Download Impact of sustainable office buildings on occupant`s comfort and

Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Impact of sustainable office buildings on occupant's comfort and productivity
Annika Feige Holger Wallbaum Marcel Janser Lukas Windlinger
Article information:
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
To cite this document:
Annika Feige Holger Wallbaum Marcel Janser Lukas Windlinger, (2013),"Impact of sustainable office
buildings on occupant's comfort and productivity", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 7 - 34
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-01-2013-0004
Downloaded on: 05 May 2015, At: 07:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 70 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1889 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Andrew Smith, Michael Pitt, (2011),"Sustainable workplaces and building user comfort and satisfaction",
Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 144-156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14630011111170436
Paul Roelofsen, (2002),"The impact of office environments on employee performance: The design of the
workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1 Iss 3 pp.
247-264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725960310807944
Theo J.M. van der Voordt, (2004),"Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces", Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 133-148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14630010410812306
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-001X.htm
Impact of sustainable office
buildings on occupant’s comfort
and productivity
Annika Feige and Holger Wallbaum
Sustainable
office buildings
7
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, and
Marcel Janser and Lukas Windlinger
Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Wadenswil, Switzerland
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to research the impact of sustainable office buildings on
occupant’s comfort and self-assessed performance and work engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The research consists in an empirical study of 18 office
buildings and is based on survey data from almost 1,500 employees.
Findings – The study shows that the building itself has a clear impact on the comfort level of the building
user. Also, the positive impact of certain features, such as operable windows and the absence of air
conditioning, can be clearly identified. While productivity is not directly correlated to comfort levels, work
engagement is. Generally, the analysis shows that specific building aspects seem to have an influence on
user comfort and with that, also an impact on productivity; however, this impact appears to be limited.
Originality/value – This is a very important insight since this shows the connection between
employee and company and thus demonstrates that a high user comfort can reduce the turnover rate of
employees. Therefore, additional planning towards user comfort and social sustainability can be
shown to yield real returns.
Keywords Office buildings, Sustainable design, Employees attitudes, Social sustainability,
Building quality, Comfort, Occupant performance, Financial impact
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
When it comes to investment decisions for construction projects there often seems to be a
conflict of interests. This is especially true for private investors who are planning their
own office buildings. Quite often, the intention of creating an attractive work
environment, fulfilling ecological goals and being cost efficient are opposed, which can
lead to long planning processes and increased project revisions. In the end, it is common
for the investment decision to be made according to financial reasons, and other aspects
like environmental and social considerations are then often side-lined. For the
This work was partially sponsored by the Commission for Technology and Innovation
(Swiss Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology) through funding of the project
“Quality of sustainable buildings – effects of sustainable office buildings on user comfort,
well-being, and work performance” (13115.1 PFES-ES). The authors would like to acknowledge
that they are solely responsible for this document and that it does not represent the opinion of the
Commission or any of the project partners, and that the Commission or project partners are not
responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein. This study was supported
financially but not influenced with regards to content by Ernst Basler & Partner and the Holcim
Foundation for Sustainable Construction. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Vol. 15 No. 1, 2013
pp. 7-34
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-001X
DOI 10.1108/JCRE-01-2013-0004
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
8
development of sustainable buildings this then means that the original plan to erect such
buildings is revised or cancelled.
Even though the topic of sustainable construction is well known in the business, and
widely discussed in research and practice, the additional investment costs for sustainable
buildings seem to present an obstacle for the wider development of sustainable construction.
It is difficult to identify the exact number of sustainable buildings since sustainability does
not lend itself to easy recognition, however, we can get a good impression by the number
that achieve building labels or certificates. In 2011, in the US, there were approximately
24,000 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified residential and
commercial buildings (LEED homepage November 2011), which pale to insignificance when
compared with the 1.8 million houses and 170,000 commercial buildings built each year in
the USA (Hoffman and Henn, 2008). Similarly, the German DGNB label, though currently
one of the better-known sustainability labels of the so-called second generation, which are
following a more holistic approach, has only 227 certified labels on their list, to date.
Reasons for such developments can be diverse. They start with the general lack of
information on the topic of sustainability, industry-related communication shortfalls or
cognitive or social barriers against sustainable development (Feige et al., 2011).
However, one of the main reasons seems to be the fact that sustainable construction is
often presumed as costly (Langdon, 2007). Higher planning and material costs for
sustainable constructions are a major factor in the low share of sustainable buildings.
Although life-cycle analysis may show financial paybacks, the time span until these
buildings break-even is often too far in the future and outside the investors’ considered
timescales (Meins et al., 2010). Even the widely used argument of cost savings for
sustainable buildings due to energy savings is only partly relevant since energy costs are
currently too low to really pay back the additional investments (Wallbaum and Meins,
2009). Other financial incentives like tax reductions or public subsidies often only attract
private persons who are building their family houses and do not work for companies.
Thus, at this point, sustainable features may not be profitable for investors unless
there are other financial benefits. Such benefits could occur through capital and rental
value premiums, higher occupancy rates, reduced operational costs or a reduced risk
premium. Most of these points, however, also would not account for private investors
who are using the building for their own needs and are not considering offering their
facilities on the market.
For such investors other financial incentives need to be identified.
To do so, it is important to analyse the cost structure of the private companies who
are planning office buildings for their own needs.
A company’s costs consist of many components. The two main types are operating
costs, divided into personnel and material costs, and financial costs, such as borrowing
costs. Only a small proportion of the operating costs relate to building issues. Looking
at the companies’ balance of accounts for developing, owning and operating a typical
office building over 25 years, it shows that overall, building-related costs only account
for about 12 per cent. By far the bigger cost factor is labour cost, which with an
85 per cent share of total costs is obviously significant (CABE, 2005).
In a company’s balance sheet, these costs are related to annual returns. In the
following formula, Hansen and Skåret demonstrate a simplified model of the
relationship between yearly costs and returns (Hanssen, 1997; Skåret, 1992). Financial
costs are not considered.
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Company cost and returns:
I £aþE þB þRþP ¼E 2G
I
investment cost.
a
amortisation factor.
E
yearly energy cost.
B
yearly operation and maintenance cost.
R
yearly cleaning cost.
P
yearly salary.
E
yearly returns.
G
yearly profit.
ð1Þ
The formula shows that the company costs are important for earnings, and thus that it
is important to optimise the cost structure to gain higher returns. As a consequence, of
the high share of labour costs, this is also the sector which yields the greatest potential
for cost optimisation.
Relating this to the initial topic of discussion, creating financial motivation for private
building investors to build sustainable is then connected to the optimisation of labour
cost or the increase of returns through labour forces. The aim is to enhance sustainability
by identifying added value regarding labour cost. This is in line with other researchers
who justify indoor environment research by noting that human resources account for the
largest proportion of total expenses in the life cycle of a building (CABE, 2005). Their aim
is to show that occupants who are satisfied with the overall environmental quality of
their workspace are widely assumed to be more productive. (Kim and de Dear, 2012).
Not only would investors and owners profit from such developments, but also the
employees and building users, who would benefit directly. In fact, their interests would
be considered with greater attention and be a focal point in project planning.
In his latest research presentations Kok (2012) describes a building pyramid for
project planning. Usually, the owner’s interests are at the top, while user interests are at
the bottom. Considering the employee’s needs and allocating them greater significance
while serving the company’s financial interests, would turn this pyramid upside down.
To achieve this, greater integration of tenant representatives and increased
consideration of tenant needs in the normal project planning process are required.
The importance of the consideration of employee needs and their effect on financial
aspects is also outlined by Wargocki et al. (2008). Their model points to the fact that a
better work environment with an enhanced indoor environment quality (IEQ) is leading
to higher user satisfaction and thus increased financial paybacks. In their research they
outline an example of an ideal loop for indirect monetary benefits (Wargocki et al., 2008).
An investment by the private investor improves the IEQ, and as a result, the comfort and
performance of the building users is also improved. Hence, the direct effect of a more
sustainable property would not only be a better IEQ but, with measurable increases in
productivity, would lead to financial benefits for the companies.
Besides, these internal effects they also state that in the cases of building rentals, or
possible sales, increased prices can be achieved.
Sustainable
office buildings
9
JCRE
15,1
10
With these concepts established, real estate can play a much more fundamental role
for business than is currently realised and hence, workplaces should occupy a more
central role in the business considerations of the modern corporation.
In the following chapter, the different elements of such strategies will be defined and
explained in more detail, and a research model developed. In addition, an extensive
overview of current research work in this field is provided.
As the basis for this paper, a Swiss research project is presented which analyses the
effects of office building environments on user comfort and performance. First results
of this project are presented and discussed in this paper.
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
2. Definitions
To understand the connection between sustainable construction and financial gains for
private investors, it is first important to define the terminology that will be used.
2.1 Sustainable construction
For more than three decades, the concept of sustainable development is on the
agenda of politics and science. The widely known definition of sustainable
development has been developed by the so-called Brundtland Commission in 1987
(WCED, 1987):
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The concept of “sustainable development” includes the conservation of natural
resources, social and economic balance within a society, and between different regions
of the world, as well as the forward-looking component of developing potential in terms
of education (qualification) and enabling economic freedom.
The system shown in Figure 1 is the so-called three-pillar model and represents the
most common form of the interpretation and operationalization of the sustainability
concept (Wachter, 2006).
Following on from the aforementioned definition of sustainable development, in
sustainable buildings, the multiple pillar concept needs to be considered over the entire
life cycle of the property: from the planning process, through the construction,
operation and renovation phases, and up to the eventual demolishing and recycling
processes. Across all its physical criteria, a sustainable construction or building needs
to serve economical, ecological and social criteria that are beneficial or at least not
harmful to current and future generations.
Taking these concepts into account, Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2007, p. 646) present a
more detailed definition of sustainable buildings:
A sustainable building is meant to be a building that contributes – through its characteristics
and attributes – to sustainable development. By safeguarding and maximizing functionality
and serviceability as well as aesthetic quality, a sustainable building should contribute to the
minimization of life cycle costs; the protection and/or increase of capital values; the reduction
of land use, raw material and resource depletion; the reduction of malicious impacts on the
environment; the protection of health, comfort and safety of workers, occupants, users,
visitors and neighbours; and (if applicable) to the preservation of cultural values and heritage.
Although the various pillars of sustainability are of equivalent importance, in this
study the focus lies with the social aspect, which is so far the least explored and
Sustainable
office buildings
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
11
Source: Wachter (2006, p. 31)
in practice often only considered secondary. Up to now, the economic and
environmental aspects of sustainable development have taken centre stage.
The aim of this paper is to change this mentality and put more emphasis on the
social aspects of sustainable construction. This includes the consideration of user
needs and enhancement of their comfort and health level. Hence, the analysis of each
individual’s conditions gains importance.
2.2 Comfort
In general, comfort is defined by the absence of unpleasant sensations, which has a
positive effect on well-being. What factors cause discomfort is subjective and varies
from person to person. However, it is possible to define factors which are perceived as
unpleasant for most people.
Comfort can be affected by different variables. In this study, the
environment-related parameters, which affect environmental comfort (Vischer, 2007),
are examined. Regarding the environmental comfort of office users, it is assumed they
have needs that go beyond health and safety (physical comfort). Thus, the working
environment should also support the work activities (functional comfort) and consider
psychological needs and preferences (psychological comfort). These comfort factors for
office environments can be described as follows:
.
Physical comfort refers primarily to biological responses and body dimensions:
protection and security, light and illumination, indoor air quality, climate, noise,
and ergonomics.
.
Functional comfort relates to the suitability of work environments for work
tasks: disturbances and distractions, interruptions, distances between work
colleagues, supervisors, colleagues, resources and functional areas.
Figure 1.
Model sustainable
development
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
12
.
Psychological comfort refers to individual and interpersonal space-related needs:
social and spatial variables (privacy, crowding, territoriality, status and control
over the environment).
The comfort environment can be visualised as a pyramid (Figure 2). The pyramid
clarifies that physical comfort is a necessary condition for the other two categories of
comfort. The boundary line indicates the level of comfort one should not fall below, as
below this point discomfort hampers usability.
The dimensions of comfort mentioned in the context of sustainable building are the
influencing factors which determine the social sustainability performance of the
building (Cole et al., 2008).
Kim and de Dear (2012) categorise indoor environmental factors into three
categories: basic factors, bonus factors and proportional factors:
(1) Basic factors can be thought of as the minimum requirements. Occupants only
notice these factors if they are in some way deficient or defective. They do not
necessarily enhance overall satisfaction but they can cause dissatisfaction when
they are not fulfilled. Thus, the impact resulting from under-performance is
greater than the impact resulting from positive performance.
(2) Bonus factors go beyond the minimum expectations. When a product performs
very well on these factors, there is a strong positive effect on occupants’
satisfaction levels. However, poor performance does not necessarily result in
dissatisfaction.
(3) With proportional factors, the occupants’ satisfaction level changes
proportionally to the performance of these factors. If they perform well,
occupants will be satisfied, whereas if they perform poorly, occupants will be
dissatisfied.
Comfort/Well-Being
Psychological
Comfort
Functional
Comfort
Physical Comfort
Boundary Value Usability
Figure 2.
Three categories of
environmental comfort
Discomfort
Source: Vischer (2005, p. 85; 2007, p. 69)
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
To obtain social sustainability it is crucial to fulfil the basic factors of comfort. For
financial benefits, it is also important to achieve bonus factors and perform well with
proportional factors.
2.3 Productivity/performance
Work performance and productivity are rarely analysed as factors connected to the
office environment. Performance can be analysed, in the field of “workplace research”,
using different criteria: individual performance (focus of this review), team
performance (Peterson and Beard, 2004), organisational performance (Becker, 2002)
and building performance (Bordass, 1993; Preiser and Vischer, 2005).
To facilitate this analysis, the term performance needs a clear definition since it is
often used in different ways (Aronoff and Kaplan, 1995). In particular, productivity and
performance should be distinguished. Productivity is a key determinant for the success
of any organisation; to thrive in competition, firms must be able to make the best use of
scarce resources available. This also holds true in the case of knowledge-intensive
organisations, which can be defined as any organisation in which:
[. . .] knowledge has more importance than other inputs (Starbuck, 1992, p. 715).
Productivity is usually described as the ratio of output to input (Oseland and Bartlett,
1999):
Output
Productivity : Productivity ¼
ð2Þ
Input
Depending on the context and content of the output measure (e.g. products, services,
market shares, value) and input measure (e.g. cash, labour, energy, materials, and work
environment), productivity will be defined differently. Productivity is advanced by
increasing output, reducing input (costs) or a combination of the two (Oseland and
Bartlett, 1999).
Extending this to office environments, a productivity definition could also be:
Productivity2 : Productivity ¼
Company Turnover
Employees
ð3Þ
In this case, the employee is defined as the relevant input factor.
In comparison to productivity, individual performance can be described as an
individual’s contribution to the objectives of the organisation (Campbell et al., 1993).
The performance is, in most cases, a hypothetical construct, which cannot be measured
directly, but can instead be estimated with performance criteria and performance
indicators (Marcus and Schuler, 2001).
In the field of performance measurement, two dimensions are usually distinguished,
namely task- and context-related performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993).
Task-related performance refers to the core activities of employees, which are
normally assigned in formal employment descriptions and functional specifications.
These activities can be productive in two ways: either direct (e.g. organisational
transformations in industrial processes) or indirectly (e.g. coordinative tasks in
management).
In contrast to task-related performance, context-related performance describes activities
that are not formally described as tasks, but are necessary for the functioning of an
Sustainable
office buildings
13
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
14
organisation by influencing the organisational, social or psychological context
(e.g. social support), and contribute to a healthy business climate. Context-related
performance is possibly more affected by discomfort and stress-inducing work
environments than task-related performance (Semmer et al., 2005). However, both taskand context-related performance are affected by the level of comfort of employees,
meaning environmental comfort can be a very influential comfort aspect for employee
performance.
The evaluation of performance and productivity can be difficult for service
companies, and knowledge-intensive organisations in general (Miller and Pogue,
2009a). According to the definition of productivity, traditional productivity measures
are based on measuring the output and input quantities used in the production process.
For example, labour productivity can be calculated by dividing the quantity produced
by the man-hours used in production. However, the same quantitative methods cannot
usually be applied to service companies because of the qualitative nature of the output
of knowledge work and the fact that knowledge workers operate, by definition, “with
intangible resources” (Drucker, 1999).
One possible solution to this problem is to use indirect measures such as absenteeism,
hours worked, tardiness, safety rule violations, number of grievances filed, or employee
turnover. Even though the productivity of the company as a whole could be measured
using financial and economic measures for the entire system (revenues, billable hours,
net income, or market share gained), it is still difficult to determine the actual
performance of the employees throughout the considered work hours (Miller and Pogue,
2009a).
An alternative to address this problem is the use of subjective productivity
measurement. Subjective productivity measures are not based on quantitative
operational information, but on the personnel’s own subjective assessments (Kemppilä
and Lönnqvist, 2003), and is collected using survey questionnaires. In this study,
subjective productivity measurements will be used to evaluate employee performance.
3. Related research
The previous chapters provided an overview about the main concepts and theoretical
approaches to explain the connection between sustainable buildings and financial
gains for private investors.
The fact that these relationships are not only theoretically but also
empirically analysed can be seen in several research studies that have taken place
during the last years.
Most prominently in the Scandinavian countries, but also in the USA and
Switzerland, extensive research studies have been carried out to show the connection
between certain office characteristics, building conditions and user comfort and
productivity.
Table I provides an overview about research that has been undertaken in this field.
Most of the studies identify a clear link between certain building aspects and user
comfort and health. Productivity losses are also clearly stated. As an example,
considering solely the aspect of air quality, previous studies have already shown that a
10 per cent reduction in the population percentage dissatisfied with air quality
corresponds to about a 1 per cent increase in the performance of office work. That
would already justify the expenditure required to enhance air quality.
Better operator performance
Temperature can reduce
performance by 5-15%
Slower work performance
Temperature remains below 258C
Temperature changes
Increase in performance
Increase in self-estimated
performance
Increase outdoor clean air supply
6% performance improve
Increase outdoor clean air supply
9% performance improve
Doubled air supply rate
35% lowered short term sick leave
Improved air quality (old carpets
Improved performance, 20% lower
removed)
dissatisfaction rate
Changes in temperature, ventilation Lowered SBS (increase in
and air quality
performance)
Increased Noise level
3% reduced performance rate
Light (glare, contrast, luminance,
light spectrum. . .)
Office Size
SBS are related office size
Increase in outdoor air supply rate
Increase in outdoor air supply rate
Temperatures above 24.58C
Performance decrease
Temperature above 23-248C
Office buildings
Experimental field study
Call centre
Call centre
Office building
Laboratory experiments
Call centre
Laboratory experiment
Call centre
Call centre
24 laboratory studies
24 laboratory studies
Performance increase
10% reduction in the proportion
dissatisfied with air quality
Temperature below 23-248C
SBiBStudy
(continued)
Wargocki et al. (2004)
Tham et al. (2003)
Milton et al. (2000)
Lagercrantz et al. (2000) Wargocki
et al. (1999)
Niemelä et al. (2006), Tham and
Willem (2004), Wyon et al. (2000)
Witterseh et al. (2004)
Only old or dissatisfying studies
Wargocki et al. (2008), Seppänen et al.
(2006a)
Wargocki et al. (2008), Seppänen et al.
(2006a)
Niemelä et al. (2006)
Wyon (1996), Wyon and Wargocki
(2006)
Federspiel et al. (2002), Tham et al.
(2003)
Wargocki et al. (2000)
Kaczmarczyk et al. (2004)
Wargocki et al. (2008)
5 office studies, 2 laboratory studies Wargocki et al. (2008), Seppänen et al.
(2006b)
3 simulated office work experiments Wargocki et al. (2008)
10% reduction in illness
Improvement of work performance
by approx. 1.5%
1.1% increase in performance
Source
Doubling outdoor air supply
Doubling outdoor air supply
Method
Effect
Measures
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Sustainable
office buildings
15
Table I.
Overview existing
literature
Table I.
BSI (Building Symptom Index)
increase with Nr. of peoples in the
room
Temperature differences
Productivity decreases with rising
temperature
Comparison of cooling/ventilation
Users have a higher comfort level in
systems
mechanically cooled buildings (vs no
ventilation system)
Control over building ventilation for Intervention group: productivity
Intervention group
increases by 11% over control group
þ SBS symptoms significantly
decrease
Control group: productivity
decreases by 4% þ no change in
SBS
Introduction of personal control
3% productivity increase
workstations
Introduction of personal control
Personal control over environmental
workstations
conditions, especially temperature
and ventilation, shows a strong link
to enhanced work performance as
well as to comfort and acceptability
Lighting conditions
Inconclusive results about light
Effect
Roulet et al. (2005)
Office/residential buildings (mixed
method approach)
Office/residential buildings (mixed
method approach)
Different sources
Kroner et al. (1992)
Case study office building
Heerwagen (2000)
(continued)
Brager and de Dear (1998)
Menzies et al. (1997)
Self-evaluation in two test groups
Roulet et al. (2005)
Roulet et al. (2005)
Source
Office/residential buildings (mixed
method approach)
Method
16
Nr. of occupants
Measures
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
JCRE
15,1
Introduction of personal control
workstations
Certified vs non-certified building
Poor indoor air quality
Introduction of personal control
workstations
Employees near windows experience
lower levels of SBS symptoms than
those located in building interiors –
even though windows are not
operable and thus the effect cannot
be due to increased ventilation
Temperature control of just three
degrees (plus or minus) result in a
productivity increase of about 7%
for typical clerical tasks, 2.7% for
logical thinking tasks, 3% for skilled
manual work, and 8.6% for rapid
manual labour
Decrease in productivity as high as Laboratory and call-centre
6-9%
4.88% productivity increase, 2.88% Office building (pre- and postfewer sick days
certification award/office relocation),
self-evaluation þ days of absence
Neither knowledge nor personal
Analysis of six office buildings,
control resulted in higher perceived mixed method approach
comfort
Daylight
Method
Effect
Measures
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Brown and Cole (2009)
Miller and Pogue (2009b)
Wyon (2004)
Wyon (1996)
Fisk and Rosenfeld (1997)
Source
Sustainable
office buildings
17
Table I.
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
18
In summary, the question of whether and how the building affects the people in it is a
subject area that is attracting growing attention in research. Current studies make a
clear link between office conditions and user productivity. Detailed findings from these
studies are listed in the Table I.
Despite the fact that there are many relevant studies available that clearly show a
link between the office environment and user performance, there are still remaining
research gaps and unanswered questions that require further research.
In part, this arises from methodological difficulties, in part to limited amounts of
data but also through the limited scope of the research questions. For example, the
Swiss HOPE study (Roulet et al., 2005) is one of the few investigations that really
considers the connection between user comfort, productivity and sustainable office
design. In the performed tests connections between individual building characteristics
or interior building conditions and the well-being of building users were noted.
However, most of the listed studies only consider single IAQ aspects and were
carried out in laboratory conditions. For the cases where the research studies took
place in real life scenarios the data sets are small.
To sum up, the following research gaps remain:
.
In sustainable construction research the focus rarely lies with the social aspects
of sustainability. The studies mostly address energy-related, environmental or
economic aspects.
.
The relation between the construction and operation of buildings and the specific
reaction of building users is mostly investigated under laboratory conditions, in
the current studies, so the relevance and validity of the results remains less
conclusive for practical implementation.
.
Most of the international studies only analyse a limited cross-section of
buildings. In most studies 3-5 buildings are analysed.
.
Previous studies have mostly analysed certified buildings. The readings may
have been influenced not only by the building itself, but possibly also by a
“labelling effect”.
These research gaps emphasise the need for an extensive research project to complete
our understanding and provide empirical data on the connection between the
sustainable construction of office buildings and user comfort and performance.
4. Theoretical model
The study will outline the connection between the earlier described factors: sustainable
construction, comfort, performance and the resultant financial gains. However,
connecting the building and user performance there are several steps in between, that
need to be understood.
Sustainable construction usually means to build in a way that meets certain criteria.
The degree to which these criteria are fulfilled can be used to determine a building’s
sustainability rating. There exist developed evaluation structures for green (first
generation) and sustainable buildings (second generation) like BREEAM, LEED or
DGNB. However, building user is not determined by the same set of criteria, but
instead judge according to their own subjective criteria and individual sense of
perception. This perception not only varies between each person, but is also subject to
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
fluctuating individual emotions throughout the day. Therefore, to achieve true
social sustainability, it is important to accommodate the subjective perception in the
best possible way throughout the day for the majority of the building users.
As a result, there is no immediate way of obtaining financial gains from sustainable
construction, as individual perception is always an aspect in-between (Figure 3).
Besides, the office characteristics through building design and construction, there are
several other aspects which are important for the individual user comfort and
performance. Existing studies actually suggest that user performance is only influenced
by the office environment by 5-7 per cent. More important for the work performance is
the job design itself (16-24 per cent) and social environment (7-11 per cent) (Windlinger,
2012). However, these figures show that office design has an important impact and by
achieving office environments that are socially sustainable, a considerable improvement
can be made to user comfort and performance.
The connection between the office environment, including sustainable building
design, comfort and performance is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 is a theoretical framework summarising the evidence and concepts from
the previous chapter, which are based on existing research results and a combined
collection of diverse theories. The highlighted path shows the research areas that are
specifically addressed in this paper where the connection between building criteria,
comfort parameters and performance parameters like (work performance, work
engagement and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB)) is used to identify
financial gains.
Really proving the connection between the included factors must be the task for
future research to thus, prove the importance of social sustainability to private
investors.
Sustainable
office buildings
19
5. Data and methodology
With the aim of filling in the identified research gaps and answering the
defined research questions, the research project “Quality of sustainable buildings –
the impact of sustainable buildings on comfort, well-being and productivity” has been
set up. The project combines surveys of office users, interviews with office managers,
and physical and chemical analyses of IEQ. Beside the research institutions,
nine partner organisations took part in the project, offering 25 office buildings for
analysis.
The whole project bases on a multi-disciplinary study combining three different
assessment methods which will be presented and explained in the following parts.
Each method reveals important insights about the building and/or the building user.
Source: Adapted and modified from Marans and Spreckelmeyer (1981, p. 22)
Figure 3.
Connection office
environment and
work performance
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
20
Figure 4.
Influencing factors and
effects in sustainable
construction
As a preliminary step, the information collected from each method is analysed
separately. Here, the most important facts, problems or special attributes can be
identified. Then the results are combined to deliver the full picture and final results.
In total three different methods are used:
(1) online questionnaires with the building occupants;
(2) structured interviews with building owners and/or office managers; and
(3) physical measurements inside the buildings.
In order to eliminate irregularities caused by seasonal variations, the
questionnaires and measurements are taken at least twice in each building – in
winter and summer.
In each of the buildings all users are questioned via online questionnaires.
The questionnaires address the fields: comfort, health, productivity, energy usage as
well as demographic questions and questions about the employee’s occupation.
The location within the building and user interaction with the building is also
requested.
The questionnaire comprises about 170 questions. It includes questions regarding
the comfort perception (environmental features rating (EFR), indoor environmental
quality) and productivity (self-evaluation work performance, OCB, work engagement)
in the respective office building.
They are grouped in the previously mentioned categories. The range of possible
answers lies between 1 and 5 for:
.
indoor environmental quality; and
.
occurrence of sick building syndrome (SBS).
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
where 1 is the best and 5 the worst rating. The range changes to 1 to 7 for:
.
environmental features rating;
.
work performance;
.
organisational citizenship behaviour; and
.
work engagement.
where 7 is the best and 1 the worst rating possible.
The questionnaires have been developed on the basis of existing literature. The
occurrence of SBS and the indoor environmental quality is measured with questions in
line with Andersons research (Andersson, 1998). For both categories 12 questions have
been included in the online questionnaire.
For the EFR, a set of questions about various aspects of the physical office
environment is included. The scale itself is based on previously validated rating scales
for office settings (Stokols and Scharf, 1990) and has been applied and validated in a
number of other studies (Newsham et al., 2008, 2009; Veitch et al., 2007). The set of
questions contains 18 questions asking for ratings of features of the office environment
such as “amount of light for computer work” or “temperature in your work area”.
The performance-related questions inquire about individual performance, work
engagement and OCB as measures of contextual performance.
As previously mentioned, individual performance is measured using a subjective
performance assessment, since this type of performance assessment was chosen as the
most apt option to removing performance from the research design.
Since there is a lack of experience with the sensitivity and psychometric quality of
subjective performance assessments, different individual performance assessment scales
have been adopted and employed (Oldham, 1988). One example for a question would be
“I can accomplish a great deal each day.” Possible answers lie on the aforementioned
seven-point-scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Using the same
scale, questions about satisfaction are also posed (Brennan et al., 2002). The focus here lies
on giving feedback about one’s own performance (e.g. “Peer feedback about my work is
positive.”) and includes items on the influence of the working environment on individual
work outcomes (e.g. “It is easy to have a one-to-one conversation at my workspace.”).
OCB is included in the questionnaire as a measure for contextual performance. It
describes the quality of working relationships between colleagues and availability of
social support. In total, nine questions are included in the questionnaire, such as
“I listen to co-workers when they have to get something off their chest” and “I show
concern and courtesy toward co-workers” which have been adopted from previous
research work (Settoon and Mossholder, 2002).
The aspect of work engagement is included to measure the state of mind of employees.
Work engagement is defined to be “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption” (Demerouti and Bakker, 2008).
The questionnaire takes about 20 minutes to complete and requires a detailed
self-assessment by each office user. In the questionnaire, the user should give insights
about his/her individual behaviour, comfort, health and productivity levels. The
questionnaire is compiled by workplace psychologists.
A total of 2,113 office users (35 per cent female, 56 per cent male (9 per cent
unspecified)) with a median age of 40, participated in the survey. The employees that
Sustainable
office buildings
21
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
22
were invited to participate have been specially selected by the research team and
organisations in order to obtain typical office users. The office user survey was
conducted in an electronic online format and participants were informed and invited to
participate by e-mail.
As mentioned previously, the reasons for the individual user responses can be
influenced by diverse factors. They are not only affected by building aspects, but also
other factors which are company or work-related. Though these influences tend to only
have a limited impact, and the work tasks of all office users are fairly similar, these
effects must be kept in consideration, when analysing the results.
Each of the analysed buildings is visited, and a walk-through conducted, which
takes place together with the person responsible for the building. Subsequently,
this person is interviewed in a structured interview, comprising about 60 questions.
It is composed of building and office-related questions, company-wide questions,
questions about social sustainability and user behaviour, as well as reoccurring
problems. The walk-throughs and interviews should ensure all necessary building
information is gathered, especially in relation to workplace design and technical
aspects, and to get insights about special qualities of, or problems with, the building.
In addition, the company’s approach to sustainability and sustainable building is
documented.
With the physical measurements a wide set of parameters can be measured and
analysed. The measurement equipment is installed at several strategic points within
the building and remains there for one week. Hence, the various fluctuations of the
measured parameters can be plotted, also allowing consideration of the variations
between office behaviour when “in-use” and over weekends.
The measured categories include temperature, humidity, air movement, CO2 level,
VOC, particles, luminance, glare, daylight, noise and acoustics. The conditions outside
the building are also measured.
The physical measurements should give detailed insight about the actual situation
within each building. They can be set alongside the results of the interviews and
questionnaires. In addition, comparisons with standards can be made and required
areas for further action identified. Figure 5 summarises the whole research setup.
In this paper, the results of online questionnaires and interviews from 16 buildings
are considered. For the other buildings, due to individual company restrictions, other
questionnaires have been used which are not directly comparable to the rest of the
sample. Also, only the first set of questionnaires from the winter period is considered in
the analysis.
In some areas of the analysis, buildings are separated into different parts. This is
done if there is a significant variation of building design within the building itself. For
example, in some buildings the top floor is mechanically ventilated, while the rest of the
building uses natural ventilation. Since the user questionnaires can be linked to their
specific work areas, targeted analysis of differing building areas is possible. With that,
in total 18 buildings or building areas are included in the analysis.
First, the results from the online questionnaires are interpreted, before they are
combined with the interview results. Thereupon, the distributions in each of the
six questionnaire categories are analysed. The mean value for each comfort and
performance category is calculated, as a collective total and for each individual building.
Amongst these results the best and worst case examples are identified as extreme values.
Sustainable
office buildings
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
23
Figure 5.
Research setup
The buildings with extreme values are then analysed further, using the information
from the conducted interviews and any other supplementary information. The
particular building characteristics should then be identified that determine whether an
office environment performs well or badly.
6. Results and discussion
As a first step, the results of the relevant answers of the online questionnaire have been
analysed. Around 1,500 answers from 18 building areas were considered in the analysis.
As described previously, each possible answer has been assigned a numeric value. The
range of values lies between 1 and 5 for some categories, and 1 and 7 for others. The
answers have been summed up to calculate a mean value for each category.
The descriptive statistics show that the evaluation results are predominantly
positive since they lie on the upper end of the scale. However, the minimum and
maximum figures show that the complete range of possible points have been assigned
by the employees (Table II).
The user replies on comfort and productivity factors differ significantly across the
18 office areas. It is clear that some of the buildings perform especially strongly and
others exceptionally badly across nearly all of the categories (Figures 6-11).
Environmental features rating
Indoor environmental quality
Occurrence of sick building syndrome
Work performance
Organisational citizenship behaviour
Work engagement
n
Mean
Median
Min.
Max.
1,507
1,507
1,498
1,966
1,480
1,484
4.48
2.45
2.11
5.71
5.57
5.09
4.50
2.40
2.00
5.78
5.67
5.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00
5.00
5.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
Table II.
Descriptive statistics
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
24
Figure 6.
Comfort analysis
(environmental features
rating)
Figure 7.
Comfort analysis (indoor
environmental quality)
Note: 7 is the best and 1 the worst rating
Note: 1 is the best and 5 the worst rating
Buildings 4, 5 and 9 perform well and score above average in the comfort and health
categories, whereas buildings 12 and 18 do well in the performance categories but are
below average in the comfort evaluation. On the other end of the spectrum, buildings 8,
10, 15 and 17 underperform in almost all the categories. All these identified buildings
are assigned to be extreme value cases.
The best and worst office areas have been looked at in more detail to identify
differences and/or similarities that can explain the results of the online questionnaires.
In former experiments (e.g. laboratory tests) the most relevant criteria for health,
comfort and performance have been temperature, light, air supply and air quality
(Roulet et al., 2006; Wargocki et al., 2008). As these factors are mainly influenced by the
choice of technical systems, this building aspect is looked at in detail.
Sustainable
office buildings
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
25
Note: 1 is the best and 5 the worst rating
Note: 7 is the best and 1 the worst rating
6.1 Comfort
The average evaluation of building comfort in the different buildings varies between
3.95 and 5.56. This shows the big differences between building types.
With respect to comfort, buildings 4, 5 and 9 obtain a high rating above average and
are performing very well. Whereas, buildings 8, 10, 15, 17 and 18 underperform, and
only achieve a low ranking in this category.
The three highest performing cases in terms of the comfort evaluation are well
maintained buildings which are naturally ventilated or use a mixed ventilation system
(mechanical ventilation þ operable windows). In all areas the windows can be opened
by the building users. These buildings have all been built according to high energy
Figure 8.
Comfort analysis (sick
building syndrome)
Figure 9.
Performance analysis
(task related performance)
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
26
Figure 10.
Performance analysis
(organisational citizenship
behaviour)
Figure 11.
Performance analysis
(work engagement)
Note: 7 is the best and 1 the worst rating
Note: 7 is the best and 1 the worst rating
standards and in two of the three cases also achieved the Minergie Label which is a
Swiss Energy Certificate (Minergie, 2009).
None of the three buildings uses air conditioning. They are all heated by radiators or
radiators with rear ventilation. If mechanical ventilation is used, the air outlets are
integrated in columns and walls. No ceiling outlets are used. The air outlets are all
placed in a way that no work space is directly affected by the air flow. None of the
buildings uses air moistening.
In the interview it became clear that all three buildings have been planned with a
special focus on energy efficiency and user comfort, whereas in other buildings these
aspects have not played such a central role in the planning process.
In all the cases which were rated below average, mechanical cooling is used, and the
windows are not operable. The air outlets in the office areas are either ceiling outlets
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
or they are integrated in the building columns. However, in all cases, due to limited
space, the office design could not be planned in such a way as to efficiently protect
users from being directly affected by the air stream.
Two of the negative examples are particularly notable. They are top floor areas in
two of the analysed buildings. While the rest of the building was ranked by the users
as good building examples, these areas achieved negative ratings. In both buildings the
other areas had a different ventilation system or natural ventilation. These examples
are especially interesting since the company, the work tasks and the building location
is the same and yet the ratings are very different. In both top floor areas, complaints
about temperature, dry air and draughts were significantly higher among users.
The analysis clearly shows that user comfort can be linked to specific office
environment characteristics. Thus, objective building criteria seem to have direct
impact on the subjective perceptions of the building users.
6.1.1 Performance and work engagement. The best case examples in terms of
performance parameters (buildings 12 and 18) are low-tech buildings with operable
windows and only partial mechanical ventilation.
However, in contrast to comfort analysis, both buildings are not high quality or
well-maintained buildings; neither of them is planned in accordance with special energy or
comfort standards. For building 18 the air outlets of the mechanical ventilation are
installed in the ceiling. These factors appear to have no negative effect on the performance
rating, but with regards to comfort perception this building is one of the worse examples.
One of the low performing buildings in the performance categories is building 8. In
both the interviews and the questionnaires it shows that the employees in this work
environment are highly dissatisfied with a number of building features, in particular
flooring, temperature and draughts. Generally, the volume of complaints is very high.
This is congruous with the performance and work engagement rating as well as earlier
in the comfort measurements.
The building characteristics of the best and worst performing buildings in the
performance categories are quite diverse. Technical systems, design choices and
building qualities vary among all the analysed examples. Hence, it is difficult to identify
objective building criteria which are linked to user performance or engagement.
Comparing the current readings, where buildings with strong performance ratings
partly achieve poor comfort ratings, it appears that these two topics are not as closely
related as in previous research (Heerwagen, 2000; Wargocki et al., 2008). To analyse
this relation, the correlation between comfort factors and performance factors is
investigated in detail. The correlation for each comfort factor and each performance
factor is analysed separately (Table III).
The assessment of environmental features (measured in the EFR) is always
positively correlated with the performance factors. With indoor environmental quality
(IEQ) and SBS, although technically a negative correlation value is obtained, a positive
correlation should be interpreted, as the evaluations of these aspects are reversed
with 1 as the best and 5 the worst possible ratings. With that, all the comfort
parameters have a positive correlation with performance.
Taking a more detailed look at the analysis, it can be seen that the correlation
between IEQ and work performance (PR) and IEQ and OCB is not statistically
significant. Therefore, for these factors no conclusion can be drawn.
Sustainable
office buildings
27
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
28
Table III.
Correlations
EFR
EFR
Correlation
Sig.
n
R2
IEQ
Correlation
Sig.
n
R2
SBS
Correlation
Sig.
N
R2
1
1,507
IEQ
SBS
PR
OCB
WE
20.582 * *
0.000
1,507
20.419 * *
0.000
1,498
0.104 * *
0.000
1,491
0.182
0.131 * *
0.000
1,480
0.172
0.023 * *
0.000
1,484
0.052
0.530 * *
0.000
1,498
2 0.038
0.138
1,491
.014
2 0.042
0.106
1,480
.018
2 0.012 * *
0.000
1,484
.014
2 0.115 * *
0.000
1,485
0.132
20.066 *
0.012
1,474
0.044
2 0.020 * *
0.000
1,478
0.042
1
20.582 * *
0.000
1,507
1,507
20.419 * *
0.000
1,498
0.530 * *
0.000
1,498
1
1,498
Note: Significant at: *5 and * *1 per cent level
As for the other factors the R 2 shows for how many percent the individual comfort
parameter account for the variation of the productivity parameter. On PR and OCB the
comfort parameters have a very limited influence. The impact goes up to 2 per cent.
For work engagement (WE) the impact of the comfort parameters is more than twice
that high. EFR accounts for 5.2 per cent of the variation of WE. SBS accounts for
4.16 per cent of the WE variation.
In summary, it can be stated that similar to previous studies, a positive correlation
between comfort and productivity is evident. However, the influence is only up to
2 per cent in the current winter period analysis. It also appears that work performance
is not directly affected by comfort levels, but work engagement is, and can really be
improved by comfort level enhancements.
6.2 Financial impact
At the beginning, it was stated that more sustainable buildings which have a positive
impact on the comfort and health of employees have a positive effect on productivity
and can hence hold financial importance for the institutional investor.
The analysis shows that this direct effect is very limited. However, this does not
mean that the financial impact is non-existent.
First of all, a connection between building and comfort could be seen, as well as a
correlation between comfort and productivity. Second, beside the direct impact on
employee productivity, other cost factors are possible such as lower employee
turnover. If one feels comfortable at work, which shows in the work engagement
assessment, it is less likely that the person will change jobs. Furthermore, the
acquisition of employees could be enhanced if the building environment is good and
the company image attractive. This factor can certainly be improved with better
company buildings.
The actual economic impact can in this regard not be definitively quantified.
However, the impact areas and dependant parameters can be hypothesised.
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
7. Conclusion
7.1 Summary
The intention of the presented research was to find a link between building design,
comfort and productivity and to show which building solutions are best able to achieve
the concept of social sustainability.
The analysis shows that specific objective building aspects seem to have an influence
on user comfort and with that also an impact on productivity, although, in most cases,
this impact appears limited. The presented research study is still ongoing; therefore, the
discussed results have only a preliminary status. However, based on existing literature
and the preliminary project results, some first conclusions can be drawn.
As a first point, it can be stated that the building itself, besides other influencing
parameters such as job design and social work environment, has a clear impact on the
comfort level of the building user. Also, the positive impact of features such as operable
windows and the absence of air conditioning can be seen. This shows that building
users feel the need to have an influence on their work environment and do not wish to
work in buildings which are fully automated.
While productivity is not definitively correlated to comfort levels, work engagement
is. This is a very important insight since this shows the connection between employee
and company and thus demonstrates that a high user comfort can reduce the turnover
rate of employees (Figure 12).
It is evident that additional planning towards user comfort and social sustainability
can be shown to yield real returns for private investors. This statement is further
supported by the research result that those buildings that were especially planned
according to user needs really got the best ratings for user comfort. This shows that
bringing the interests of the employees (office users) to the fore is not only positive for
them and “a nice thing to do” but a beneficial step for the investor himself.
Sustainable
office buildings
29
7.2 Outlook
In this field, the whole research project can be considered as state of the art. The
combination of different methods for data generation with such a big (real-world) data
set is unique. Even though there have been other projects that have addressed the
relation of building aspects and user perception, the inclusion of the sustainability
aspect is new.
As the presented project is still ongoing, further and more definitive results can be
expected. Following the first period of measurements and questionnaires in the winter
period; there will be another round with measurements and questionnaires in the
summer. This procedure should ensure the quality and accuracy of the whole project
and deliver an “over the year” perspective on how buildings influence user performance
and other variables.
Even though the presented results and the results that will be gained during the
next periods of the research project will enable greater insight about the connection
between sustainable buildings and the comfort and performance of building users,
Figure 12.
Connection between
analysed aspects
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
30
some questions remain. One aspect that will need further research is the
interconnection of different physical aspects. Following the thought of “minus and
minus equals plus” the effect of separating or combining those factors would be an
interesting research prospect. However, it is very difficult to have a real separation or
controlled combination of the different influencing factors under real-world conditions.
Those effects can only be measured in laboratory conditions or set up office scenarios
with standardised conditions.
Also, the effect of changes of certain IAQ factors within the analysed buildings
without other workplace changes would be an interesting subject to look into.
This could support the drawn conclusions about building and IAQ influence on office
users.
One goal of the research project is to define measures to create sustainable buildings
that have a positive effect on user comfort and productivity. Any consequences of the
defined measures will also need further research, most prominently perhaps, the
influence on building costs.
References
Andersson, K. (1998), “Epidemiological approach to indoor air problems”, Indoor Air Journal,
Vol. 4, pp. 32-39.
Aronoff, S. and Kaplan, A. (1995), Total Workplace Performance: Rethinking the Office
Environment, WDL Publications, Ottawa.
Becker, F.D. (2002), “Improving organisational performance by exploiting workplace flexibility”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1, pp. 154-162.
Bordass, B. (1993), “Building performance for the responsible workplace”, in Duffy, F., Laing, A.
and Crisp, V. (Eds), The Responsible Workplace, Butterworth Architecture, Oxford.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.
Brager, G.S. and de Dear, R.J. (1998), “Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a literature
review”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 27, pp. 83-96.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S. and Kline, T. (2002), “Traditional versus open office design:
a longitudinal field study”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 34, pp. 279-299.
Brown, Z. and Cole, R.J. (2009), “Influence of occupants’ knowledge on comfort expectations and
behaviour”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 37, pp. 227-245.
CABE (2005), The Impact of Office Design on Business Performance, Commission for
Architecture & the Built Environment and the British Council for Offices, London.
Campbell, J.P., Mccloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and Sager, C.E. (1993), “A theory of performance”,
in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Cole, R.J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z. and O’Shea, M. (2008), “Re-contextualizing the notion of
comfort”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 323-336.
Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2008), “The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: a good alternative to
measure burnout (and engagement)”, in Halbesleben, J.R.B. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress and
Burnout in Health Care, Nova Science, New York, NY.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), “Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge”, California
Management Review, Vol. 41, pp. 79-94.
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Federspiel, C.C., Liu, G., Lahiff, M., Faulkner, D., Dibartolomeo, D., Fisk, W.J., Price, P.N. and
Sulivan, D.P. (2002), “Worker performance and ventilation: analysis of individual data for
call-center workers”, Proceedings of the Indoor Air 2002 Conference, Monterey, CA,
pp. 796-801.
Feige, A., Wallbaum, H. and Krank, S. (2011), “Harnessing stakeholder motivation:
towards a Swiss sustainable building sector”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 39,
pp. 504-517.
Fisk, W.J. and Rosenfeld, A.H. (1997), “Estimates of improved productivity and health from
better indoor environments”, Indoor Air, Vol. 7, pp. 158-172.
Hanssen, S.O. (1997), “Economical consequences of poor indoor air quality and its relation to the
total building operation cost”, in International Facility Management Association (Ed.),
EuroFM/IFMA Conference & Exhibition, Torino, Italy, pp. 1-21.
Heerwagen, J. (2000), “Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 28, pp. 353-367.
Hoffman, A.J. and Henn, R. (2008), “Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green
building”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 21, pp. 390-419.
Kaczmarczyk, J., Melikov, A. and Fanger, P.O. (2004), “Human response to personalized
ventilation and mixed ventilation”, Indoor Air Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 17-29.
Kemppilä, S. and Lönnqvist, A. (2003), “Subjective productivity measurement”, Journal of the
American Academy of Business, Vol. 2, pp. 531-537.
Kim, J. and de Dear, R. (2012), “Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and
overall workspace satisfaction”, Building and Environment, Vol. 49, pp. 33-40.
Kok, N. (2012), “What’s next in real estate? Reintegrating the value chain”, Maastricht, available
at: www.nilskok.com/2012/04/whats-next-in-real-estate-reintegrating-the-value-chain.html
(accessed 19 June 2012).
Kroner, W., Stark-Martin, J.A. and Willemain, T. (1992), Using Advanced Office Technology to Increase
Productivity, Center for Architectural Research, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Lagercrantz, L., Wistrand, M., Willen, U., Wargocki, P., Witterseh, T. and Sundell, J. (2000),
“Negative impact of air pollution on productivity: previous Danish findings repeated
in Swedish test”, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 1,
pp. 653-658.
Langdon, D. (2007), “The costs & benefits of achieving green buildings”, Info Data.
Lützkendorf, T. and Lorenz, D. (2007), “Integrating sustainability into property risk
assessments for market transformation”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 35,
pp. 644-661.
Marans, R.W. and Spreckelmeyer, K.F. (1981), Evaluating Built Environments: A Behavioral
Approach, Institute for Social Research & College of Architecture and Urban Planning,
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Marcus, B. and Schuler, H. (2001), Schuler, H. (Ed.), Lehrbuch der Personalpsychologie, Hogrefe,
Göttingen.
Meins, E., Wallbaum, H., Hardziewski, R. and Feige, A. (2010), “Sustainability and
property valuation: a risk-based approach”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 38,
pp. 280-300.
Menzies, D., Pasztor, J., Nunes, F., Leduc, J. and Chan, C.-H. (1997), “Effect of a new ventilation
system on health and well-being of office workers”, Archives of Environmental Health,
Vol. 52, pp. 360-368.
Sustainable
office buildings
31
JCRE
15,1
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
32
Miller, N. and Pogue, D. (2009a), “Green buildings and productivity”, Journal of Sustainable Real
Estate, Vol. 1 No. 1.
Miller, N.G. and Pogue, D. (2009b), “Do green buildings make dollars and sense?”, USD-BMC Working
Paper 09-11, University of San Diego, Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate, CBRE.
Milton, D., Glencross, P. and Walters, M. (2000), “Risk od sick leave associated with outdoor air
supply rate, humidification and occupants complaints”, Indoor Air Journal, Vol. 10,
pp. 212-221.
Minergie (2009), “Standards & Technik – Minergie”, available at: www.minergie.ch/standard_
minergie.html#die-anforderungen (accessed 20 May 2009).
Newsham, G., Brand, J., Donnelly, C., Veitch, J., Aries, M. and Charles, K. (2009), “Linking indoor
environment conditions to job satisfaction: a field study”, Building Research &
Information, Vol. 37, pp. 129-147.
Newsham, G.R., Veitch, J.A. and Charles, K.E. (2008), “Risk factors for dissatisfaction with the
indoor environment in open-plan offices: an analysis of COPE field study data”, Indoor
Air, Vol. 18, pp. 271-282.
Niemelä, R., Seppänen, O., Korhonen, P. and Rejula, K. (2006), “Prevalence of building-related
symptoms as an indicator of health and productivity”, American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, Vol. 49, pp. 819-825.
Oldham, G.R. (1988), “Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density
on employee reactions: a quasi experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73,
pp. 253-258.
Oseland, N. and Bartlett, P. (1999), Improving Office Productivity: A Guide for Business and
Facilities Managers, Longman, Harlow.
Peterson, T.O. and Beard, J.W. (2004), “Workspace technology’s impact on individual privacy
and team interaction”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 10, pp. 163-172.
Preiser, W.F.E. and Vischer, J.C. (Eds) (2005), Assessing Building Performance, Elsevier,
Oxford.
Roulet, C.A., Cox, C., De Oliveira Fernandes, E. and Müller, B. (2005) in EPFL (Ed.), Health,
Comfort and Energy Performance in Buildings – Guidelines to Achieve Them All, EPFL,
Lausanne.
Roulet, C.A., Flourentzou, F., Foradini, F., Bluyssen, P., Cox, C. and Aizlewood, C. (2006),
“Multicriteria analysis of health, comfort and energy efficiency in buildings”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 34, pp. 475-482.
Semmer, N.K., Mcgrath, J.E. and Beehr, T.A. (2005), “Conceptual issues in research on stress and
health”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress Medicine and Health, 2nd ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J. and Lei, Q.H. (2006a), “Effect of temperature on task
performance in office environment”, paper presented at Cold Climate HVAC Conference,
Moscow.
Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J. and Lei, Q.H. (2006b), “Ventilation and performance in office work”,
Indoor Air Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 28-35.
Settoon, R.P. and Mossholder, K.W. (2002), “Relationship quality and relationship context as
antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 255-267.
Skåret, I.E. (1992), “Indoor environment and economics”, in The Norwegian Institute of Building
Research (Ed.), Project No. N 6405, Oslo.
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Starbuck, W.H. (1992), “Learning by knowledge-intensive-firms”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 29, pp. 713-740.
Stokols, D. and Scharf, T. (1990), “Developing standardised tools for assessing employees’
ratings of facility performance”, in Davis, G. and Ventre, F.T. (Eds), Performance of
Buildings and Serviceability of Facilities, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Tham, K.W. and Willem, H.C. (2004), “Effects of reported neurobehavioral symptoms on the
call center operator performance in the tropics”, paper presented at RoomVent 2004,
Coimbra, Portugal.
Tham, K.W., Willem, H.C., Sekhar, S.C., Wyon, D.P., Wargocki, P. and Fanger, P.O. (2003),
“Temperature and verntilation effects on the work performance of office workers (study of
a call center in the tropics)”, in Tham, K.W., Sekhar, S.C. and Cheong, D. (Eds),
Healthy Buildings 2003, Singapore, pp. 280-286.
Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Farley, K.M.J. and Newsham, G.R. (2007), “A model of satisfaction with
open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 27, pp. 177-189.
Vischer, J.C. (2005), Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace Performance, Routledge, London.
Vischer, J.C. (2007), “The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers”,
California Management Review, Vol. 49, pp. 62-79.
Wachter, D. (Ed.) (2006), Nachhaltige Entwicklung – Das Konzept und seine Umsetzung in der
Schweiz, Zürich/Chur.
Wallbaum, H. and Meins, E. (2009), “Nicht-nachhaltiges Planen, Bauen und Betrieben – Aus
guten Gründen (noch) die Praxis in der Bauwirtschaft?”, Bauingenieur, Vol. 84 Nos 7/8,
pp. 291-304.
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P. and Fanger, P.O. (2000), “Productivity is affected by the air quality in
offices”, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, 2000, Helsinki, Vol. 1.
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P. and Fanger, P.O. (2004), “The performance and subjective responses of
call-centre operators with new and used supply air filters at two outdoor air supply rates”,
Indoor Air Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 7-16.
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Baik, Y.K., Clausen, G. and Fanger, P.O. (1999), “Perceived air quality,
sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different
pollution loads”, Indoor Air Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 165-179.
Wargocki, P., Seppanen, O., Andersson, J., Boestra, A., Clements-Croome, D., Fitzner, K. and
Hanssen, S.O. (2008), Indoor Climate and Productivity in Offices: How to Integrate
Productivity in Life Cycle Costs Analysis of Building Services, REHVA, Brussels.
WCED (1987), Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development,
New York, NY.
Windlinger, L. (2012), “Effective workplaces: contributions of spatial environments and job
design – a study of demands and resources in contemporary Swiss offices”, PhD thesis,
University College London, London.
Witterseh, T., Wyon, D.P. and Clausen, G. (2004), “The effects of moderate heat stress and open
plan office noise distraction on SBS symptoms and on the performance of office work”,
Indoor Air Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 30-40.
Wyon, D.P. (1996), “Indoor environmental effects on productivity”, in ASHRAE (Ed.),
Proceedings of IAQ’96 Paths to Better Building Environments, USA, pp. 5-15.
Wyon, D.P. (2004), “The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity”, Indoor
Air, Vol. 14, pp. 92-101.
Sustainable
office buildings
33
JCRE
15,1
Wyon, D.P. and Wargocki, P. (2006), “Room temperature effects on office work”, in Croome, D. (Ed.),
Creating the Productive Environment, Taylor & Francis, London.
Wyon, D.P., Tham, K.W., Croxford, B., Young, A. and Oreszczyn, T. (2000), “The effects on
health and self-estimated productivity of two experimental interventions which reduced
airbone dust level in office premises”, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo,
Finland, pp. 641-646.
34
Further reading
Wargocki, P. (2009), “Ventilation, thermal comfort, health and productivity”, in Mumovic, D. and
Santamouris, M. (Eds), A Handbook of Sustainable Building Design and Engineering,
Earthscan, London.
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
Corresponding author
Lukas Windlinger can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
Downloaded by 83.163.205.227 At 07:33 05 May 2015 (PT)
1. Pamela-Jean N. Driza, Nam-Kyu Park. 2014. Occupant satisfaction in LEED-certified higher education
buildings. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 3:3, 223-236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Sanda Renko, Ivan KovacFinancial Sustainability of Innovative Technology in Retailing 295-309.
[CrossRef]