of Indoor Humidity by Three Tent Groups
potter et al. in environment and 410 behavior 30 (1998)
some survey respondents, the daytime temperature inside tent shelters
could become fairly warm because of well-insulated tent fabrics. In
some circumstances, an operable window in the tent wall would be desirable
to alleviate this problem.
Material and Color
The fabric density of tent shelters, as one of the most important design
and manufacture issues, was found to contribute to a certain level
of dissatisfaction and some problems. As indicated in Figure 9, although
user eval‎uations of moisture blockage by tent fabrics did not vary significantly
among the three groups, the light blockage of the S&A and D&N
tent shelters was rated significantly poorer than that of the J&P tents. Between
the S&A and D&N tent groups, the latter was rated even poorer
than the former in terms of cold air and light blockage.
The failure of the tent shelters in blocking daylight had significant adverse
effects on the well-being of shelter users. Because most of the polar
and circumpolar regions have an extreme light-to-dark cycle, the ability
of tent shelter materials to block light at “night” is of vital importance to
sleeping. In fact, a large number of respondents reported sleeping problems
because of the insufficiency of tent fabrics in preventing bright light
Figure 8. Eval‎uation of Day and Night Temperature by Three Tent Groups
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 411
from entering into tent shelters. However, one should be cautioned that
light blockage by tent materials may cause another indoor lighting problem.
Many also mentioned in the survey that dark interiors often made it
impossible and inconvenient to even find flashlights, let alone to do other
things. Some respondents also mentioned that maintaining a certain level
of light inside the shelters made it possible to perform other activities
such as reading and writing letters, instead of just sleeping. This suggests
that the design and manufacture of the portable tent shelters should be
dark on one hand, for sleeping, and have some light on the other hand,
for people to see. Apparently, use of appropriate materials alone may not
meet the conflicting needs. Appropriate design of doors and windows
may provide alternatives.
Responses to this study tended to suggest that exterior and interior
colors seemed to be another factor affecting the overall eval‎uations of
tent shelters. For the S&A tent users, overall satisfaction with the tent
was somewhat related to the exterior and interior materials (R = .41 and
.34, respectively), but not to exterior and interior colors (R = .I9 for both).
For the D&N tent shelters, overall satisfaction was closely related to exterior
and interior colors (R = .44 and .41, respectively) and tent exterior
(R = .42) and interior (R = .48) materials. For the J&P users, overall satisfaction
with the structure was very highly related to its interior materials
(R = .77) and interior colors (R = .73), followed by exterior colors (R = .54)
and exterior materials (R = 53).
Figure 9. Eval‎uation of Air, Light, and Moisture Blockage by Three Tent Groups
potter et al. in environment and 412 behavior 30 (1998)
Well-Being of Users
Contrary to a popular view and some anecdotal evidence that people
in the isolated. extreme polar environment endure a high level of stress
as well as a negative effect on their well-being, findings of this study
tended to suggest that although life at remote field camps was somewhat
stressful, it was not aversive (see Figure 10). In fact, many found their life
at the field camps was, although somewhat challenging, not too stressful.
High task motivation as well as unusual scenic landscape might help
avert the negative effects of stress on people.
Because safety is of utmost importance in the design and use of field
tent shelters, the survey made in-depth probes to learn how users eval‎uated
tent shelters with regard to safety. Although this study did not
discover any alarming facts, several aspects of the responses seemed to
suggest that concerns about safety among the users were not insignificant,
and variations in eval‎uations of different types of shelters are worth
noting.
The shelters used by respondents of this survey seemed to have
performed generally well in providing protection from the extremely
harsh climatic conditions and in withstanding high winds and blowing
snow. As a result, only 9% of the respondents said they were somewhat
concerned about their safety during severe weather. Certain noteworthy
variations, however, did surface. Although none of the J&P
users and 6% of the S&A tent users had concerns about their safety under
severe weather, about 18% of the D&N tent users did. This differ-
Figure 10. Ratings of Life in Field Camps by Three Tent Groups
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 413
ence was further revealed by other facts. When asked whether their tent
had ever failed to provide protection because of harsh weather conditions,
only 9.5% of the S&A tent users reported experiencing such a failure,
as opposed to about 44% of the D&N tent users, who reported experiencing
problems at least once. Apparently, the S&A type tent shelters
were much better able to resist harsh weather than the others. The failures
were caused by many factors, such as bent poles, fabric rips, leaking,
poor ventilation, snow drifting, hosting inside, broken braces caused by
snow buildup, and broken doors. Some tent shelters were completely destroyed
by high wind.
Although much attention regarding human safety was generally focused
on harsh weather. the results of this study indicate that there was
also a concern for fire safety among a considerable number of users. Although
our study indicated there was only one occasion in which a fire
accident actually occurred in a tent shelter, and therefore the concern
about fire safety seemed more perceptual, concern in the minds of users
certainly would adversely affect their well-being.
The data indicated that about 23% of the S&A tent users, 43% of the
D&N tent users, and 35% of the J&P tent users had a certain level of concern
about fire safety. The percentages are certainly not so small as to be
ignored. What is more interesting is the fact that fire safety was a greater
concern among a large percentage of tent users who used various types
of heating systems and/or did extensive cooking inside their tent shelters.
For example, among those who used auxiliary heating systems on a
daily basis, about 36% were concerned about fire safety. Similarly, among
those who cooked inside tent shelters almost daily, about 38% said they
were concerned about fire safety. In fact, some of the respondents mentioned
that they constantly kept a fire extinguisher and sharp knives
handy in case of fire emergency. The concern is worth noting in view of
the fact that using an auxiliary heating system and cooking inside tent
shelters were very common. The data of this study show that about 38%
of the respondents used an auxiliary heating system inside their tent
shelters almost every day, and 35% of them cooked almost daily, with a
majority of them (70%) using gas stoves for cooking.
One of the interesting findings related to safety and health concerns
oxygen depletion because of cooking inside tent shelters. Among the respondents
who cooked extensively, 37% of the S&A tent users said they
were concerned about the depletion. Only about 14% of the D&N tent users
and 17% of the J&P users shared the same concern. Although both
the S&A and D&N types arc small tent shelters, the significant difference
between them warrants further probing. One possible explanation of the
difference may be related to the design of doors and windows of the shelters.
Some had operable windows that allowed fresh air to come in.
potter et al. in environment and 414 behavior 30 (1998)
To better understand well-being of tent users, the study examined
some aspects of well-being suggested by anecdotal evidence and early
studies to be problematic because of the extreme polar environmental or
social conditions. Some of the preliminary findings with regard to this issue
are discussed below.
First, a lack of privacy was a problem experienced by users of all types
of shelters, although the magnitude of the problem varied quite significantly
among them. The large J&P structures were rated negatively in
terms of a lack of privacy by 85% of their users, as opposed to 23% of
S&A tent users and 33% of D&N tent users. The lack of privacy for J&P
users apparently remains a problem even though many J&P tent shelters
have incorporated interior partitions since 1988. The issue of privacy was
considered important and essential to the mental health of people in a
field camp situation as indicated by data and written comments of this
survey.
Second, the J&P tent users apparently had much greater problems
sleeping inside tent shelters than did users of the other two types. About
30% of the J&P users said they frequently had trouble getting to sleep, as
opposed to 10%) of the S&A and 20% of the D&N tent users. It also was
found that the sleeping problems of many were attributable to a number
of well-being issues. Among them were a feeling of restlessness (R = .57)
and nervousness (R = .24).
Third, providing certain means of personalization inside the tent shelters
seemed to be of great importance to the users because, according to
this study, slightly more than half (51%) of the respondents did some sort
of personalization. It also was found that being able to personalize the
space was fairly closely related to the overall satisfaction with the tent
shelters (K = .44). Some used pockets on interior sides of shelters, and
others added cots and small shelves for storage, tables of boxes, dividers
(when shared by two), and ropes to hang wet socks or to suspend reading
lights.
Fourth, although a majority of the users felt that the design of the tent
did not negatively affect their mood and sense of well-being, about 18%
of them felt that the design of tent shelters affected their performance.
The negative effect seemed to be attributable to a number of design and
use factors of the shelters, such as lack of privacy, color, space restrictions,
bright light at night, noise conditions, stability, and temperature
control, as mentioned by a number of respondents.
Fifth, the results of this study indicate that a feeling of depression was
highly related to a feeling of loneliness among users of all types of the
tent shelters (R = .72 among the S&A tent users, R = .74 among the D&N
tent users, and R = .66 among the J&P tent users). In addition, depression
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 415
was also related to problems with sleeping (R = .48 among the S&A tent
users and R = .51 among the D&N tent users).
Sixth, the isolation and confinement that people experienced at remote
camps of small tent shelters become most serious when they are
confined in the shelter during severe weather conditions. A considerable
amount of users (28%) felt that their mood was adversely affected
when they were confined. Among the three tent groups, the S&A lent
users felt most affected. About 39% of the S&A tent users indicated the
feeling, as opposed to 17% of the D&N tent users and 25% of the J&P
tent users.
According to data of this study (see Figure 11), the most popular activity
under the severe weather condition seemed to be reading novels
among users of all three types of shelters. Very few listened to the radio.
What is interesting is that although it was hypothesized that activities
people engaged in would differ between those who stayed in small
S&A and D&N tent shelters and those who stayed in large J&P tents because
of different physical and social settings, the results as presented
in Figure 11 did not support the hypothesis. The percentage of people
who read and wrote in small shelters was not greater than that of those
in large ones. Nor was the percentage of card playing among the J&P
users greater than among those living in the small shelters, although
one might expect otherwise because there were more people inside J&P
shelters.
To find out what aspects of the design and use of the shelters were
most important in predicting the satisfaction of users and how much
each of them contributed to explaining the variance in the well-being
measures such as depression, several linear regression analyses were
conducted. As shown in Table 3, the analysis was done with regard to selected
factors in three groups individually. Of the selected physical predictors,
ratings of the ability to personalize space seemed to be the most
important predictors of the user satisfaction. Next in line were ratings of
interior colors, the sufficiency of tent materials in blocking light, fabric
materials of interior layers, and finally the materials of exterior layers.
The data of this study also indicated that neither the size nor the height of
tent shelters appeared to be an important factor affecting people’s overall
satisfaction with tent shelters. Altogether, the five physical predictors accounted
for 19% of the variation in respondents’ satisfaction.
Of the selected six psychological factors, the one that measured how
the design of the tent shelter affected users’ mood became the most important
predictor. Feeling restless and sleeping problems were two other
important predictors. The six factors were able to explain 13% of variance
in the user satisfaction with the tent shelter. What is more interesting is
potter et al. in environment and 416 behavior 30 (1998)
Figure 11. Mean Scores of Activities by Three Tent Groups
Table 3. Satisfaction Predicted by Ratings of Selected Physical, Environmental,
and Psychological Aspects of the Shelters
Predictors Beta Coefficients
Physical
Ability to personalize space .34 (1)
Interior colors .20 (2)
Light blockage by tent fabrics .16 (3)
Materials for interior layer .04 (4)
Materials for exterior layer .02 (5)
Ambient environmental
Humidity inside tents .12 (1)
Indoor air quality .10 (2)
Night temperature .08 (3)
Day temperature .06 (4)
Psychological
Mood affected by tent design .38 (1)
Restlessness .24 (2)
Sleeping problems .23 (3)
Nervousness .21 (4)
Loneliness .09 (5)
Privacy .08 (6)
Percentage of variance explained
(multiple adjusted R2) .19 .03 .13
Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate ranking of importance.
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 417
the fact that the ambient environmental factors apparently contributed
very little (3%) to the prediction of user satisfaction with tent shelters, as
indicated by the value of adjusted R2.
Similarly, Table 4 shows results of regression analysis of depression
predicted by selected psychological factors. As indicated, the five factors
combined accounted for 54% of variance explained. Of the five factors,
the feeling of loneliness was the most important predictor of a feeling of
depression by the users of tent shelters. Problems with sleeping was the
second most important predictor.
Conclusion and Limitations
Extreme environmental and social conditions in polar and circumpolar
regions present great challenges to human beings living and working
there. The conditions are much harsher and the challenge is much greater
for those who spend an extended period of time at remote field camps of
portable tent shelters. The shelters are the only built environment available
to alleviate the harshness of the natural environment and ensure the
users’ well-being. Although high task motivation and an unusual scenic
landscape help them adapt to the harsh conditions with few complaints,
this study has found a number of areas where health or the sense of wellbeing
for the people at remote camps were adversely affected as a result
of a combination of’ harsh natural environment and the built environment.
Many of those areas have some implications for design and use of
the tent shelters. The fact that problem areas varied from one type of tent
shelter to another makes the findings of this study more noteworthy.
Table 4. Depression Predicted by Ratings of Selected Psychological Aspects
Predictors Beta Coefficients
Psychological
Loneliness .55 (1)
Sleeping problem .21 (2)
Feeling bored .16 (3)
Nervousness .15 (4)
Satisfaction with the shelters .07 (5)
Percentage of variance explained (multiple adjusted R2) .54
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate ranking of importance. N = 84.
potter et al. in environment and 418 behavior 30 (1998)
A concern for safety in the minds of a considerable percentage of users
of the field tent shelters is worth noting. Its adverse effect on the wellbeing
of the users should not be overlooked. Some of the safety concerns
were attributable to harsh weather, whereas others were related to fire.
The level of concern for fire safety was significantly increased when using
auxiliary heating systems and cooking inside the tent shelters. This
concern certainly did not help ensure the psychological well-being of the
shelter users. It should be addressed in the future design of shelters and
in training of users prior to going into the field.
Recognizing the vital importance of the tent shelter as the key element
of the built environment in protecting lives and providing healthy, habitable
conditions, this study examined several aspects of environmental
quality that are relevant to the design and use of the shelters. Some issues
surfaced in areas of day and night temperatures, humidity, noise conditions,
air quality, and oxygen depletion inside tents. Although problems
related to these issues seem to be inevitable under the extreme polar climatic
conditions, the magnitude of their negative effect on users’ well-being
can be modified and reduced through improved design and use of
tent shelters.
The data also indicate that a considerable percentage of respondents
felt that the design of the tents adversely affected their performance,
mood, and well-being, and had an effect on certain adverse symptoms
such as sleeping problems, depression, and loneliness. The negative impact
on their wellbeing seemed to be attributable to factors such as fabric
colors, space restrictions, tent stability, temperature control, lack of
privacy, fire and weather safety, and a lack of means for personalizing
space. Such feelings also contributed to depression among some of the
users.
The last but not the least lesson learned through this project is that although
a majority of users of the field tent shelters seemed quite satisfied
with current tent shelters available to them, there is a need to conduct
aperiodic systematic postoccupancy eval‎uation of shelters from the users’
perspective so as to integrate user input into the design and deployment
of the shelters. The percentage of those who experienced one problem
or another is not so trivial that it should be ignored.
The study was limited in a number of ways, and additional research
is needed to provide a better living and working environment for those
who have to rely on temporary field tent shelters in polar regions. First,
user responses collected in this study were based on recollection and
memory, which might be less than accurate and valid. An on-site, in-time
collection of responses from polar teams while they are working in the
field will surely yield information better reflecting users’ experiences and
eval‎uations of the field tent shelters.
polar field tent shelters and well-being of users 419
Second, issues related to the well-being of users, such as depression,
performance, and mood changes, can benefit from a longitudinal collection
of data from respondents instead of the onetime collection adopted
by this study. Many environmental behavioral studies report that collecting
information on a periodic basis over time is not only appropriate but
even necessary.
Finally, the size of the respondent sample is not large enough to conduct
a comprehensive analysis and to provide conclusions of greater statistical
significance. A future onsite study of a larger sample will help
add necessary validity to results.
References
ASA. (1991, May). Comparison report on portable field camp structure. Englewood,
CO: Antarctic Support Associates.
Brier, F. W. (1969). Polar camp improvements-Structural, architectural, and utility accessories
for the Jamesway shelter. Port Hueneme, CA: U.S. Civil Engineering
Laboratory.
Byrne, D., Barry, J., & Nelson, D. (1963). Relation of the revised repression-sensitization
scale to measures of self-description. Psychological Reports, 13, 323-334.
Carrere, S. (1990). Physiological and psychological patterns of acute and chronic stress
during winter isolation in Antarctica. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Irvine.
Carrere, S., & Evans. G. W. (1994). Life in an isolated and confined environment:
A qualitative study of the role of the designed environment. Environment and
Behavior, 26, 707-741.
Chinn, E. J. (1983). The development of mobile field units by British Antarctic
Survey. In Proceedings of Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, 3, 557-572.
Derogatis, L., Lipman, R., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins
symptom checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral
Science, 19, 1-15.
Flanders, S. N. (1980). Cold regions testing of an airtransportable shelter. Hanover,
NH: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
Floyd, P. (1974). The North Slope Center: How was it built? Northern Engineer, 6
(3), 22-35.
Johnson, P. R. (1970). The IAEE prefabricated hut. College: Institute of Arctic Environmental
Engineering, University of Alaska.
Kovacs, J. M. (1981). Modular heliportable shelter system for small camps. In T. S.
Vinson (Ed.), Specialty conference on the Northern Community: A search for a quality
environment (pp. 313332). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Ledingham, R. B., & Keage, P. L. (1986). New portable shelters for polar use.
Northern Engineer: 18 (1), 28-31.
potter et al. in environment and 420 behavior 30 (1998)
Leon, G. R. (1991). Individual and group process characteristics of polar expedition
teams. Environment and Behavior, 23, 723-748.
Mackay, C., Cox, T., Burrows, G., & Lazzerini, T. (1978). An inventory for the
measurement of selfreported stress and arousal. British Journal of Social Psychology,
17, 283-284.
Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981). Eval‎uating Built Environments: A behavioral
approach. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Mocellin, J.N. P., & Suedfeld, P. (1991). Voices from the ice: Diaries of polar explorers.
Environment and Behavior, 23, 704-722.
Natani, K., & Shurley, J. T. (1979). Sociopsychological aspects of a winter vigil at
Pole Station. In E. K. E. Gunderson (Ed.), Human adaptability to Antarctic conditions
(Antarctic Research Series 22, pp. 89-114). Worcester, MA: Heffernan.
NCEL. (1991). Lightweight mobile work shelter for cold weather and remote sites. Port
Hueneme, CA: Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory.
Oakley, E. N. H. (1986). First Antarctic winter in tents: The Joint Services Expedition
to Brabant Island. .Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Services, 72, 69-74.
Palinkas, L. A. (1991). Effects of physical and social environments on the health
and wellbeing of Antarctic winterover personnel. Environment and Behavior,
23, 782-799.
Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post occupancy eval‎uation.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Richter, D. L. (1979, January-February). South Pole dome revisited. Military Engineer,
pp. 2-5.
Steel, G. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1991). Temporal patterns of affect in an isolated
group. Environment and Behavior, 3, 749-765.
Suedfeld, P. (1987). Extreme and unusual environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman
(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 863887). New York: John
Wiley.
Suedfeld, P. (1991). Polar psychology: An overview. Environment and Behavior, 23,
653-665.
Ursin, H., Bergan, T., Collet, J., Endersen, I. M., Lugg, D. J., Maki, P., Matre, R.,
Molvær, O., Muller, H. K., Olff, M., Pettersen, R., Sandal, G. M., Vaænes, R.,
& Warncke, M. (1991).Psychobiological studies of individuals in small, isolated
groups in the Antarctic and in space analogues. Environment and Behavior,
23, 766-781

[악마의발톱(이진섭)]

손상된 파일이랍니다...

[Maximillien(박인화)]

어차피 봐도 몰러,..

[영원[洪成憙]]

심하게 손상됐다고 합니다.

[Maximillien(박인화)]

무지하게 좋아하는고마,,..

[잎새주(송상훈)]

참고 안할겁니다..

[Maximillien(박인화)]

아자씨가 참고하면 내가 손에 장을 지질거유....

[하마(하화태)]

이걸 나더러 읽으라고.......어이구.......

[Maximillien(박인화)]

시간이 남아 돌아가믄 읽으라고 했자나욧,,...

[自由人(이예원)]

주옥과 같은 글입니다.......

[Maximillien(박인화)]

주옥 가튼 답글이십니다,,,,

[seereal(심규승)]

여기는 수준들이 높군요.아~영어울렁증.....여기 카페에 수준이 맞질 않아서 있을 수 있나 모르겠다....

[Maximillien(박인화)]

..

[jaguar(양승원)]

아..감동깊게 잘봤습니다..마지막줄에선 눈물이 다 나네요..ㅠㅠ

[Maximillien(박인화)]

양파 까고 계셨군요,,,,

[동-안[엄두성]]

손가락 쥐 나갓구만, 막심님 글 항상 잘 보고 있습니다, 많은 도움이 되네요
꾹꾹 눌러드립니다

[Maximillien(박인화)]

그란디,,,해석은 되셨수....

[유진아빠[한병수]]

클쿤요 ㅎㅎㅎ

[Maximillien(박인화)]

,,해석 하셨군요,,,,

[공허(김선호)]

저기요...~아이참~...

[처음처럼.조성률]

아두통이야^^

[하길호]

3번째 문단이 특히 공감이 가고 8번째 부터는 감동이네요. 글 잘 읽었습니다.

(응??)

[하이에나 김태규]

아 먼말인지 알거다 ㅋㅋㅎㅎ

[엷은상념(윤용일)]

읽다가 눈 아파서 포기 했읍니다.