[181]

Benefits of Improving Occupant Comfort and Well-being in Buildings

Gail S. Brager Professor of Architecture and Associate Director, Center for Environmental Design Research at the College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, USA

The term indoor environmental quality (IEQ) most commonly refers to the thermal, luminous, acoustic and olfactory environments. A variety of building design and operational strategies affect IEQ, which in turn affects various human response factors (occupant comfort, well-being, health, and productivity). These can have significant negative or positive financial implications. In the broadest of terms, the potential costs of poor IEQ can be thought of as direct medical costs associated with health problems caused by the building, or indirect costs related to reduced individual performance, which could either be because of higher absenteeism, or - more often - reduced effectiveness when one is at work. The benefits of good IEQ are either related to minimizing these negative implications, or creating positive effects such as improved recruitment and retention of employees, and lower cost of building maintenance due to fewer complaints, and enhanced worker effectiveness. The Center for the Built Environment works on a wide range of research projects studying building design and operation strategies that can affect IEQ, and as a result occupant well-being. Two examples described here are natural ventilation and mixed-mode buildings, and personal comfort systems, which refer to technologies for providing occupants with means for personally controlling their local thermal environment in ways that will enhance their comfort and simultaneously save energy.

1 Introduction

When people think about the financial benefits of green buildings in the commercial sector, they often reflect first on the direct financial value from a market or real estate perspective, such as whether such buildings might result in higher sales or rental prices, or decreased vacancy rates for leased space or insurance premiums. Next, they might think of the financial value associated with reduced operating costs from lower energy or water consumption. But perhaps one of the most significant financial benefits of green buildings is the very one that is most difficult to quantify - improved indoor environmental quality (IEQ). The term IEQ most commonly refers to the thermal environment (air temperature, radiant temperature, air movement, humidity), lighting (quantity and quality of light, including glare issues), acoustics (sound level and speech intelligibility), and indoor air quality (odours, pollutants). Some literature also includes view and connection to nature under this broad category as well. A variety of building design and operational strategies affect IEQ, which in turn affects various human response factors (occupant comfort, well-being, health, and productivity), which can have positive or negative financial implications.

On the negative side, it’s been estimated that the costs of poor IEQ can be significantly higher than building heating and cooling costs (Seppänen 1999). While on the positive side the economic benefits to an individual building or company owner, and on a broader scale across a community or entire country, can be enormous (Fisk 2000, Mendell et al. 2002). Estimates of the financial value of health and productivity benefits have shown that the payback for investments to improve IEQ is generally less than two years (Wargocki and Seppänen 2006).

The importance of these indirect benefits is immediately obvious when one considers two factors. First, it’s estimated that people spend on average up to 90% of their time indoors, so this alone suggests that IEQ can have a potentially significant effect on various human factors (Klepeis et al. 2001, Clements-Croome 2006). Secondly, in considering how these translate to financial implications, it’s important to note that the costs of worker salaries in commercial buildings are very large compared to capital costs or energy operating costs. Various sources estimate that 80-90% of the costs of a building are associated with worker salaries, compared to only 3% being associated with owning and maintaining the building (Wilson 2005, Clements-Croome 2006, Kats 2003).

Figure 12 below shows that, on an annual, per-square-foot basis, we are spending 72 times as much money on people than we are on energy (Wilson 2004). Even if the actual dollar figures were updated to contemporary values, the overall patterns would remain the same. This implies that if we are able to make even small improvements in productivity through better IEQ, then the value to the company’s bottom line is significantly higher than the financial implications of reduced energy use.

It’s traditiimpacts apoor IEQthe buildihigher abeasier to nature of harder to quantity othere are acknowleproductivpossible t

building rof whichequivalen

ionally been eaare usually eas

Q can be thouging, or indirect

bsenteeism, or assess than th

f one’s job. Fo measure for of tasks perfor no consisten

edge that we vity translate ito bracket the e

Figure 13 showrelated health p

h can be founnt days lost, wh

Figure 12: Co

asier to think asier to define, qght of as eithert costs related - more often -

he effects on wor example, it’

the knowledgrmed. This alsnt metrics or

have a limiteinto costs, andeffects.

ws one exampproblems. It is

nd in Loftnesshich could be a

[

osts of people vs.

1.1 Co

about the negatquantify, and mr direct medica

to reduced indreduced effect

work effectives easier to mee worker, whoo makes it harmethods for ted understandd that any est

ple of the ests based on an a et al. (2005)

attributed to eit

[182]

other building co

osts of poor IE

tive impacts ofmeasure. In thal costs relateddividual perfotiveness when

eness or indivieasure for repeose performanrder to compartesting or ana

ding of how timates of per

timated range analysis of sev). This compather actual abs

osts (Wilson 2004

EQ

f IEQ than the he broadest of d to associatedrmance, which

n one is at workidual performaetitive work ornce is more rere the results oalyzing the dathe impacts or-person costs

of reduced wveral different rarison used assences or reduc

4)

positive, sinceterms, the pote

d health probleh could either k. Health impaance, which der other blue-coelated to creatof different stuata. But whileof poor IEQ

can vary wid

worker performresearch studies its metric thced effectivene

e such adverseential costs of

ems caused bybe because of

acts have beenepends on theollar jobs, andtivity than theudies, becausee we need toon health or

dely, it’s still

mance due toes - the detailshe number ofess.

f

f

f

[183]

Figure 13: Health-related productivity costs, a revised version of graph published in eBIDS (Loftness et al. 2005)

Other analyses used cost per person-year as the metric. One estimate of the impacts of poor IEQ on costs put the value at $1,071-$1,211 per person per year for well-being and productivity (Singh et al. 2011). Another independent analysis came up with a similar number of $1,196 per employee per year, but noted that this included all health-related impacts, not just ones that come from bad IEQ (Stewart et al. 2003).

Some researchers in the U.S. have taken the per-person estimates further and combined them with building stock models to project these estimates into the potential total financial costs of productivity losses from poor IEQ. The numbers are staggering. One early analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost of indoor air pollution in the U.S. to be $60 billion annually, corresponding to a 3% productivity decrease for every white collar worker (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1989).

1.2 Benefits of good IEQ

Some researchers choose to present their results not in terms of the cost of poor IEQ, but the potential benefits of good IEQ. Conceptually, this can be considered to be the opposite of the detriments described above (i.e., reduced medical costs, reduced absenteeism, better work performance, etc.), plus other factors such as improved recruitment and retention of employees, and lower cost of building maintenance due to fewer complaints.

Again, using building stock modeling along with estimates of what’s known about the relationship between health benefits and costs, Fisk (2000) estimated the potential magnitude of practical benefits of improved IEQ in the U.S. Kats (2003) then updated the table using 2002 dollars instead of 1996. So while the dollar figures are already outdated, the order of magnitude of the potential impact is still enormous. It has also been estimated that the value of these benefits might be 18-47 times the cost of making the improvements (Fisk and Rosenfeld 1997).

* Numbers may include actual absences as well as lost productive time at work. ** Equivalent to 1.1% productivity loss using baseline annual hours.

1.3

The exacknown, anthat are amight docharacterirelationshstructure)

and meas

conditionvariety ofSeppäneneffects ofenvironmbuildings known abvariable cvariables

Figure 1

Human impa

ct causal effecnd are difficulaffecting peopo in a laboraistics (i.e., cohips between ) (Clements-Cr

The ways in wures of human

Physical

– Heal

– Perce

Psychoso

– Spati

Cognitive

– Prod

– Mem

– Atten

– Colla

Organizat

– Emp

– On s

– Profi

A comprehenns on very spef literature revn 1999, Wyonf IEQ on perfo

mental parametare experienc

bout combinedcan be offset bycould have ne

14: Potential prod

act factors

cts of how pot to study in re

ple’s health anatory experimommitment to co-workers), roome 2006).

which IEQ cann response can

lth symptoms (

eptions: comfo

ocial

ial Flexibility/

e

ductivity, indiv

mory, computat

ntion, alertness

aboration

tional measure

ployee Attractio

schedule / on b

fitability or ope

nsive summaryecific measuresiews that one

n and Wargockormance have ter is varied wcing variations d effects of the y improvemengative synergi

[

ductivity gains fr

or IEQ mighteal buildings. Td performanceent. As examwork, home/

and the organ

n affect peopleinclude:

(sick building s

ort, preference,

Personalization

idual Performa

tion, logical th

s, motivation, e

es

on-Retention

udget

erational efficie

y of what is s of performancan refer to (Wki 2006a, Wybeen studied i

while the othein many envirdifferent facto

nts in another, bstic effects.

[184]

rom IEQ improve

t affect health This is becausee, which cann

mples, some o/work relationnizational env

e’s comfort, he

syndrome, bui

, satisfaction, a

n

ance

hinking, etc.

energy

ency

known aboutnce is beyond

Wargocki and Syon and Wargoin carefully co

ers are held coronmental conors. It may be but it’s also po

ements (Fisk 2000

or reduced pe there are mannot be controllof these othe

nship, etc.), thironment (i.e.

ealth and produ

lding related il

acceptability

t the effects d the scope ofSeppänen 2006ocki 2006b). Montrolled laboronstant. Unfor

nditions at the that poor cond

ossible that the

0, Kats 2003)

performance arny other factored in real buir factors incl

he social envir, leadership, o

uctivity are hig

llness)

of different ef this paper, bu6, Fisk and RoMany of the sratory conditiortunately, occusame time, bu

ditions in one ee poor conditio

re not alwaysrs beyond IEQildings as onelude personalronment (i.e.,organizational

ghly complex,

environmentalut there are a

osenfeld 1997,studies of the

ons where oneupants in realut very little isenvironmental

ons in multiple

[185]

1.4 Building design and operation strategies

There is extensive literature describing the various building design and operation strategies that might affect IEQ, and as a result occupant well-being. Many of these studies are summarized in the eBids database developed by Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics. Figures 4-6 have been reproduced from these studies (Kats et al. 2010), and illustrate the health and productivity gains from improved indoor air quality and access to the natural environment

Figure 15: Health Gains from Improved Indoor Air Quality. SBS = sick-building syndrome. UVGI = ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. For full references, see www.bomaottawa.org/en/Committees/documents/Handout1BIDSDocument.pdf. Source:

Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics, 2007. (Kats et al. 2010)

Figure 16: Health Gains from Improved Access to the Natural Environment. SBS = sick-building syndrome. UVGI = ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. For full references, see www.bomaottawa.org/en/Committees/documents/Handout1BIDSDocument.pdf.

Source: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics, 2007. (Kats et al. 2010)

[186]

Figure 17: Productivity Gains from Improved Indoor Air Quality. UFA = Under-foor air. Productivity gains are adjusted for

time at task. For full references, see www.bomaottawa.org/en/Committees/documents/Handout1BIDSDocument.pdf. Source: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics, 2007. (Kats et al. 2010)

From these general summaries, it’s interesting to look at the effects of two particular strategies that are most relevant to the examples of research that will be presented subsequently in this paper.

The first is the relationship of natural ventilation and improved occupant health and productivity. One study addressed the multiple links between natural ventilation and sick-building syndrome (SBS), and then between SBS symptoms and performance, and concluded that there was potentially a 7.7% overall productivity benefit associated with natural ventilation (Wargocki et al. 2000). Another study compared six international field studies done in naturally ventilated and mixed-mode buildings, measuring productivity using a variety of metrics including absenteeism, perceived productivity, test scores, and SBS symptoms. Overall, they found an average 8.5% increase in productivity, out of a range of 3-18%.

Figure 18: Productivity gains in naturally ventilated and mixed-mode buildings. Source: (Energy Building Investment Decision

Support)

The second set of examples to highlight are studies that are finding that individual control of one’s thermal conditions may have an even greater impact than the type of ventilation system (i.e., natural vs. mechanical) (Toftum 2010). Figure 19 below summarizes the results from eight international case studies, showing that providing individual temperature control of each worker increases individual productivity by a range of 0.2 to 3.0% (Loftness et al. 2003).

Figu

2 NaOne of the band mixed-mcomfort of ocombination and some fordesign to minand where itmaximize coconditioning.

Thecomfort, therbuildings witconnection toHellwig et acomfort zoneargue that windividual’s tmeans of perdoing that.

2.1 Ada

The thermal than those foanalysis of abuildings - bpeople’s idea

Figutemperature (the database,these graphs.different, and

ure 19: Improved

tural ventilabroad areas of mode office buoccupants. “Mof natural ven

rm of mechanicnimize coolingt is necessaryomfort while .

e benefits to ocre is a great dth operable wio the outdoor el. 2006, Zhan

e, a set of condwe should do b

thermal preferrsonally contr

aptive comfor

environments found in air-coa global databboth air-condital temperatures

ure 20 presen(ET*) as the o and prediction. First, the matd secondly ther

performance with

ation and mresearch at theildings, which

Mixed-mode” rntilation from cal cooling. A g loads. It theny, with the use

avoiding the

ccupants are seal of literaturindows, to somenvironment (Pg et al. 2006,

ditions that 80%better than allrence, it’s likerolling their ow

rt standard for

in naturally veonditioned buase of 22,000tioned and nats patterns (de D

nts a regressioutdoor climatens using Fangtch between thre is a much ste

[187

th individual temp

mixed-mode be Center for th

h we believe hrefers to a hyoperable windwell-designed

n integrates thee of natural vsignificant e

significant andre establishing

me extent resuPaciuk 1990, B de Dear and % of the occuplowing 20% t

ely that the onlwn local therm

r naturally ve

entilated builduildings, but n0 sets of physiturally ventila

Dear and Brage

ion of prefere index. The r

ger’s PMV indehe observed aneeper gradient

7]

perature control (

buildings he Built Envir

has enormous pybrid approacdows (either m

d mixed-mode e use of mechaventilation whnergy use an

d well documeng a strong basilting from the

Baker and StanBrager 1998)

pants would finto be unsatisfily way to do bmal conditions

entilated build

dings are typicanot necessarilyical & survey

ated - on 4 coer 2001).

rred indoor tregressions areex (Fanger 197nd predicted lit of the observe

Loftness et al. 20

ronment focusepotential for imh to space co

manually or aubuilding begin

anical cooling ohenever it is fd operating c

nted. From theis for improvegreater sense

deven 1995, B). ASHRAE Snd acceptable, ied. Given thebetter is to pros. Operable w

dings

ally more variay less comfort

data collectedontinents, show

temperatures ae based on bot70). Two stronines within eaced responses in

003)

es on natural vmproving the honditioning thutomatically cns with intelligor ventilation feasible or decosts of year-

e perspective oed thermal per

of personal cBrager and de DStandard 55 pr but many peoe inherent varovide people w

windows are on

able and less ptable. The cred in approxim

wed clear diff

against meanth observed reng patterns emch graph is drn the naturally

ventilation health and hat uses a ontrolled),

gent facade only when sirable, to -round air

of thermal rception in ontrol and

Dear 1998, rescribes a ople would riability of with some ne way of

predictable eation and mately 160 ferences in

effective sponses in

merge from ramatically

ventilated

[188]

buildings. These patterns illustrate that factors such as psychological adaptation - which are not included in the PMV index - play a much stronger role for occupants in the naturally ventilated buildings where they have more personal control, allowing them to fine-tune their thermal environment to match their own personal preferences. The data shows that these occupants prefer a much wider range of indoor conditions that more closely reflect the natural rhythms of the outdoor climate patterns (Brager and de Dear 2001, de Dear and Brager 2001).

Figure 20: Observed and predicted indoor comfort temperatures in centrally-controlled and naturally ventilated buildings (de Dear and Brager 2001)

These results were incorporated into ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 as an “adaptive comfort zone” (ANSI/ASHRAE 2004). To enable these benefits, buildings need to be designed with what is sometimes termed “adaptive opportunity”, which would include not only access to operable windows, but perhaps other forms of personal control, flexible dress codes, etc.

2.2 Sick building syndrome symptoms in naturally ventilated buildings

Research has also shown that naturally ventilated buildings have reduced problems associated with indoor air quality. One of the most extensive studies was a cross-sectional analysis of 12 field studies from six countries in Europe and the USA, totaling 467 buildings with approximately 24,000 subjects. Relative to naturally ventilated buildings, the air-conditioned buildings (with or without humidification) showed 30-200% higher incidences of sick building syndrome symptoms (Seppänen and Fisk 2002, Zhang et al. 2010)

Figure 21: Sick Building Syndrome symptoms in naturally ventilated vs. air-conditioned buildings. (Seppänen and Fisk 2002)

2.3 Occ

There is limenvironmentaused a web-bair quality, administered the database building stocthat were neallowed high lock the wind2009).

Figur

2.4 Sign

A common disadvantageopportunity iactuators to sHVAC systeengineers as and energy uquestionable.the use of inf

cupant satisfa

mited informaal quality in mbased survey facoustics, ligin 12 mixed-mat the time. Th

ck, especially wewer, in more

degrees of dirdow when the

re 22: Average sa

naling devices

question in s of manual vif occupants cshut off the HVm is designedmore reliable

use, but they . A recent apprformational con

action in mixed

ation about omixed-mode bufocusing on sevghting, cleanlimode buildingshe mixed-modwith regard to

moderate clirect user controHVAC is on, o

atisfaction scores

s in mixed-mo

the design ofs. automated c

can operate theVAC system w

d for fairly smand predictabcan also be p

roach that reprntrol, or signal

[189

d-mode buildi

occupants’ reuildings. One sven areas of ininess, spatial s, and compare

de buildings pe thermal comfimates, had raol without chaor turn off the

s for occupants in

ode buildings

f mixed-modecontrol. Manuae windows as when the wind

mall zones. Fuble, perhaps alprohibitively resents a low-cling systems (s

9]

ings

sponse to thstudy done by ndoor environmlayout, and

ed their perforerformed excepfort and air quadiant cooling angeover windo

HVAC when t

n mixed-mode bui

e buildings isal control provthey wish. So

dow is open, bully automatedlowing one toexpensive, andcost compromsuch as red/gre

e broader chthe Center fo

mental performoffice furnish

rmance to 370 ptionally well

uality. The besor mechanica

ow interlock sythe window is

ildings compared

s how to balvides the greatometimes one ut this may on

d windows are better control

d the impact ise between then lights or lig

haracteristics or the Built Enmance: thermahings. The subuildings thatcompared to t

st performers wal ventilation ystems, that mopen (Brager

d to larger databas

alance the bentest benefits fo can install senly be feasiblee sometimes sel both indoor on adaptive c

hese other two ghted signs).

of indoor nvironment al comfort, urvey was

existed in the overall were those only, and

might either and Baker

se

nefits and or adaptive ensors and e when the een by the conditions comfort is options is

[190]

Figure 23: Types of signaling devices for operable windows

In a recent investigation of these systems, we collected data from surveys, interviews and site observations in 16 U.S. buildings with various signaling systems. The findings revealed a diversity of design objectives, control sequences and circumstances to anticipate when designing buildings with window signaling systems. Signals influence window use patterns for a minority of occupants, although greater participation is possible if the signals are linked to an internal policy with clear, tangible comfort benefits. Low levels of participation likely occur because most occupants (though not all) tend not to pay attention to their windows, or the signals, unless they're uncomfortable, at which point it matters little what the signals say. However, occupants who do discover value in the signals are more likely to be more satisfied with their personal control (Ackerly and Brager 2012).

3 Personalized comfort systems Another broad area of research at the Center for the Built Environment addresses technologies for providing occupants with means for personally controlling their local thermal environment in ways that will enhance their comfort and simultaneously save energy. Called personal comfort system (PCS), these systems have also been sometimes referred to in the literature as personalized environmental control (PEC), task-ambient conditioning (TAC), or personal ventilation systems (PVS).

3.1 The over-conditioning problem

As shown in Figure 24, research shows that we are over-heating and over-cooling our buildings (especially in summertime), expending enormous amounts of energy while simultaneously creating uncomfortable and unhealthy conditions (Mendell and Mirer 2009). These results suggest that if we increase summer setpoints, we can simultaneously save energy, improve comfort, and reduce health symptoms.

Figure 24: Observed vs. recommended temperatures in 100 U.S. office buildings & relationship to building related health

symptoms

3.2 CS

Providing occsummer - wilproviding the

Theand “breathin(Zhang et al. low-cost, and(palm warmemost effectivwarmer. Bothapproximatelthe desk. Wounits that incUSB to the oto the occupa

Figure 25: C

3.3 Ene

Our simulatiocomfortable, conventional personal contthe times dur

Figusetpoints, whnegligible am

Fig

USB to

air temperatand

devices

cupants with loll allow people

e opportunity to

e design of theng zone”, and 2010). Other c

d opportunity ter and heated kve designs seleh are quiet anly 30W), and borking with indorporate varioccupant’s desk

ant’s computer

Components of the

ergy-savings p

on studies suggwhich can redbuildings in

trol one can sigring which the

ure 26 below hich results fr

mounts of electr

gure 26: Percent e

o workstation computer

ure

ow-power deve to remain coo meet their ow

e PCS took advproviding wa

criteria includeto use the systkeyboard, hanected for furthd highly energ

both have integdustry partners,us sensors to m

ktop computer , and also perio

e Personal Comfo

potential of PC

gest PCS allowduce building-the U.S. typicgnificantly incrHVAC system

shows the anrom large redricity consume

energy savings fo

[191

vices to controlomfortable ovewn personal pr

dvantage of resarmth to the feed easy accessitem as a retrofnd cooling devher developmegy efficient (thgrated occupan, we have desigmeasure occupand embeddedodically ships

ort System (PCS)

CS

ws one to expa-energy consumcally operate brease the dead

m does not need

nnual energy sductions in ened by the low-p

or widened air tem

o

1]

l their local theer a wider rangreferences.

search that haseet, play a majibility for persfit option. Aftevice, head ventent were a deshe fan uses apncy sensors so gned and fabripancy, temperad software autothe data to a C

) devices develop

and the range omption by up between 22-24

dband of the amd to operate.

savings achievnergy consumppower PCS un

mperature setpoin

occupancy senspressure p

ermal environmge of ambient t

s shown that lojor role in a ponal control, loer extensive tetilation devicesktop fan and pproximately 4they turn off wcated over one

ature, and use pomatically tran

CBE research d

ed by the Center

of temperaturesto 30%, depen4 C, if occupa

mbient environm

ved for the ranption at the pits (Hoyt et al.

nts relative to conv

sing late

ment - particultemperatures,

ocal cooling operson’s overaow energy con

esting of varioue, foot warmer

under-desk ra4W, and the fowhen the persoe hundred reseapatterns. It alsonsfers the monidatabase via the

for the Built Env

s at which occnding on climants have locament, thereby

nge of possibplant compare. 2009).

nventional ranges

larly in the while also

of the head all comfort nsumption, us designs , etc.), the

adiant foot ootwarmer on is not at arch-grade o links via itored data e internet.

vironment

cupants are ate. While alized and increasing

ble interior ed to only

[192]

3.4 Comfort performance of PCS

Laboratory testing of the PCS units included both human subject tests, and our thermal manikin for calibrated measurements of cooling fan efficiency. Key findings from these tests included (Zhang et al. 2010):

1) Comfort was well maintained at an acceptable level in wide range of room temperatures (18 – 30 ºC)

2) The non-uniform environments provided by the PCS devices did not lower the task performance of the occupants, and some performance indicators actually improved.

3) Perceived air quality was significantly improved by providing air motion, even if it was re-circulated room air.

Ongoing field studies are combining physical measurements of ambient conditions and energy consumption, with occupant satisfaction surveys. These tests are ongoing at the time of this writing, and there are not yet results to report.

4 Conclusions Too often, today’s buildings are not only designed without the planet in mind, but they also neglect the occupant. Whether or not environmental objectives dictate decisions being made by a building’s design team, those decisions will influence the occupants’ experience, so it’s prudent to be conscientious, and purposeful about those decisions. Strategies such as daylighting, natural ventilation, personal control, views, and improved indoor air quality from healthy materials and higher ventilation rates have all been demonstrated to improve indoor environmental quality and occupant experience.

The potential costs of poor indoor environmental quality are staggering, and have been estimated to be on the order of $60 billion annually in the U.S., corresponding to a 3% productivity decrease for every white collar worker (USEPA 1989). Focusing on just the individual it’s estimated that poor IEQ can cost $1000-1200 per person per year (Singh et al. 2011, Stewart et al. 2003). But there are opportunities to not only mitigate the negative, but to enhance the positive. The potential productivity gains from reduced respiratory illness, allergies and asthma, and sick building syndrome symptoms, as well as from improved worker performance resulting from changes in the thermal environment and lighting, has been estimated to be in the range of $43-235 billion in the U.S (Fisk 2000, Kats 2003). People who are merely focused on the real estate value of their buildings can be reassured by findings from the U.S. that buildings with a green rating were able to be sold at approximately 16% higher prices, or be rented at approximately 3% higher per square foot, than identical buildings (Eicholtz et al., 2009)

There are sufficient demonstrated benefits of green buildings for traditional financial outcomes, such as real estate value, operating costs, health and productivity, and costs of recruitment and retention. Yet there are additional potential relationships between building performance and organizational strategic performance that can also affect corporate prosperity. These can be related to the role of the building in conveying a message about the company’s values, or to the variety of ways in which a company measures its success, such as enhanced relationships with stakeholders, human capital development, or business process outcomes. One performance measurement framework that incorporates all these issues, which can ultimately affect the financial bottom-line of organizations in direct or indirect ways, is the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). This tool has been used extensively in business, but can be a critical part of the design process as well by changing the conversations between the design team and building owner, encouraging them to think more comprehensively about the wide variety of ways that a building can affect individual workers, and the organization’s success. And while some of those conversations initially move the stakeholders beyond thinking only about direct cost implications, any conversation about strategic non-financial performance measures will ultimate affect organizational performance in ways that have monetary implications.

Decisions about either the design or operation of buildings can have profound impacts on creating indoor environments that are not only comfortable and healthy, but are connected to the natural environment, provide a sense of place, and are a delight to be in. This is often the “hook” for clients who don’t necessarily care about the energy impacts. In organizing the complex body of information and criteria that affect a design problem, it is easy to postpone the development of clear objectives for the indoor environmental qualities of your spaces. On the other hand, sometimes the earliest design decisions will have profound, and often irreversible, effects on these very qualities. There is a value in considering these issues early, to provide an opportunity for integrated architectural and engineering solutions that add to the richness of the building, and expand the sensory experience of the space in positive ways. The financial implications will be equally rewarding.

[193]

References

ACKERLY, K. and BRAGER, G.S., 2012. Window Signaling Systems: Control Strategies and Occupant Behavior,

Proceedings of the 7th Annual Windsor Conference: The changing context of comfort in an unpredictable world, 12-15 April 2012, Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings.

ANSI/ASHRAE, 2004. ANSI/ASHRAE 55-2004: Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, .

BAKER, N. and STANDEVEN, M., 1995. A Behavioural Approach to Thermal Comfort Assessment in Naturally Ventilated Buildings, CIBSE National Conference 1995, CIBSE, pp. 76-84.

BRAGER, G.S. and BAKER, L., 2009. Occupant satisfaction in mixed-mode buildings. Building Research & Information, 37(4), pp. 369-380.

BRAGER, G.S. and DE DEAR, R.J., 2001. Climate, Comfort and Natural Ventilation: A New Adaptive Comfort Standard for ASHRAE Standard 55, Moving Thermal Comfort Standards into the 21st Century: An International Conference, 5-8 April 2001, Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development and Loughborough University.

BRAGER, G.S. and DE DEAR, R.J., 1998. Thermal adaptation in the built environment: A literature review. Energy and Buildings, 27(1), pp. 83-96.

CLEMENTS-CROOME, D., ed, 2006. Creating the Productive Workplace. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

DE DEAR, R.J. and BRAGER, G.S., 2001. The adaptive model of thermal comfort and energy conservation in the built environment. International journal of biometeorology, 45(2), pp. 100-108.

DE DEAR, R.J. and BRAGER, G.S., 1998. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Transaction, 104(1a), pp. 145-167.

ENERGY BUILDING INVESTMENT DECISION SUPPORT, , Mixed-Mode Conditioning Systems [Homepage of NSF/ IUCRC Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics, Carnegie Mellon University Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium], [Online]. Available: http://cbpd.arc.cmu.edu/ebids/pages/strategy.aspx?group=2&strategy=3 [October 3, 2012].

EICHOLTZ, P., KOK, N., and QUIGLEY, J..M., 2009. Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. Working paper. Center for the Study of Energy Markets (CSEM). University of California, Berkeley.

FANGER, P.O., 1970. Thermal comfort. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press.

FISK, W.J., 2000. Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), pp. 537-566.

FISK, W.J. and ROSENFELD, A.H., 1997. Estimates of Improved Productivity and Health from Better Indoor Environments. Indoor Air, 7(3), pp. 158-172.

HELLWIG, R.T., BRASCHE, S. and BISCHOF, W., 2006. Thermal comfort in offices - Natural ventilation vs. Air-conditioning, Healthy Buildings 2006.

HOYT, T., LEE, K.H., ZHANG, H., ARENS, E.A. and WEBSTER, T., 2009. Energy savings from extended air temperature setpoints and reductions in room air mixing. International Conference on Environmental Ergonomics .

KAPLAN, R.S., and NORTON, D.P. 1996. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review: 76.

KATS, G.H., 2003. The costs and financial benefits of green building. A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force.

KATS, G.H., BRAMAN, J. and JAMES, M., 2010. Greening our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press.

KLEPEIS, N.E., NELSON, W.C., OTT, W.R., ROBINSON, J.P., TSANG, A.M., SWITZER, P., BEHAR, J.V., HERN, S.C. and ENGELMANN, W.H., 2001. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11(3), pp. 231-252.

LOFTNESS, V., HARTKOPF, V., GURTEKIN, B., HANSEN, D. and HITCHCOCK, R.J., 2003. Linking Energy to Health and Productivity in the Built Environment, Greenbuild Conference 2003, US Green Building Council.

LOFTNESS, V., HARTKOPF, V., GURTEKIN, B., HUA, Y., QU, M., SNYDER, M., GU, Y. and YANG, X., 2005. BUILDING INVESTMENT DECISION SUPPORT (BIDS): Cost-Benefit Tool to Promote High Performance Components, Flexible Infrastructures & Systems Integration for Sustainable Commercial Buildings and Productive Organizations. AIA 2005 Report on University Research.

MENDELL, M.J., FISK, W.J., KREISS, K., LEVIN, H., ALEXANDER, D., CAIN, W.S., GIRMAN, J.R., HINES, C.J., JENSEN, P.A., MILTON, D.K., REXROAT, L.P. and WALLINGFORD, K.M., 2002. Improving the health of workers in indoor environments: priority research needs for a national occupational research agenda. American Journal of Public Health, 92(9), pp. 1430-1440.

MENDELL, M.J. and MIRER, A.G., 2009. Indoor thermal factors and symptoms in office workers: findings from the US EPA BASE study. Indoor Air, 19(4), pp. 291-302.

PACIUK, M., 1990. The role of personal control of the environment in thermal comfort and satisfaction at the workplace, Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association 1990, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, pp. 303-312.

SEPPÄNEN, O.A., 1999. Estimated cost of indoor climate in Finnish buildings. Proceedings of Indoor Air 1999, 3, pp. 13-18.

SEPPÄNEN, O.A. and FISK, W.J., 2002. Association of ventilation system type with SBS symptoms in office workers. Indoor Air, 12(2), pp. 98-112.

[194]

SINGH, A., SYAL, M., KORKMAZ, S. and GRADY, S., 2011. Costs and Benefits of IEQ Improvements in LEED Office Buildings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 17(2), pp. 86-94.

STEWART, W.F., RICCI, J.A., CHEE, E. and MORGANSTEIN, D., 2003. Lost Productive Work Time Costs from Health Conditions in the United States: Results from the American Productivity Audit. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(12), pp. 1234-1246.

TOFTUM, J., 2010. Central automatic control or distributed occupant control for better indoor environment quality in the future. Building and Environment, 45(1), pp. 23-28.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality; Volume II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution. EPA/400/1-89/001C. Washington, DC: US EPA.

WARGOCKI, P. and SEPPÄNEN, O.A., eds, 2006. Indoor climate and productivity in offices. Brussels, Belgium: REHVA, Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations.

WARGOCKI, P., WYON, D.P. and FANGER, P.O., 2000. Productivity is affected by the air quality in offices, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, pp. 635-640.

WILSON, A., 2005. Making the Case for Green Building. Environmental Building News, 14(4),.

WILSON, A., 2004. Productivity and green buildings. Environmental Building News, 13(10),.

WYON, D.P. and WARGOCKI, P., 2006a. Indoor air quality effects on office work (Chap 12). In: D. CLEMENTS-CROOME, ed, Creating the Productive Workplace. 2nd edn. Routledge, pp. 181-192.

WYON, D.P. and WARGOCKI, P., 2006b. Room temperature effects on office work (Chap 11). In: D. CLEMENTS-CROOME, ed, Creating the Productive Workplace. 2nd edn. Routledge, pp. 181-192.

ZHANG, H., ARENS, E.A., ABBASZADEH, S., HUIZENGA, C., PALIAGA, G., BRAGER, G.S. and ZAGREUS, L., 2006. Air movement preferences observed in office buildings, Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, 27-30 April 2006.

ZHANG, H., ARENS, E.A., KIM, D., BUCHBERGER, E., BAUMAN, F.S. and HUIZENGA, C., 2010. Comfort, perceived air quality, and work performance in a low-power task–ambient conditioning system. Building and Environment, 45(1), pp. 29-39.