International Journal of Social Sciences

Citation: IJSS: 10(02): 99-107, June 2021

DOI: 10.46852/2249-6637.02.2021.2

Study of Human Factors in Rural Kitchen Design

Promila Krishna Chahal1 and Manju Mehta2

1
Assistant Scientist, Department of Family Resource Management, COHS, CCSHAU, Hisar, Haryana, India
2
Professor and Head, Department of Family Resource Management, COHS, CCSHAU, Hisar, Haryana, India

*Corresponding author: [email protected] (ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8509-0137)

Received: 17-03-2021 Revised: 27-05-2021 Accepted: 10-06-2021

ABSTRACT
The present study was undertaken to study the work, worker, and workplace interfacing in the selected standing type of kitchens
in Behbalpur village of Hisar district. The study was conducted on 50 women respondents from the age group of 24-47 years who
were involved in kitchen activities for the last 2 years with at least 2 hrs daily. No separate counter was found for preparation,
cooking, and washing activities. Only one work counter was found for all purposes with height and depth of x = 94.2 ± 4.44 cm x =
61.8 ± 7.8 cm, respectively. It can be concluded that the height of the counter was not adequate and was either too high (20.0%) or
too low (38.0%) in more than fifty percent of the kitchens. Regarding the depth of counter surface, the mean value of counter depth
was (x = 61.8±7.8 cm) significantly higher than the usual horizontal reach of women (x = 47.6 ± 5.9 cm). In all three groups, p values
were less than 0.005 (5.82E-09, 2.3E-17, and 3.44E-10), representing the significant difference in means of each group, i.e., between
counter height and standing elbow height, and between counter depth and horizontal reach(s).

HIGHLIGHTS
m Ergonomics mismatch between women’s anthropometry and modular kitchen dimension in the rural Haryana.
Keywords: Counter height, horizontal reach (normal and extended), dimensions mismatch

The homemaker is the predominant figure in the home, kitchen activity, the type of kitchen, the ergonomic
and household work is an indispensable part of the benefits utilized by the homemakers in the kitchen are all
homemaker. Kitchen work is considered the primary critical factors to be considered for the well-being of the
work area of women, and most of their time is spent homemakers (Sultana and Prakash, 2013). The standing
doing kitchen work. A National survey shows that on type of kitchen was popularized because of its various
average, an Indian woman spends approximately 3.2 advantages, such as ‘avoidance of frequent changes
hours a day in the kitchen for cooking and cleaning in posture’ and ‘smooth flow of work on a continuous
utensils (Johari, 2015). Kishtwaria et al. (2007) in their work counter’ (Thakur 2007). However, working in a
research, observed that Indian women spend on an standing type of kitchen has its own set of disadvantages
average 5-6 hours in the kitchen, which may amount for Indian women. This type of kitchen is more suitable
to approximately one-fourth of their life spans women
spend 20-30% time in the kitchen, the work area and How to cite this article: Chahal, P.K. and Mehta, M. (2021). Study of Human
Factors in Rural Kitchen Design. Int. J. Soc. Sci., 10(02): 99-107.
environment of the kitchen the kitchen’s work area
Source of Support: None; Conflict of Interest: None
and environment play an important role in affecting
the worker’s health. The amount of time spent in the
 Chahal and Mehta

in western culture because it is less laborious and less available, specific height and measurements of the
time-consuming. Apart from prolonged standing, kitchen counter/shelves, and involvement pattern of
the poor design of the kitchen workplace also causes women in the kitchen. Anthropometric measurements
difficulties for the women. Studies have indicated of women who were found to be working in the kitchen
that the work counters in the Indian kitchen are not were taken, including; age, weight, standing height,
designed according to anthropometric measurements standing elbow height, average horizontal reach, and
of the women (Sandhu et al. 2007). There is another extended horizontal reach. Dimensions of the kitchen,
problem which generally women have reported in height, and depth of cooking counter were taken during
various studies is of difficulty in reaching out to too high the study by using an inch tape. In the study, a single
shelves, which in standing type of kitchens are designed counter was found to be used by women for all purposes
above the head clearance space. The height of the shelf like; preparation, cooking and washing utensils.
force people to either raise their heels or use Patra/stool Counter height and depth were recorded and studied in
to reach the top shelf. Tiptoeing to reach out topmost correlation with standing elbow height and regular and
shelves also increases human costs (Kumari and Dayal, extended horizontal reach. During the study, different
2009). abbreviations were used for different terms (Table 1).
Poorly designed kitchen work surfaces and spaces The degree of difference between anthropometric
cause’ permanent body damage besides increasing the measurements and dimensions of the kitchen were
worker’s workload. A significant number of studies have studied in 3 groups which were as follow:
indicated that women consider kitchen or household
™ Group 1 = Relation between standing elbow height
work as a significant domestic drudgery, a threat to
(cm) and counter height (cm).
well-being, and a hindrance in overall work satisfaction
(Haukka et al. 2008). The primary reason for increased ™ Group 2 = Relation between Normal horizontal
physiological stresses while working in a standing type reach (cm) and counter depth (cm).
of kitchen is prolonged standing at a stretch and no ™ Group 3 = Relation between extended horizontal
place to sit, which can relieve their stress while working reach (cm) and counter depth (cm).
for a longer duration and mismatch between women
anthropometry and kitchen counter dimensions.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Adequately designed and properly arranged kitchen For significant means of data, statistical analysis was
work area reduces the physical, physiological and done. Anthropometric measurements and dimensions
temporal cost of homemakers. Ergonomically designed of the kitchen were statistically studied by using mean,
counter saves time and reduces effort by eliminating standard deviation, 10th percentile, 50th percentile, and
unnecessary actions that need to be taken to get the job 95th percentile. ANOVA was used to test the significant
done. This study aimed to demonstrate the relationship relation and difference between two means of groups (1-
and mismatch between the dimensions of the cooking 3). One-way analysis of variance was used to determine
counter and the anthropometry of women working the factors of those mean were statistically significant or
inside a kitchen in a rural area. not (Snedecor and Cochran, 1989).

METHODOLOGY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present study was conducted in Behbalpur village of The study was conducted on 50 women respondents
Hisar district. 50 women respondents, who were actively from the age group of 24-47 years who were involved
working in the kitchen for the last 2 years and at least 2 hrs in kitchen activities for the last 2 years with at least
daily, were taken as respondents. The existing condition 2 hrs daily. The majority of the houses (78.0 %) had
of women in the kitchen was checked, including socio- Peninsula/ G type of kitchen, and most of these (52.0 %)
economic profile, kitchen type, kitchen size, counters were 5-12 years old. More than fifty percent of women

100 International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021

 Study of Human Factors in Rural Kitchen Design

Table 1: Abbreviation and definition of terms used in study

Terms Abbreviation Definition
Standing Height SH Human height or stature is the distance from the bottom of the feet to the top of
the head in a human body, standing erect. It is measured using a stadiometer,
usually in centimeters when using the metric system, or feet and inches when
using the imperial system
Standing Elbow Height SHE The vertical distance from the floor to the radiale. (The rediale is the bony
landmark formed by the upper end of the radius bone which is palpable on the
outer surface of the elbow.) Applications: An important reference datum for the
determination of work-surface heights
Normal Horizontal Reach NHR This is the reach created by the vertical sweep of the forearm while keeping the
elbow at a mid-torso level.
Extended Horizontal Reach HER Extended vertical reach. This is the reach created when the upper arm is fully
extended
Counter Height CH “Counter Height “ is the Vertical distance from the floor to the top of the counter.
Counter-Depth CD “Counter-depth” is the distance between your back wall or backsplash and the
front of your countertops

(54.0 % and 52.0%) were found to be involved in the and 95th). The women’s standing height (stature) was
morning (breakfast) and night (dinner) time kitchen /=160.25±5.30 cm with /=152.64 cm, /=159.55 am, and
activities for 2:00-2:30 hrs daily, and 58.0 percent women /=167.6 cm height of 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles
were involved in kitchen work for 30 minutes besides respectively. Regarding the standing shoulder height of
breakfast, lunch, and dinner. No separate counter was the women’, data reflect that the mean shoulder height
found for preparation, cooking, and washing activities; was 95.67 cm with 10th, 50th and 95th percentile of 91.3 cm,
only one work counter was found for all purposes with 95.2 cm, and 100.7 cm, respectively. The standing elbow
height and depth of x = 94.2±4.44 cm × x = 61.8±7.8 cm, height of women was reported to be 99.50±3.52 cm with
respectively. Regarding counter availability and use of three percentile values of 94.45 cm, 99.04 cm, and 104.38
kitchen, cent percent kitchen was having facilities of cm on 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile values. Horizontal
preparation, cooking and storage counter and was in reach at a normal and maximum point was x = 47.64 ±
used by women in standing posture. However, the dish- 5.98 cm and x = 72.77±7.48 cm, respectively. Findings
washing (sink) facility was found only in 22.0 percent unveil the measurements of the cooking counter. Only
of the kitchen. It was not used for cleaning purposes one counter was found for all purposes of cooking and
as they washed the utensil outside the kitchen in a preparation. In some houses washing area was found to
squatting posture. Khatoon et al. (2007) in their study on be outside of the kitchen and a few houses had a sink
dish-washing activity, also reported that the majority of counter in the kitchen but it was rarely used for washing
the respondents adopted a bending posture for bringing utensils. The mean height of the counter was found to be
utensils from the kitchen to the cleaning area and 70 x = 94.27±4.44 cm and depth was x = 62.05±8.13 cm.
percent of respondents adopted sitting cum bending
posture for scrubbing the utensils. The data represent Dimensions mismatch between counter height and
women’s anthropometric measurements, including age, standing elbow height of women
weight, stature, standing elbow height, and women’s Results in Table 2 explain the dimensions mismatch
anthropometric measurements, including age, weight, between the cooking counter height of the kitchen and
stature, standing elbow height, and horizontal reach the standing elbow height of women. The difference
(normal and maximum). All the measurements were between standing elbow height and counter height
measured in means and percentile values (10th, 50th, was observed by calculating the degree of difference

International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021 101

 Chahal and Mehta

Table 2: Dimensions mismatch between counter height and standing elbow height of women
Degree of
Sl. No. SHE (cm) CH (cm) A mismatch between counter Frequency
difference
height and standing elbow height
1 98.3 96.5 1.7 ↔
2 99.3 91.4 7.9 ↓ CH less than SHE 38.0
3 100.3 91.4 8.8 ↓
4 101.0 99.6 1.9 ↔
5 98.3 101.6 -3.2 ↑ CH correlated with SHE 42.0
6 104.3 90.1 14.2 ↓
7 94.2 83.8 10.4 ↓
8 96.2 86.3 9.9 ↓
9 100.0 91.4 8.5 ↓ CH more than SHE 20.0
10 104.8 92.4 12.3 ↓
11 100.3 92.7 7.6 ↓
12 98.2 101.6 -3.3 ↑
13 103.3 100.3 3.4 ↔
14 103.9 86.8 17.1 ↓
15 96.7 93.2 3.5 ↔
16 102.3 97.7 4.5 ↔
17 96.2 96.2 0.2 ↔
18 95.2 92.7 2.5 ↔
19 106.3 90.1 16.2 ↓
20 99.4 91.4 7.9 ↓
21 97.6 96.5 1.1 ↔
22 99.4 99.6 0.3 ↔
23 95.2 95.2 0.3 ↔
24 103.3 87.6 15.7 ↓
25 101.7 85.9 16.6 ↓
26 94.2 93.4 0.8 ↔ (Counter height less than standing elbow height by the sign of ↓ and use of blue color),
27 104.4 97.7 6.6 ↔ counter height correlated with standing elbow height (by the sign of ↑ and use of green color)
28 105.3 99.6 6.3 ↔ and counter height more than standing elbow height (by the sign of ↔ and use of green color).
29 98.5 92.7 5.8 ↔ Counter height ± 5cm to elbow was considered as appropriate/ well suited to women.
30 98.2 93.9 4.2 ↔
31 97.2 97.7 -0.5 ↑
32 100.3 92.7 7.6 ↓
33 102.3 88.9 13.4 ↓
34 92.2 93.9 -1.7 ↑
35 94.9 91.4 2.6 ↔
36 94.3 96.5 -2.1 ↑
37 95.6 101.6 -5.9 ↑
38 101.7 102.8 -1.1 ↑
39 101.4 100.3 1.1 ↔
40 96.7 93.9 2.7 ↔
41 98.5 96.5 2.2 ↔
42 104.3 91.4 12.9 ↓
43 102.3 92.7 9.6 ↓
44 98.74 95.2 3.4 ↔
45 98.2 92.7 5.5 ↔
46 95.2 96.5 -1.2 ↑
47 104.5 90.1 13.8 ↓
48 104.4 92.7 11.3 ↓
49 97.8 98.4 -0.7 ↑
50 98.2 99.6 -0.7 ↑
Mean 99.5 94.2 5.2
Std. 3.4 4.44 5.9

102 International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021

 Study of Human Factors in Rural Kitchen Design

between both. Data in the table give a clear glance x = 85.85 cm, respectively which were not according to
that each woman’s measurement (standing elbow the anthropometric measurement of the respondents.
height) was statistically checked with the dimension of Approximately 20.0 percent have to raise their heels to
their kitchen’s cooking counter height to find out the reach and use the counter and sometimes have to use
correlation and mismatch between them. Regarding patra. Suppose the user in a kitchen is working on a
the result, 38.0 percent of women’ kitchen counter worktop that is too low or too high. In that case, it causes
heights were less than their standing elbow height, that person to stand in a wrong way for a prolonged
followed by 42.0 percent kitchens’ counter were found time, causing all sorts of problems such as back pains,
to be appropriate for use as their dimension was found neck pains, and various spasms throughout the body,
significantly correlated with each other (at ± of 5 cm) making them very uncomfortable (Tehrani, 2012).
and 20.0 percent women’ kitchen counter height was Cooking counter height was found to be significantly
noticed to be high then their standing elbow height, (t=0.14) different (less and more than elbow height) of
the height difference was found to be more than 5cm. women’ elbow height).
The overall mean values of standing elbow height
and counter height were x = 99.5±3.4 and x = 94.2±4.4, Dimensions mismatch between counter depth and
respectively. It can be concluded that the height of the horizontal reach(s) of women
counter was not adequate and was too high (20.0%) Data in table 3 revealed the dimensions mismatch
and too low (38.0%) in more than fifty percent of the between counter depth of kitchen with horizontal reach
kitchens. A study done by Charu (2014) revealed that an (standard and extended) of respective women from
average height of the cooking, preparation center, and each kitchen (normal and extended). Two horizontal
sink were observed to be x = 85.30 cm, x = 85.73 cm, and

Table 3: Dimensions mismatch between counter depth and horizontal reach(s) of women
Sl. No. CD NHR Difference CD EHR Difference
1 44.6 40.6 4↔ 40.6 66.1 -25.4 ↓
2 50.8 45.7 5.1 ↔ 50.8 67.3 -16.5 ↓
3 71.1 50.8 20.3 ↑ 71.1 68.5 2.5 ↔
4 64.7 53.3 11.4 ↑ 64.7 71.1 -6.3 ↓
5 66.0 48.2 17.7 ↑ 66.1 67.3 -1.2 ↓
6 55.8 56.6 -0.7 ↓ 55.8 82.5 -26.6 ↓
7 50.8 45.7 5.1 ↔ 50.8 66.1 -15.2 ↓
8 66.4 45.7 20.3 ↑ 66.1 64.7 1.2 ↔
9 62.2 53.3 8.8 ↑ 62.2 71.1 -8.8 ↓
10 59.6 57.1 2.5 ↔ 59.6 83.8 -24.1 ↓
11 45.7 53.3 -7.6 ↓ 45.7 76.2 -30.4 ↓
12 50.8 52.7 -1.2 ↓ 50.8 72.3 -21.5 ↓
13 57.1 54.6 2.5 ↔ 57.1 81.5 -24.3 ↓
14 66.4 59.6 6.3 ↑ 66.1 82.5 -16.5 ↓
15 71.1 46.9 24.1 ↑ 71.1 66.1 5.8 ↔
16 67.3 52.7 15.2 ↑ 67.3 77.4 -10.1 ↓
17 64.7 45.7 19.5 ↑ 64.7 71.1 -6.3 ↓
18 71.1 43.1 27.9 ↑ 71.1 66.1 5.8 ↔
19 62.2 62.2 0.1 ↔ 62.2 92.7 -30.4 ↓
20 58.4 46.9 11.4 ↑ 58.4 69.8 -11.4 ↓
21 71.1 40.6 30.4 ↑ 71.1 62.2 8.8 ↑
22 65.2 48.2 16.7 ↑ 65.1 73.4 -8.3 ↓
23 62.9 43.1 19.8 ↑ 62.9 64.7 -1.7 ↓

International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021 103

 Chahal and Mehta

24 60.4 52.8 7.6 ↑ 60.4 80.2 -19.8 ↓

25 52.8 48.2 4.5 ↔ 52.8 77.4 -24.6 ↓
26 54.6 38.1 16.5 ↑ 54.6 60.9 -6.3 ↓
27 66.1 57.1 8.8 ↑ 66.4 84.8 -18.7 ↓
28 71.1 53.3 17.7 ↑ 71.1 82.5 -11.4 ↓
29 71.1 41.9 29.2 ↑ 71.1 66.1 5.1 ↑
30 73.6 43.1 30.4 ↑ 73.6 71.1 2.5 ↔
31 67.3 40.6 26.6 ↑ 67.3 67.3 0.1 ↔
32 65.2 49.5 15.4 ↑ 65.1 76.2 -11.1 ↓
33 60.4 49.5 10.9 ↑ 60.4 79.2 -18.7 ↓
34 57.1 38.1 19.5 ↑ 57.1 60.9 -3.8 ↓
35 66.1 41.9 24.1 ↑ 66.1 66.1 0.3 ↔
36 68.5 38.1 30.4 ↑ 68.5 66.1 2.5 ↔
37 68.5 40.6 27.9 ↑ 68.5 67.3 1.2 ↔
38 66.4 46.9 19.1 ↑ 66.4 76.4 -10.4 ↓
39 71.1 48.2 22.8 ↑ 71.1 77.4 -6.3 ↓
40 64.7 43.1 21.5 ↑ 64.7 71.1 -6.3 ↓
41 62.2 43.1 19.1 ↑ 62.2 71.1 -8.8 ↓
42 45.7 52.7 -6.3 ↓ 45.7 80.1 -34.2 ↓
43 49.5 50.8 -1.2 ↓ 49.5 81.2 -31.7 ↓
44 50.8 42.6 8.1 ↑ 50.8 68.7 -17.2 ↓
45 63.5 44.4 19.1 ↑ 63.5 71.1 -7.6 ↓
46 45.7 36.8 8.8 ↑ 45.7 60.9 -15.2 ↓
47 68.5 50.8 17.7 ↑ 68.5 81.2 -12.7 ↓
48 62.2 52.1 10.1 ↑ 62.2 85.9 -22.8 ↓
49 63.5 44.7 18.7 ↑ 63.5 71.1 -7.6 ↓
50 69.8 46.4 23.3 ↑ 69.8 72.3 -2.5 ↓
Means 61.8 47.6 14.2 61.8 72.7 -11.1
Std 7.8 5.9 10.1 7.8 7.4 11.1
(CD less than HR by the sign of ↓ and use of blue color), CD correlated with HR (by the sign of ↔ and use of green color) and CD more than HR (by
the sign of ↑ and use of green color).
Counter-depth ± 5cm to horizontal was considered as appropriate/ well suited to women.

Counter depth more than horizontal reach Counter depth correlated* to horizontal reach Counter depth less than horizontal reach
120
100
76 20 2
80
60 78

40
20
14
0 10
normal zone extended zone

Fig. 1: Dimensions mismatch between counter depth and horizontal reach(s) of women

104 International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021

 Study of Human Factors in Rural Kitchen Design

reaches were recorded as (by keeping elbow near able to use these counter with comfort. Similar findings
to body) and extended (stretching full elbow). Each were found by Kishtwaria et al. (2007) that dimensions
woman’s horizontal reach(s) was studied with their (height × width × depth) of cooking and preparation
counter depth, and results were found out based on centers were x = 85.29±4.01 cm x =105.78±20.34 cm x
the correlation between these components. Regarding =59.9±5.0 cm and x =85.73±2.78 cm x =117.35±37.80 cm
the depth of counter surface, the mean value of counter x =59.96±4.86 cm, respectively, which were not found
depth was x = 61.8±7.8 cm which was found to be to be associated with an anthropometric dimension
significantly high than the usual horizontal reach of of women. Poorly designed work surfaces in terms of
women (x = 47.6±5.9 cm) another side it was under the counter height, width, and depth cause permanent body
extended horizontal reach of women (x =72.7±7.4 cm). damage besides increasing the work; hence it should be
Regarding the normal zone of women (within average carefully scrutinized.
reach), full kitchens’ counters (76.0%) were having more
counter depth comparative to the standard horizontal Relation between anthropometric measurements of
reach of women, followed by 14 percent kitchen women and dimensions of cooking counter
counters’ depth were significantly matched (at ±5 cm) Results in Table 4 define the relation between
with an average horizontal reach of women. Only 10 anthropometric measurements of women and the
percent kitchen counter depth was found to be less than dimension of counters in the kitchen. Report of result
women’s horizontal reach. Finding further gives a clear on one-way ANOVA give a clear picture of findings as
picture of the dimension mismatched between counter means, Minimum value, Maximum value, 10th percentile,
depth and extended horizontal reach of women. As per 50th percentile, 95 percentile, F crit, F value, and P-value.
findings in Table 3 and Fig. 1, show the majority of the As per ANOVA (analysis of variance) if the F value is
kitchens’ counter depth (78.0 %) were found to be less less than the F crit, then the means of both groups are
than the extended horizontal reach of women, followed the same or significantly correlated. Otherwise, the
by 20.0 percent kitchens’ counter depth were found to means significantly different from the p-value. In all
be significantly correlated (at ±5 cm) with an extended the groups, p values were found to be less than 0.005
horizontal reach of women. Only 2.0 percent kitchen (5.82E-09, 2.3E-17 and 3.44E-10,) which represent that it
counter depth were observed to be more than extended is significantly different in means of each group (reflect
horizontal reach means women were not found to be that kitchen counters’ dimensions were not equal or

Table 4: Relation between anthropometric measurements of women and dimensions of cooking counter

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

SEH CH NHR CD EHR CD
Mean 99.5±.4 94.2±4.4 47.6±5.9 61.8±7.8 72.7±7.4 61.8±7.8
Minimum value 92.2 83.8 36.8 40.6 60.9 40.6
Maximum value 106.3 102.8 62.2 73.6 92.7 73.6
10th percentile 94.4 89.1 40.6 50.8 64.7 50.8
th
50 percentile 99.1 93.7 46.9 64.7 71.1 64.7
95 percentile 104.3 101.6 56.4 71.1 82.5 71.1
Fcrit 3.94 3.94 3.94
F value 40.89 107.7 49.02
P value 5.82E-09 2.3E-17 3.44E-10
Group 1 = Relation between standing elbow height (cm) and counter height (cm); Group 2 = Relation between Normal horizontal reach (cm) and counter
depth (cm); Group 3 = Relation between extended horizontal reach (cm) and counter depth (cm); Significant at p-value of 0.05; Degree of freedom = 96.

International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021 105

 Chahal and Mehta

matched with measurements of women). The same of each group (reflect that kitchen counters’ dimensions
findings were reflected in data that F values were high were not equal or matched with measurements of
(40.89, 107.7, and 49.02) than F crit (3.94), which reflected women). Working in the kitchen puts much stress on
a significant difference in means of each group. women, especially if conducted in awkward postures
and a poor work environment. The major causes of poor
Summary work practices were unconsciousness, unawareness,
It can be concluded that the height of the counter was and poor storage and work counter infrastructure.
not adequate and was either too high (20.0%) or too low (Laddha and Shraddha, 2007). As per the study
(38.0%) in more than fifty percent of the kitchens. The findings, it seems that many rural kitchens were not
working counter was found to be at the same height ergonomically sound. This suggests that there is a need
for all activities like; preparation and cooking and to create awareness among kitchen users regarding the
sometimes cleaning. No separate counter and particular functional requirements of the kitchen (Debata, B. 2011).
height and width were observed as per the requirements If not designed according to ergonomic principles, the
of women. “The height of the kitchen work counter, the workplace can lead to various difficulties and work-
proper clearance between cabinets or appliances for related musculoskeletal pain.
circulation, the accessibility to an overhead or under-
REFERENCES
counter storage, and proper visibility, are among the
primary consideration in the design of cooking spaces. Charu, 2014. Developing ergonomically designed kitchen aid for
(Tehrani, 2012). Women were found to be using stool or reducing physiological stress of women working in standing
type kitchen, Thesis Ph.d (Family Resource Management).
Patra to reach and grasp the material, which sometimes College of Home Science Punjab Agricultural University,
also causes injuries and falls. It has also been found by Ludhiana
Sandhu et al. (2008) in their study on the availability of Haukka, E., Leino-Arjas, P., Vikari-Juntura, E., Takala, E.P.,
kitchen workspaces and their suitability in the houses, Malmivaara, A., Hopsu, L., Mutanen, P., Krtola, R, Virtanen, T,
that many users from all height categories felt ‘stress in Pehkonen, M.I., Holtaru-Leino, M., Nykanen, J., Stenholm, S.,
shoulder and arms’ while using the highest dish stacking Nykri, E. and Rihimaki, H. 2008. A randomized controlled trial
on whether a participatory ergonomics intervention could
and kitchen storage shelf. They also felt ‘stress in the prevent musculoskeletal disorders. Occup. Environ. Med., 65:
leg’ due to more cooking and kneading center coupled 849-856.
with prolonged standing. Rural villages are adopting Johari, A. 2015. Will a government study confirm what we always
the advanced technologies of cities, but sometimes they knew: Indian women work more hours than men. Gender
missed the concept behind that. The same was found inequality. https://scroll.in/article/702430/will-a-government-
in standing kitchen design, rural people were found study-confirm-what-we-always-knew-indian-women-work-more-
hours-than-men. Last accessed on 16th December 2020.
to be using modern kitchen, but they were not found
Khatoon, J., Verma, B. and Dayal, R. 2007. Grip assessment of rural
to involved the ergonomics of kitchen design. No one
women performing dishwashing activity in Deoria district
kitchen was found appropriate/fit to users (women) (U.P.) 2: 125-131. In: Gite, L.P., Mehta, C.R., Kotwaliwale, N.
working 5-6 hrs daily inside the kitchen. The process and Majumdar, J. (ed) Developments in Agricultural and
of kitchen work and the activities contained within Industrial Ergonomics. Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
the kitchen, reflect the requirements that need to be Kishtwaria, J., Mathur, P. and Rana, A. 2007. Ergonomic evaluation
considered to design smart kitchens with components of kitchen work concerning space designing. J. Hum. Ecol., 21:
43-46.
suitable for that particular house such as storage,
preparation/cooking, dining, and accessibility of the Kumari, P. and Dayal, R. 2009. Feeling of discomfort perceived
by rural women while working in the existing kitchen
cabinets being the most critical requirements (Young arrangements. Asian. J. Home Sci., 3(2): 158-160.
Jun Ko, 2007). In all the groups, p values were found
Laddha, S. and Shraddha, 2007. Impact of work practices on
to be less than 0.005 (5.82E-09, 2.3E-17, 3.44E-10,) which musculoskeletal problems of rural women. Proc Humanizing
represents that there is a significant difference in means Work and Work Environment (HWWE). Pp 67. Central
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, India.

106 International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021

 Study of Human Factors in Rural Kitchen Design

Sandhu, P., Malik, M. and Bakhshi, R. 2008. Recommendations Tehrani, M.M. 2012. The Role of Technology in Providing the
for selected household workstations for Punjabi (Indian) Efficiency of Kitchen Design. Master of Science in Architecture.
women. Proc. 9th Southeast Asian Ergon. Conf. (SEAES). pp Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimağusa, North Cyprus.
60. Bangkok, Thailand. Thakur, V. 2007. Modular smart kitchen workstation. Master of
Sandhu, P., Malik, M. and Kaur, H. 2007. Analysis of gap between Design Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.
existing and formulated kitchen work counters in selected Verghese, M.A., Chattarjee, L., Aterya, N. and Bhatnagar, A. 1989.
households of Ludhiana city. J. Dairying, Foods and Home Sci., Ergonomic Evaluation of Household Activities UGC Report.
26(1): 42-47. Dept of Family Resource Management, SNDT, Bombay, India.
Snedecor, George, W., Cochran, and William, G. 1989. Statistical Young Jun Ko, H.R. 2007. Expanded Evaluation System for
Methods, Eighth Edition, Iowa State University Press. Design.
Sultana, S. and Prakash, C. 2013. Benefits of using ergonomic
kitchen designs for today’s homemaker. Golden Research
Thought, 3(6): 1-7.

International Journal of Social Sciences: Vol. 10 • No. 2 • June 2021 107