Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/295852347
CITATIONS READS
0 794
1 author:
Katharine Parkes
University of Oxford
90 PUBLICATIONS 4,874 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Katharine Parkes on 24 February 2016.
K. R. Parkes,
University of Oxford
October 2011
Summary
This document summarises findings from research studies and other sources that relate to
the issues of offshore accommodation in general, and cabin occupancy levels in particular.
The material is divided into three sections.
1. Formal guidelines for cabin accommodation on offshore installations in four major oil‐
producing areas worldwide are outlined and compared. This comparison does not suggest
that UK regulations for offshore accommodation are more rigorous than in other
jurisdictions.
2. Evidence relating to circadian adaptation to night‐shift work offshore, and re‐adaptation
back to a day work, is presented. On the basis of this evidence, it is recommended that
offshore personnel should not share a cabin during the first week following a 12 h circadian
change in sleep/wake cycle. The implications of this recommendation for cabin‐sharing
arrangements are examined. Subjective reports highlight impaired sleep and other problems
associated with shared cabins.
3. Research into psychosocial aspects of living and working in remote/isolated
environments (including offshore installations) and other communal settings is summarised
with reference to two main issues, the need for privacy and the adverse effects of crowding.
It is noted that privacy is particularly important in sleeping areas, and lack of privacy
contributes to increased group tension and impaired mental health. Crowding accentuates
the adverse effects of other stressors, is associated with aggression, and reduces the
tolerance of existing crew for new crew members.
i
1. International comparisons of offshore accommodation guidelines
1.1 Comparison of guidelines across four major oil‐producing areas
Table 1 summarises the formal guidance for the provision of accommodation on offshore
installations located in four main oil‐producing areas worldwide. Direct comparison of the
offshore accommodation guidelines across the four areas is difficult because the space
requirements are expressed in different ways (e.g. floor area vs. cabin volume, including or
excluding bathroom/shower/ toilet facilities).
However, it is apparent that the highest standards specified are for Norwegian offshore
installations; on these installations, single‐person cabins are now the norm. Although two‐person
cabins are still permitted, if one bed in a two‐person cabin is of a sofa type, the cabin may only be
shared by two people for short durations. Four‐person cabins are not mentioned in the
specifications, presumably because such cabins are not used on Norwegian installations.
In other geographical areas, in general, the use of four‐person cabins is only acceptable if
upgrading/ renovation is not possible for economic or other reasons. On USA installations, four‐
person cabins are normally only permitted for short‐duration offshore visits; otherwise, no more
than two persons may share a four‐person cabin.
The UK regulations are based on room volume; ideally, rooms should provide at least 11 cubic
metres per person, although the minimum acceptable level is 6.9 cubic metres per person,
including furniture and fittings, and the requirement for ‘reasonable privacy’ is met if only two
persons share a cabin during any 24 h period.
1.2 Sources of information about offshore accommodation requirements
UK
Guidance for the provision of accommodation offshore
http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/notices/on‐82.htm
Norway NORSOK Standard C‐001 2006
http://www.standard.no/PageFiles/1326/C‐001e3.pdf
Australia
NOPSA Technical report – Offshore petroleum facility accommodation.
Rpt01‐1052468‐Rev1‐14, July 2011.
http://www.nopsa.gov.au/document/Technical%20Report%20‐
%20Offshore%20Petroleum%20Facility%20Accommodation.pdf
USA
Guide for crew habitability on offshore installations. May 2002. American Bureau of Shipping
http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules%26Guides/Current/105_CrewHabitabilityOffshoreInstallations
/Pub105_CrewHabitability_Offshore
1
1.3 Other oil‐producing areas
No information about formal cabin accommodation requirements for offshore oil/gas installations
regulated by jurisdictions in other geographical areas could be found1.
Section 1. Key point
The information in Table 1 does not suggest that
the UK cabin accommodation guidelines are
more demanding than those of other the main
oil‐producing areas considered; if anything, the
reverse is true.
1
Informal information from an occupational physician employed in the Italian offshore oil industry
indicated that use of four‐person cabins (2 day‐workers and 2 night workers) was permitted on Italian
offshore installations (by the Maritime Health Authority). However, he added that there have been many
protests about use of 4‐person cabins, particularly because of sleep disturbance due to snoring; that he
personally regarded occupancy by four persons as very unsatisfactory; and that occupational physicians had
requested that 4‐person cabins were not used. He also noted that the practice of 4 day‐workers sharing a
cabin during times of peak activity (e.g. start‐up) had been discontinued more than a year ago. To
quote: “Four workers together in a cabin at the same time; it has definitely finished ….”
2
Table 1. Comparison of cabin size and occupancy guidelines for offshore accommodation in four geographical areas
Location Cabin dimensions (floor area)
Further details
2‐person 3‐4 person
Single cabin
cabin cabin
Any room designated as sleeping accommodation must not be overcrowded.
The ideal room volume provided for each occupant should not be less than 11 cubic
metres/person (including furniture/fittings) but excluding toilet, shower or wash room.
UK Minimum of 3 m2 per person (calculated for a Any room providing less than 6.9 cubic metres per person is considered to be
room height of 2.3m), excluding toilets, overcrowded. Cabins providing between 6.9 and 11 cubic metres per person are considered to
have the potential to be overcrowded.
showers, or wash room.
‘Reasonable privacy’ will be provided when a cabin is allocated to a maximum of two persons
during a 24 hour period. The two persons can be on the same or different shifts
Adequate space for the storage of clothes. The minimum number of cupboards/drawers
required is equivalent to the number of bunks in the accommodation cabin.
Hot bunking is not acceptable.
6 m2 12 m2 Every bed shall be placed on the floor.
(inclusive of (inclusive of In double cabins, one of the beds may be of a sofa‐bed type, provided it is only to be used during
Norway N/A
shower/toilet shower/toilet shorter, peak manning intervals.
unit) unit) Windows shall be provided in the majority of cabins
Wherever possible, beds should be placed on the floor
Single berth cabins are recommended where space allows.
Minimum of 4m2 Four‐berth cabins, in most circumstances, will not provide reasonable privacy and comfort. Four‐berth
Australia (excluding entrance lobby, cabins are acceptable on existing facilities where it is not reasonably practicable for them to be upgraded
bathrooms, bunks, lockers because of lack of space or other limitations. Ideally, no more than two beds should be occupied during
and desks) any particular shift.
In determining appropriate cabin occupancy, the goal is to ensure all personnel can get adequate
quality sleep. In addition to number of people per cabin, factors such as shift patterns must be
considered to ensure the risk of sleep disruption (e.g. through effects of people entering and
leaving the room) is minimised.
Storage provision should also consider the need to minimise requirements for people to enter multiple‐
occupancy rooms while others are sleeping.
USA ≥ 7.5 m2 ≥ 7.5 m2 ≥ 12 m2 Sleeping rooms are not occupied by more than two persons, except for drilling camps,
per person exploration units and short‐stay maintenance workers, contractors or visitors accommodation
when four persons per room may be accepted.
Workers sharing rooms are in same occupation group and work the same shift
3
2. Circadian adaptation to offshore night work
2.1 Research findings
If 2 day workers and 1 swing‐shift (7N/7D) worker share a four‐person cabin, during the second
week there will be 3 day workers in the cabin, one of whom will be experiencing circadian
disruption. To avoid this (in line with the recommendation above), it would be necessary for the
swing‐shift worker to move to a different cabin, which would complicate accommodation
planning and is likely to be seen as disruptive by the individual concerned.
2.3.2 2 day‐workers + 2 swing‐shift (7N/7D) workers
The possibility of 2 day‐workers and 2 swing‐shift (7N/7D) workers sharing a four‐person cabin
during the first offshore week is ruled out by the recommendation that personnel experiencing
circadian disruption associated with a 12 h change in sleep/wake cycle should not share a cabin.
Moreover, this arrangement would result in four day‐workers (two of whom would be
experiencing circadian disruption) sharing in the second week; avoidance of this situation would
involve both the swing‐shift workers moving to different (separate) cabins.
2.3.3 2 day‐workers + 1 permanent night worker or 1 fixed‐shift night worker
From a circadian viewpoint, it would be possible for two day‐workers to share a 4‐man cabin
throughout the two‐week offshore work tour with 1 permanent night worker or 1 fixed‐shift night
worker (if there are any).
2.3.4 2 day‐workers + 2 permanent night workers or 2 fixed‐shift night workers
This configuration is ruled out because the first week of night work involves circadian disruption;
therefore, two permanent night workers or fixed‐shift night‐workers should not share a cabin
during the first offshore week.
5
2.4 Other issues associated with cabin assignments during offshore shift work
In each of the scenarios outlined above, the presence of one or two night‐shift workers sleeping
during the day would preclude day workers from returning to their cabins (e.g. for a brief rest, or
shower) at any time during their on‐shift hours; similarly, a night shift worker would not have
access to the cabin during night‐time work hours. (It should be noted, however, that on many
offshore installations, returning to cabins during on‐shift hours is not permitted, irrespective of
occupancy).
Moreover, issues of crowding, lack of privacy, limited storage space, access to cabins during on‐
shift time, shower/toilet facilities, possible use of fold‐down bunks restricting cabin floor area,
and opportunities for cleaning, potentially apply to all multiple occupancies (i.e. more than 2
people) of 4‐person cabins, irrespective of shift schedule. The possibility of 4 day‐shift workers
sharing a 4‐man cabin raises particularly acute issues of privacy and crowding, especially if a
shower/toilet room is used by two cabins.
2.5. Cabin‐sharing, sleep, and performance: further sources of information
Whilst physiological studies of circadian adaptation, sleep and performance provide an objective
basis for decisions about cabin‐sharing on offshore installations, other sources of information
including subjective views of offshore workers and occupational health specialists add a further
dimension to understanding the issues involved. This section summarises relevant material.
2.5.1 The view that offshore workers should not share a cabin during the first week after a 12‐h
change in sleep/wake cycle is supported in a document prepared for the UK Offshore Operators
Association, now Oil & Gas UK, (Doig, 2002)2. This document notes that:
“For individuals on or transitioning to or from night duties, it is important that optimum
conditions are provided to ensure that adequate rest is attained in the off duty period. It is
recommended that the accommodation allocated for night duty be selected to use those
rooms identified as having the most favourable environment. Where possible the rooms
for night workers should be segregated to protect against and minimise ambient noise and
disturbance. The room should be absolutely dark to minimise the effect of light on
disturbing the effectiveness of sleep. The room should be quiet and cool. The use of white
noise may also be helpful for some individuals. It is recommended that only one person be
allowed to sleep in each cabin during any rest period so that where rooms are shared –
individuals on night duty share with another on day duty.” (My italics)
2.5.2 Lauridsen et al (1991) reported that 50% of a large sample of Norwegian offshore
personnel found sharing cabins ‘difficult’, and 47% were troubled by noise. In addition, 42% of
2
At the time, Regional Medical Director, Europe, for a large international oil/gas company.
6
those who shared a cabin regarded snoring as a nuisance, and half of these considered that
snoring might be a cause of their sleeping problems3.
2.5.3 Typical comments about offshore accommodation, cabin‐sharing, and sleep problems are
reproduced below to illustrate how occupancy levels and the standard of cabin accommodation,
more generally, impacts on the sleep and well‐being of offshore workers.
“I sleep badly because of the constant noise and disturbances caused by sharing a room with 3
other men. In addition, the lack of personal space means that I cannot get away from my
workmates and supervisors if necessary. Basically, I carry the stress of work with me because there
is no avenue of escape when I am working on the platform” (Quote from Bass Straits, Australia
day‐work contractor giving evidence during Melbourne industrial commission hearing, June 2007)
‘Cramped sleeping quarters’ and ‘fatigue due to shift work’ were high on a list of factors
considered to adversely affect health offshore (Mearns and Hope, 2005). Also quoted in this
report, an offshore worker noted: “Health is affected when sharing with a snoring person causing
sleep deprivation over long periods”.
Comment on the lack of privacy offshore made by an oil/gas industry medical officer: “On retiring
to your cabin you will probably share, at best with one other person, at worst with three others.
Nowhere on the installation can you easily find real privacy. Lack of privacy, to my mind, can be as
punishing as solitary confinement” (Cooper, 1993)
Referring to the quality of the psychosocial environment on an offshore platform, Hellesøy (1985)
lists a number of factors, including the importance of ‘flexible opportunities for privacy’ and ‘an
equal standard and equal opportunities in terms of living and recreational areas’. The implication
of this latter point is that inequity in cabin allocation may act as a source of tension between
different groups (e.g. operator personnel and contractors) on offshore installations.
2.6 Provision for naps
The fatigue and sleepiness experienced during circadian adaption to night work can be lessened,
and subsequent performance improved, by brief naps during on‐shift hours (Caldwell et al., 2008;
Pallesen et al., 2010). However, in the offshore environment, it may be difficult to find a quiet,
comfortable place for such naps; consideration should be given to designating a room for this
purpose.
3
These findings are from surveys of Norwegian installations carried out more than 20 years ago when
accommodation standards were more similar to those that currently apply on UK installations.
7
Section 2. Key points
Full circadian adaptation to offshore night work takes 5‐6 days.
The majority of those working swing‐shift (7N/7D) schedules do not
fully re‐adapt to day work during the second week; speed and
direction of re‐adaptation varies across individuals.
During circadian adaptation, sleep, alertness and performance are
adversely affected.
To reduce sleep disturbance, cabin assignments should ensure that
during the week following a 12 h circadian change in sleep/wake
cycle no offshore worker shares a cabin during the 12 h off‐shift
period.
Subjective reports highlight impaired sleep, noise disturbance, lack
of privacy, cramped space, and other problems associated with
cabin‐sharing on offshore installations.
Opportunities to take brief naps during night work can help to
alleviate fatigue and sleepiness.
8
3. Psychosocial factors
Psychosocial aspects of living and working in remote/isolated environments have been studied in
the variety of different contexts. Some of the material relates directly to personnel working on
offshore oil/gas installations, but studies of other remote work situations (e.g. naval deployments,
polar expeditions, and space missions) also provide pertinent findings.
The challenges imposed by these settings include the need to live and work at close quarters with
a diverse range of individuals under conditions in which the safety of each person is dependent on
others in the group, necessitating optimal group functioning (Sandal et al., 2006).
Findings that are directly relevant to psychosocial aspects of living and working on offshore
installations are reviewed below with particular reference to the issues of privacy and crowding
that are frequently raised in the literature on remote/isolated work environments, and which
throw light on the role of living accommodation on offshore installations (particularly cabin
accommodation) in promoting, or detracting from, the well‐being and work effectiveness of
offshore personnel.
3.1 Privacy
The importance of privacy, and the psychological strain caused by lack of privacy, has been widely
emphasised in published research into remote/isolated work settings, including offshore oil/gas
installations.
3.1.1 Offshore installations
A review of the effects of offshore employment in the petroleum industry notes the contribution
made by the physical and social environment of the accommodations to the quality of life and
levels of stress among workers (Shrimpton and Storey, 2001). These authors identified privacy and
recreational facilities as particularly important, stating that “privacy is seen as a key element in
coping with extended work schedules and isolated setting, with shared accommodation placing
a strain on workers in this regard”. These authors also highlighted the importance of the overall
social environment offshore in relation to worker stress, suggesting a need for workers to create,
as far as possible, a ‘home’ offshore.
Among Chinese offshore workers, ratings of stress due to ‘rest being disturbed because of shared
living accommodation with others’ and ‘lack of privacy due to sharing living accommodation
with others’ were significant contributors to the overall stress of ‘living in the environment’ on
offshore installations (Chen et al., 2001). High scores on this measure were associated with
adverse health outcomes.
3.1.2 Evidence from other remote/isolated environments
Suedfeld and Steel (2000) reviewed the environmental, social, and personality aspects of
adaptation to living and working in remote and isolated environments (e.g. space missions, ocean
depths, and polar expeditions). Much of the material also applies relevant to living on offshore
9
installations; for instance, the authors highlight evidence that people need to have a place to be
alone, noting that “Sleeping areas are a case in point”, and dismissing the idea that a need for
privacy is a symptom of maladjustment.
Naval deployments. In a longitudinal study of strain (assessed by psychological symptoms) among
naval ratings (Bridger et al., 2011) reported that “A lack of autonomy and control and
dissatisfaction with living conditions predicted psychological strain 12 months later in those
serving on ships. Of the living conditions assessed, lack of privacy was the most strongly
associated with strain”. These results were not found for onshore locations. As the analysis took
into account the baseline level of strain, the study suggests that lack of privacy during sea
deployments contributes to adverse changes in psychological health over the one‐year follow‐up
period.
Polar expeditions and space missions. Lack of privacy has been identified as an important issue for
members of polar expeditions, particularly during extended periods of ‘over‐Wintering’ (e.g. Leon
et al., 2000; Suedfeld, 1998). Studies of living accommodation requirements for space missions
also highlight the need for privacy, and the role of privacy in serving to avoid group tensions.
Thus, a recent NASA publication notes that “Crew quarters are considered to be psychologically
important, especially during long‐duration missions, where privacy issues can help avoid group
tensions, heighten crew morale, and decrease stress. The crew quarters functions as a
replacement for ‘home.’ Crew‐quarter design should incorporate features that contribute to
feelings of security, comfort, privacy, personality, relaxation, and other aspects of behavioral
health.” (NASA, 2010, p. 532).
3.2 Crowding
3.2.1 Longitudinal research into occupancy levels in student accommodation showed that the
effects of ‘social hassles’ (e.g. arguments, criticism) on psychological distress were significant only
under conditions of crowding (Lepore et al., 1991a). The finding that day‐to‐day stressors
combine interactively with accommodation crowding to give rise to disproportionately adverse
outcomes implies that in the offshore environment (which inherently exposes personnel to
stressful conditions) crowding of accommodation and living areas will be particularly harmful.
3.2.2 Crowding has also been identified as sources of stress and tension among personnel
during in submarine deployments (Duplessis et al., 2005; Sandal et al., 1999). Moreover, crowded
cabin accommodation offshore has the effect of reducing the space available for each occupant
and is therefore more likely to result in intrusions into the personal space of individuals. Evidence
suggests that perceived intrusion on personal space has adverse effects on physiological and
psychological responses, and on subsequent performance (Evans and Wener, 2007). Chronic
crowding also leads to lower social support, which in turn is associated with greater increases in
psychological distress (Lepore et al., 1991b).
3.2.3 Other evidence shows that crowding is associated with an increase in stress and a
decrease in psychological well‐being. Among prisoners, the subjective experience of crowding
increases the likelihood that events and actions are perceived as aggressive and violent (Lawrence
10
and Andrews, 2004). There is also evidence that men exposed to high‐density living arrangements
are more likely than women to respond to crowding with withdrawal and aggression (Regoeczi,
2008). In the offshore environment, withdrawal may not be an option, leaving aggression as a
more likely response.
3.2.4 Both laboratory and community studies have examined the role of crowding in relation to
motivation and sense of control. Evidence indicates that exposure to crowded conditions leads to
disengagement, reduced persistence on challenging tasks, and greater use of passive withdrawal
strategies (Evans and Stecker, 2004). Extended exposure to crowding also gives rise to
motivational deficits, and vulnerability to ‘learned helplessness’, the consequences of which may
include decrements in learning new tasks, diminished sense of control, and depressive symptoms.
3.2.5 The role of crowded conditions in reducing perceived control is particularly important in
the context of a stressful environment, such as that on offshore installations. Control in the work
situation has been widely shown to mitigate the adverse effects on performance and health of
stressors such as qualitative and quantitative job demands, time pressures, cramped work space,
and adverse physical environment (e.g Karasek and Theorell, 1990; de Jonge et al., 2000). Thus,
over‐crowding (e.g. in cabin accommodation, recreation areas, or dining room) is likely to
accentuate the adverse effects of other work‐related stressors.
3.2.6 An issue of particular relevance in the current context was raised by Suedfeld and Steel
(2000) in a review of psychosocial aspects of work in remote environments. In discussing
problems associated with crowding in these environments, the authors noted that “Visitors and
incoming crew members disrupt established routines, need special attention, and pose problems
of integration into the existing group”, and that “As well, tolerance for additional—i.e. not
replacement—crew members will be in inverse proportion to the degree of crowding”. Thus,
during times of peak activity offshore, the need to accommodate additional crew members on the
installation is likely to be poorly tolerated by the existing crew especially if the build‐up of
personnel necessitates multiple cabin occupancy.
11
Section 3. Key points
Two psychosocial factors are particularly relevant to issues of living
accommodation on offshore installations, and other remote/isolated work
settings.
Privacy
Individuals working offshore need opportunities for privacy and spending
time alone.
Privacy is a key element in coping with extended work schedules and
isolated work settings; lack of privacy is a source of stress that contributes
to increased group tension and impaired mental health.
Opportunities for privacy among offshore personnel will be reduced by
higher levels of cabin occupancy. Shared accommodation is a potential
source of stress.
Crowding
Crowding has a disproportionately adverse effect on psychological well‐
being when combined with other day‐to‐day stressors, such as those
inherent in offshore work.
Crowding tends to promote hostility and withdrawal among men; it also
increases perceptions of aggression. It impacts adversely on well‐being,
social support, and perceived control; it decreases motivation and
persistence in task performance.
Under crowded living conditions, the introduction of additional crew
members is poorly tolerated by existing crew, and the integration of the
new crew may be harmed.
12
References
Bjorvatn, B., Stangenes, K., Øyane, N., Forberg, K., Lowden, A., Holsten, F., Åkerstedt, T., 2007.
Randomized placebo‐controlled field study of the effects of bright light and melatonin in
adaptation to night work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 33, 204‐
214.
Bridger, R.S., Brasher, K., Dew, A., Kilminster, S., 2011. Job stressors in naval personnel serving on
ships and in personnel serving ashore over a twelve month period. Applied Ergonomics
42, 710‐718.
Caldwell, J.A., Caldwell, J.L., Schmidt, R.M., 2008. Alertness management strategies for
operational contexts. Sleep Medicine Reviews 12, 257‐273.
Chen, W.Q., Wong, T.W., Yu, T.S., 2001. Reliability and validity of the Occupational Stress Scale for
Chinese off‐shore oil installation workers. Stress and Health 17, 175‐183.
Cooper, J.R.B., 1993. An employee assistance program in the offshore environment, In: Storey, K.,
Shrimpton, M. (Eds.), Social, psychosocial and cultural aspects of health and safety in the
offshore oil industry. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland.
de Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R., Siegrist, J., 2000. Job strain, effort‐reward imbalance and
employee well‐being: A large‐scale cross‐sectional study. Social Science and Medicine 50,
1317‐1327.
Doig, K.M., 2002. Shift work. Paper prepared for UKOOA, UK.
Duplessis, C.A., Cullum, M.E., Crepeau, L.J., 2005. Biomonitoring of physiological status and
cognitive performance of underway submariners undergoing a novel watch‐standing
schedule, Proceedings of SPIE ‐ The International Society for Optical Engineering 5797, art.
no. 20,, pp. 149‐157.
Evans, G.W., Stecker, R., 2004. Motivational consequences of environmental stress. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 24, 143‐165.
Evans, G.W., Wener, R.E., 2007. Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don't
make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27, 90‐94.
Gibbs, M., Hampton, S., Morgan, L., Arendt, J., 2002. Adaptation of the circadian rhythm of 6‐
sulphatoxymelatonin to a shift schedule of seven nights followed by seven days in
offshore oil installation workers. Neuroscience Letters 325, 91‐94.
Gibbs, M., Hampton, S., Morgan, L., Arendt, J., 2005. Effects of shift schedule on offshore
shiftworkers' circadian rhythms and health. Report RR318. Health and Safety Executive,
London.
Harris, A., Waage, S., Ursin, H., Hansen, A.M., Bjorvatn, B., Eriksen, H.R., 2010. Cortisol, reaction
time test and health among offshore shift workers. Psychoneuroendocrinology 35, 1339‐
1347.
Hellesøy, O.H., 1985. Work environment: Statfjord Field. Universitetsforlaget, Bergen, Norway.
13
Karasek, R., Theorell, T., 1990. Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of
working life. Basic Books, Inc., New York.
Lauridsen, Ø., Tronsmoen, S., Berland, J., Gitlesen, J.P., Ringstad, A.J., Pedersen, T.H., Eriksson, L.,
Nome, T., 1991. Shift‐work and health. Phillips Petroleum Company / Rogaland Research,
Norway.
Lawrence, C., Andrews, K., 2004. The influence of perceived prison crowding on male inmates'
perception of aggressive events. Aggressive Behavior 30, 273‐283.
Leon, G.R., Ones, D.S., Shelton, J., 2000. A one year polar scientific expedition analog to a Mars
mission, Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics
Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Association,
'Ergonomics for the New Millennium', pp. 792‐795.
Lepore, S.J., Evans, G.W., Palsane, M.N., 1991a. Social hassles and psychological health in the
context of chronic crowding. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 32, 357‐367.
Lepore, S.J., Evans, G.W., Schneider, M.L., 1991b. Dynamic role of social support in the link
between chronic stress and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 61, 899‐909.
Mearns, K., Hope, L., 2005. Health and well‐being in the offshore environment: The management
of personal health. Health and Safety Executive, London.
NASA, 2010. Human integration design handbook, NASA/SP‐2010‐3407.
Pallesen, S., Bjorvatn, B., Magerøy, N., Saksvik, I.B., Waage, S., Moen, B.E., 2010. Measures to
counteract the negative effects of night work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment
and Health 36, 109‐120.
Parkes, K.R., Clark, M.J., Payne‐Cook, E., 1997. Psychosocial aspects of work and health in the
North Sea oil and gas industry. Part III. Sleep, mood, and cognitive performance: A
comparison of offshore shift patterns. Health and Safety Executive, London.
Regoeczi, W.C., 2008. Crowding in context: An examination of the differential responses of men
and women to high‐density living environments. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49,
254‐268.
Saksvik, I.B., Bjorvatn, B., Harvey, A.G., Waage, S., Harris, A., Pallesen, S., 2011. Adaptation and
readaptation to different shift work schedules measured with sleep diary and actigraphy.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16, 331‐344.
Sandal, G.M., Endresen, I.M., Vaernes, R., Ursin, H., 1999. Personality and coping strategies during
submarine missions. Military Psychology 11, 381‐404.
Sandal, G.M., Leon, G.R., Palinkas, L., 2006. Human challenges in polar and space environments.
Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 5, 281‐296.
Shrimpton, M., Storey, K., 2001. The effects of offshore employment in the petroleum industry: A
cross‐national perspective. Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Herndon, Virginia.
14
Suedfeld, P., 1998. What can abnormal environments tell us about normal people? Polar stations
as natural psychology laboratories. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 95‐102.
Suedfeld, P., Steel, G.D., 2000. The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review
of Psychology 51, 227‐253.
15