This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Promoting workplace stair climbing: sometimes, not interfering is the best
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 22 October 2016
Accepted: 11 December 2016
Published: 9 January 2017
Stair climbing is a vigorous activity and can lead to several health benefits. Studies seeking to increase stair climbing in various public locations have shown positive effects, while results from similar studies conducted in the workplace are inconclusive. This study examined stair climbing in the workplace, and monitored effects from a single- and a combined intervention. Interventions were inspired by nudging, the libertarian method of influencing behavior.
By quasi-experimental design, stair- and elevator traffic in two office buildings was monitored preceding-, during- and following interventions with stair leading footprints alone, and combined with stair-riser banners. Chi square tests were applied to determine differences between baseline and the subsequent periods. Web-based questionnaires were distributed after follow-up period.
Elevators and stairs were used 45 237 times, of which 89.6% was stair use. Intervention site stair climbing at baseline (79.0%) was significantly reduced with footprints (-5.1%, p < 0.001), and footprints with stair-riser banners (-5.7%, p < 0.001) while baseline stair climbing at the control site (94.2%) remained stable (p > 0.027).
Stair climbing was significantly reduced during the intervention periods. Use of stair leading footprints alone, or combined with stair-riser banners in an attempt to influence stair climbing may be ineffective, or cause a negative reaction, when applied in a workplace with a pre-existing high amount of stair climbing.
KeywordsPhysical activity Public health Active transport Nudging Quasi-experimental
Physical inactivity is a major risk factor for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) . Being physically active is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease , type 2 diabetes , colon cancer  and obesity . The recommended 150 min per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity  is only fulfilled by 32.0% of Norwegian adults  while inconclusive evidence suggests the equivalent portion in the USA to be somewhere between 8.2%  and 57.0% . When North-American adults mention “lack of time” as a main reason for inactivity , while spending half their waking hours at work , the workplace should be considered an attractive arena for increasing physical activity levels. This could be done by increasing workplace stair climbing. Stair climbing expends between 8.6 METs  and 9.6 METs , and can therefore be categorized as a vigorous activity. Seven daily minutes of vigorous physical activity has been associated with a 62.0% decrease in coronary death , thus seven daily minutes of stair climbing should provide the same benefit. Stair climbing has been associated with higher peak VO2 , lower blood pressure , improved fitness , and is also timesaving, compared to elevator [17, 18]. There exist several studies specifically designed with the purpose to increase workplace stair use. Some have not been able to obtain the desired effect [19–22], while others have managed to show a significant increase [23–25]. Similar interventions have also been carried out in public locations, such as shopping centers , train/tram stations , airports  and universities , and according to Eves & Webb , interventions in these settings are often more successful than in the workplace. The typical intervention tactic is to place a sign at the point of choice between stairs and elevator, displaying a message or image. Russel, Ryan & Dzewaltowski  used a deterrent message, which gave a small, but significant increase in stair climbing. Eckhardt, Kerr & Taylor  compared general health related messages to specific health related messages and found specific messaging to be significantly more effective. Webb & Eves  placed specific health- and calorie related messages on stair risers and were able to increase stair climbing significantly. Placing messages on the stair risers instead of point-of-choice posters, was first demonstrated by Kerr, Eves & Carrol , who concluded that this new message format was superior to posters. Other tested interventions are music and art [25, 35] and reward based programs , all of which seem to increase stair use to some degree. In the efforts to change general behavior, positive feedback has been effective  and is known to have a more positive influence on motivation, as compared with external rewards . This approach has also been used by Lewis & Eves  in a study aimed to increase stair use in a public access setting. No other studies using the approach of positive feedback to increase stair climbing could be found, presenting the possibility of exploring this gap in knowledge. Footprints leading towards the stairs are used in Norway by various health organizations to promote stair climbing. This intervention has only been tested once before , in a study which yielded negative results. Because of its current use in Norway, and lack of positive evidence, it is in need of re-testing. Previous research gives reasonable expectations towards a greater effect when combining interventions , and the combination of footprints and positive feedback has, to our knowledge, never been tested. All aforementioned interventions are created to influence decision making, while people retain their opportunity to choose freely. This is called nudging, and is defined by Thaler & Sunstein . Successful ways of influencing employees, otherwise sedentary at work, to choose stairs over elevator means a major potential increase in physical activity levels. A natural consequence would be a decrease in NCD incidence in a cost-effective, available and timesaving way. Based on the mixed findings in this research field, the primary aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of stair-leading footprints in a solo intervention, and in combination with stair-riser banners providing positive feedback, to increase stair climbing in an office workplace setting. The secondary aim is to assess opinions of the interventions and of stair use in general.
The office buildings are located in a small town in western Norway, with a population <2500. The intervention building accommodated the regional social services and contained approximately 140 employees. The control building accommodated the County Governor and contained approximately 170 employees. All registered counts from the monitoring period were included in the results. Human resource management in both buildings approved of the monitoring, as no health variables are collected, and no person can be recognized in the results. They also informed that mostly employees frequented the stairs and elevators, but they could receive occasional visitors.
Infrared bi-directional people counters (Immotion, Sensor Development International, Dalen, Netherlands) were placed in the ground floor stair flight and elevator entrance of both buildings, 125 cm ± 1 cm from the floor. Structural differences in stairwells and elevators caused the distances between receiver and transmitter at each site to vary with 152 cm at the farthest, to 95 cm at the shortest. The outcome variables are ascent from-, and descent to the ground floor, by either stairs or elevator. The counters monitored at all time, providing counts also outside normal work hours, throughout the fourteen weeks. After the follow-up period, a web-based questionnaire (Questback, New York, USA) was distributed to all employees via e-mail. The questionnaire consisted of open-ended and closed questions. Respondents were questioned about their stair habits and if the project had affected them in any way. They were also asked how many floors they would climb by stairs, before choosing elevator.
Reliability testing of the monitors was conducted by the means of a trial person passing all counters fifty times in both directions, in their place of set up. Analyses of the results were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 23 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA), where chi square tests were used to examine the difference in stair climbing and elevator ascent, by comparing baseline counts with counts from each subsequent period. Data are reported as complete counts from each period. The same testing procedure was used for examining the difference between stair climbing and stair descent, except the results were reported as complete counts from the entire project duration. The Bonferroni adjustment of multiple testing  set the significance level at <0.017. Questions 1, 3 and 5 in the questionnaire were open ended, but the answers we received led us to code them for specific themes (Table 2) with the purpose of sorting them into related option categories. These categories were based on the wording and themes of the answers, and were formed after all answers were collected. Chi square tests were applied to compare the control- and intervention group’s answers in the questionnaire.
Effects of intervention
Stair use at both sites throughout fourteen weeks
Baseline (2 weeks)
79.0% (n = 940)
91.3% (n = 1105)
94.2% (n = 1920)
94.9% (n = 2052)
Footprints only (5 weeks)
73.9% (n = 2353)†
89.0% (n = 2761)†
94.6% (n = 4394)
94.9% (n = 4566)
Footprints and SRBs* (4 weeks)
73.3% (n = 1825)†
90.2% (n = 2194)
92.7% (n = 3617)
92.9% (n = 3873)†
Follow-up (3 weeks)
75.0% (n = 1421)
90.8% (n = 1713)
95.4% (n = 2813)
94.9% (n = 3001)
Complete questionnaire with results
Int. % (n)
Con. % (n)
1.What is the main reason why you use/do not use the stairs at the workplace?
Mentions exercise related reasons
Mentions health related reasons
Mentions efficiency related reasons
Mentions habit related reasons
No stairs: bad knees, don’t want to be out of breath
Maybe elevator: because carrying heavy objects
2.Did you notice the counters in the stairwell and the elevator entrance?
3.Mention a way the counters influenced you, or why they did not influence you.
Always take the stairs anyway
Increased awareness of stair use
Not influenced, no mention if stair user
Did not notice the counters
Always use elevator anyway
Was reminded of stair use
Negative reaction, spiteful, annoyed, skeptical
4.Did you notice the footprints and the stair riser banners?
Only stair riser banners
5.Mention a way the footprints and/or the stair riser banners influenced you, or mention why they did not influence you.
Always take the stairs anyway
Was influenced/felt pulled towards stairs
Increased awareness of stair use
Made stair walking a positive experience
People felt “led” to the stairs by the footprints
Thought they were fun/funny
Created a basis for discussion in the workplace
Not influenced, no mention if stair user
Negative reaction, spiteful, annoyed, dislike
6.Has your stair use outside the workplace…
Remained the same
Do not know
7.How many floors are you willing to climb by stairs before choosing the elevator?
More than 8
The present study has demonstrated a negative effect in stair climbing from stair-leading footprints alone and in combination with stair-riser banners displaying positive feedback. The results are comparable with the findings of Coleman & Gonzalez , who reported negative effects with male participants in both a library and an office setting. They suggested the reason to be a ceiling effect, in which case the baseline values would be too high for any increase to occur. However, a ceiling effect in the present study is somewhat unlikely, since stair descent in the intervention building averaged 15.0% higher than stair climbing throughout the monitoring period. In addition, average stair climbing in the control building was 19.0% higher than in the intervention building and this site displayed no difference between stair climbing and descent. In a similar study by Eves, Webb, Griffin & Chambers , results showed significantly higher increase in stair climbing, when using two simultaneous interventions, rather than a single intervention. The two interventions were placed at the point of choice and inside the stairwell, similar to the intervention placements in the present study. However, while they used verbal informational posters, the present interventions are non-verbal encouragements and non-informational positive reinforcements. It seems information may be superior to the present intervention approach, as informational posters have been effective in the workplace on multiple other occasions [23, 42]. The footprints were selected as intervention because they are used as an effect to promote physical activity by various health organizations in Norway. However, to our knowledge, the only published study that has tested footprints as an intervention in the past also found negative effects , despite baseline stair use being lower than 16.0%. This strengthens the results of the present study and it seems the Norwegian health organizations should consider discontinuing their use of footprints. To our knowledge, stair-riser banners with a positive feedback message have not been tested in the past. The present results suggest that how a message is presented may be less important than the message itself. Kerr, Eves & Carrol  judged stair-riser banners to be superior to point-of-choice posters to increase stair use, and they have proven effective a number of times [27, 33], but they may also be ineffective . Nevertheless, the presented messages in past studies have almost always been calorie- or health related. The present stair-riser banners involved positive feedback, inspired by Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius  who were able to decrease participants’ use of electricity with smiley faces. Though it has been established that positive feedback may enhance motivation , the opposite happened in the present study. The reason for this difference may be that the present intervention message was the same for everyone who went up the stairs. In the former experiment, participants were given personal information of their electricity use compared with their neighbors, and a smiley face if their electricity use was below average. Perhaps personalized social comparisons would have increased stair use in the present study, but that would have involved some form of self-reporting or personalized counting system, in which the participants register each time they climb a flight of stairs, and receive some form of feedback at the end of the week. In any case, further testing of the stair-riser banners in sites with lower baseline stair use would be of interest, before dismissing them completely as an intervention. Throughout the fourteen weeks of monitoring, stair climbing at the control site averaged 19.0% higher than the intervention site. When comparing the design of the two buildings, these results are in accordance with previous research. Stairs and elevator are farther apart in the control building than in the intervention building, which can increase stair use . The stairs in the control building were located openly in a large entrance foyer, leaving it exposed to natural lighting, which may also increase stair use . In comparison, the intervention stairwell was without windows. The present study is the first of its kind to be performed in Norway, and may present the image of Norwegians as above average physically active people, because of the high portion of stair climbers. However, previous research has found the people of the present county to be more active than the country average , which could help explain the unprecedented amount of baseline stair climbing. According to a review by Eves & Webb , average baseline stair use in the workplace is only 20.9%, which is roughly ¼ of the baseline stair use in the present study. People of the present municipality is also the second highest educated in Norway , and it is well known that higher education is associated with physical activity levels above average . Further research should be done on this topic, subjecting other populations to similar interventions. For some reason, the control building displayed a significant decrease in stair descent during the combined intervention period, but we suspect this to be a coincidence.
The questionnaire was distributed because it was decided that qualitative information was necessary for an extended understanding of the objective results. Answers from the questionnaire suggest that the decrease in stair climbing can be attributed to a few respondents who were irritated that someone would come to their workplace and try to influence their behavior. Previous research has suggested that the intervention message needs to be believable, to create motivation for increased stair climbing . In the present study, the stair-riser banners are positive reinforcements from an unknown source, which may have caused them to be interpreted as insincere, and may be a reason for the negative responses. The questionnaire suggests that the participants in this study were quite conscious about the fact that they use stairs for exercise reasons. This is yet another supporting argument that the present population is more physically active than average, as well as being conscious about this behavior. Another finding that makes this population out of the ordinary is how many flights of stairs they are willing to climb. Previous research has shown that people are on average willing to climb less than four floors . The present questionnaire reveals that when the option “more than 8” is calculated as nine, employees from both sites combined, are willing to climb an average of six floors, before choosing the elevator. On the other hand, in the present municipality, or county for that matter, buildings higher than four floors are not quite common. Anyone could say they would climb eight flights of stairs, but we do not know if this would be the case, were they given the opportunity. More studies are needed to establish if this is a tendency in the whole country, or if it only exists in the present municipality.
Strengths and limitations
A limiting factor is the high percentage of stair users. This makes any increase difficult, and it is possible that effects would be different in a site with lower stair use. The strength of a quasi-experimental design is the ability to compare results to a control population, which several previous studies have failed to do [19, 26, 27, 49]. In addition, the present population groups are, despite the baseline differences, quite comparable: Both groups are inhabitants of the same small town and have typical sedentary desk jobs, in buildings, which share the same amount of floors. However, the results are less representative compared to results from a randomized controlled study. In further research on this topic, several buildings should be used and randomized, in order to diversify the results and investigate different work environments. Another improvement to the design would be to have one control group, one single intervention group and one combined intervention group. The reason would be to eliminate the possibility of the combined intervention results being influenced by the single intervention. Objective people counters have the advantage of being able to monitor at all time, which provides large amounts of count data, compared to monitoring by human observers. The disadvantage is inability to account for other variables, such as gender, age and weight, in order to adjust for said variables, or do sub-group analyses. Answers from the questionnaire suggest that the counters had been intrusive to the extent that people would take the elevator in spite, making it clear that some other form of hidden monitoring is preferred. However, only 35.5% (n = 27) in the control building noticed the counters, which suggests that their intrusiveness may have been exaggerated by intervention participants. The intervention building’s low response rate to the questionnaire is another weakness, prompting assumptions of representativeness to be treated with caution. The questionnaire still provides important knowledge of how the intervention was received, and is an appropriate supplement to the objective results.
Both intervention periods resulted in significant decreases in stair climbing, a decrease that was not present during follow-up, when applying the Bonferroni adjustment. The results suggest that non-verbal and non-informative tactics in influencing stair climbing, may be ineffective, or cause a negative reaction, when applied in a workplace with a pre-existing high amount of stair climbing. Answers from the questionnaire suggest that the decrease is due to irritation among some employees, who did not like to be subjected to influence. In this case, the influence was telling people to do something they were already doing, which seems to have been interpreted as nagging, and resulted in spiteful behavior. Health promoters attempting to increase physical activity through stair use, should be more aware of what population they are trying to influence. Informational posters should be preferred as interventions, until further research unveils more effective methods. It may also be a question of building design, which architects, city planners and office managers should keep in mind.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Øystein Tveite and the Norwegian Directorate of Health, for supplying the intervention material. We also acknowledge the assistance we received in retrieving data, by bachelor students Ragnhild Eriksud and Julie Flokenes Berland.
Expenses from travelling, equipment and monitoring tools were funded by Sogn og Fjordane University College. Intervention materials were paid for by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The authors declare that the funding bodies had no other roles in this study.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
AÅ was the major contributor in writing the manuscript, collecting and analyzing data. AKS and AR made substantial contributions to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data. AKS and AR also revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- WHO. Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. 2015-01-21 17:48:55. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/. Accessed 9 Nov 2015.
- Yu S, Yarnell JWG, Sweetnam PM, Murray L. What level of physical activity protects against premature cardiovascular death? the caerphilly study. Heart. 2003;89(5):502.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Helmrich SP, Ragland DR, Leung RW, Paffenbarger RS. Physical Activity and Reduced Occurrence of Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(3):147–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Colditz G, Cannuscio C, Frazier A. Physical activity and reduced risk of colon cancer: implications for prevention. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8(4):649–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Arsenault BJ, Rana JS, Lemieux I, et al. Physical inactivity, abdominal obesity and risk of coronary heart disease in apparently healthy men and women. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;34(2):340.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- WHO. Physical activity. World Health Organization. 2015-01-27 13:48:10. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs385/en/. Accessed 4 Sept 2015.
- Hansen BH, Anderssen SA, Steene-Johannessen J, et al. Fysisk aktivitet og sedat tid blant voksne og eldre i Norge. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet (The Norwegian Directorate of Health); 2015.Google Scholar
- Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical Activity in U.S. Adults: Compliance with the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(4):454–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. The Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, Brennan LK, Bacak SJ. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):1995.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dishman RK, Oldenburg B, O’Neal H, Shephard RJ. Worksite physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15(4):344–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bassett DR, Vachon JA, Kirkland AO, Howley ET, Duncan GE, Johnson KR. Energy cost of stair climbing and descending on the college alumnus questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(9):1250–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Teh KC, Aziz AR. Heart rate, oxygen uptake, and energy cost of ascending and descending the stairs. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(4):695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boreham CAG, Kennedy RA, Murphy MH, Tully M, Wallace WFM, Young I. Training effects of short bouts of stair climbing on cardiorespiratory fitness, blood lipids, and homocysteine in sedentary young women. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(9):590.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Andersen LL, Sundstrup E, Boysen M, Jakobsen MD, Mortensen OS, Persson R. Cardiovascular Health Effects of Internet-Based Encouragements to Do Daily Workplace Stair-Walks: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal Of Medical Internet Research. 2013;15(6):e127.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Meyer P, Kayser B, Kossovsky MP, et al. Stairs instead of elevators at workplace: cardioprotective effects of a pragmatic intervention. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17(5):569–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shah S, Byrne M, Wilson M, Wilson T. Elevators or stairs?(Research of a holiday kind). CMAJ. 2011;183(18):E1353.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Westmeier-shuh J, Parr BB, Dewitt CM, Woeber KW. Time Required for Stair and Elevator Use: Implications for a Physical Activity Intervention. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(Supplement):S195.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cohen SM. Examining the effects of a health promotion intervention on the use of stairs. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis. 2013;10(1):17.Google Scholar
- Kerr J, Eves F, Carroll D. Can posters prompt stair use in a worksite environment? J Occup Health. 2001;43(4):205–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Coleman KJ, Gonzalez EC. Promoting stair use in a US--Mexico border community. (Research). The. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):2007.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Marshall AL, Bauman AE, Patch C, Wilson J, Chen J. Can motivational signs prompt increases in incidental physical activity in an Australian health-care facility? Health Educ Res. 2002;17(6):743–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eves FF, Webb OJ, Mutrie N. A workplace intervention to promote stair climbing: greater effects in the overweight. Obesity. 2006;14(12):2210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eves FF, Webb OJ, Griffin C, Chambers J. A multi-component stair climbing promotional campaign targeting calorific expenditure for worksites; a quasi-experimental study testing effects on behaviour, attitude and intention. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:423.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Graham D, Linde J, Cousins J, Jeffery R. Environmental Modifications and 2-Year Measured and Self-reported Stair- Use: A Worksite Randomized Trial. J Primary Prevent. 2013;34(6):413–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aksay E. Do simple warning signs enhance the use of stairs? Health Educ J. 2014;73(6):683–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eves FF, Olander EK, Nicoll G, Puig-Ribera A, Griffin C. Increasing stair climbing in a train station: The effects of contextual variables and visibility. J Environ Psychol. 2009;29(2):300–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Russel WD, Hutchinson J. Comparison of health promotion and deterrent prompts in increasing use of stairs over escalators. Percept Mot Skills. 2000;91:55–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Grimstvedt ME, Kerr J, Fogt DL, Oswalt SB, Vargas-Tonsing TM, Yin Z. Using Signage to Promote Stair Use on a University Campus: 1596. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(Supplement):S253.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eves FF, Webb OJ. Worksite interventions to increase stair climbing; reasons for caution. Prev Med. 2006;43(1):4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Russell WD, Ryan GJ, Dzewaltowski DA. The Effects of a Point-of- Decision Prompt for Deterring Sedentary Behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31(Supplement):S130.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eckhardt MR, Kerr J, Taylor WC. Point-of- Decision Signs and Stair Use in a University Worksite Setting: General Versus Specific Messages. American journal of health promotion : AJHP. 2015;29(5):291.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Webb OJ, Eves FF. Promoting stair climbing: intervention effects generalize to a subsequent stair ascent. American journal of health promotion : AJHP. 2007;22(2):114.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kerr J, Eves FF, Carroll D. Getting More People on the Stairs: The Impact of a New Message Format. J Health Psychol. 2001;6(5):495–500.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boutelle KN, Jeffery RW, Murray DM, Kathryn M, Schmitz H. Using signs, artwork, and music to promote stair use in a public building. (Research). The. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):2004.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Schumacher JE, Utley J, Sutton L, et al. Boosting Workplace Stair Utilization: A Study of Incremental Reinforcement. Rehabil Psychol. 2013;58(1):81–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychol Sci. 2007;18(5):429–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A Meta- Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(6):627–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lewis A, Eves F. Specific Effects of a Calorie-Based Intervention on Stair Climbing in Overweight Commuters. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42(2):257–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge - Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. 2nd ed. London: Penguin; 2009.Google Scholar
- Thomas JR. Research methods in physical activity. 6th ed. ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2011.Google Scholar
- Kwak L, Kremers SPJ, van Baak MA, Brug J. A poster-based intervention to promote stair use in blue- and white-collar worksites. Prev Med. 2007;45(2-3):177.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Olander EK, Eves FF, Puig-Ribera A. Promoting stair climbing: Stair- riser banners are better than posters… sometimes. Prev Med. 2008;46(4):308–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zacharias J, Ling R. Choosing Between Stairs and Escalator in Shopping Centers. Environ Behav. 2015;47(6):694–709.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ruff RR, Rosenblum R, Fischer S, Meghani H, Adamic J, Lee KK. Associations between building design, point-of-decision stair prompts, and stair use in urban worksites. Prev Med. 2013;60:60–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Solbraa AK, Mamen A, Resaland GK, et al. Level of physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular disease risk factors in a rural adult population in Sogn og Fjordane. Norsk Epidemiologi. 2011;20(2):179-88.Google Scholar
- NHO. Kommune-NM. NHO. Available at: https://www.nho.no/Politikk-og-analyse/Offentlig-sektor-og-naringslivet/kommunenm/. Accessed 4 Sept 2016.
- Breivik G, Rafoss K. Fysisk aktivitet; omfang, tilrettelegging og sosial ulikhet – en oppdatering og revisjon. Oslo/Alta: Helsedirektoratet (The Norwegian Directorate of Health); 2012.Google Scholar
- Adams J, White M. A systematic approach to the development and evaluation of an intervention promoting stair use. Health Educ J. 2002;61(3):272.View ArticleGoogle Scholar