Content uploaded by Andrew Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Smith on Sep 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainable workplaces and building user comfort and satisfaction
Andrew Smith
University of Central Lancashire
Ajsmith3@uclan.ac.uk
Michael Pitt
University College London
Michael.Pitt@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
This paper examines the role of sustainable buildings in providing healthy workplaces
in physical and perceptual terms, taking the form of a literature review. The paper
considers the history of sustainable development in the built environment and its
rationale, then widening the scope to consider sustainable, healthy and productive
workplaces.
Sustainable construction has focused on environmental sustainability but this may
have contributed to improved health, satisfaction and wellbeing amongst building
users. Sick building syndrome and poor indoor air are contributory factors to ill health
and reduced productivity but this paper suggests that sustainable building practices
will reduce these effects, improving the quality of buildings for their occupants.
This paper argues that building performance measures need to take account of people
factors such as employee perceptions and also that the design of workplaces should be
regarded as a strategy for productivity enhancement. Management issues should be
considered in the design of workplaces. The paper concludes that further research is
required into the role of sustainable construction in providing healthy buildings.
Key Words
Sustainable buildings, health, workplace perceptions, productivity
Introduction
This paper examines the role of sustainable buildings in contributing to user
satisfaction in physical and perceptual terms. Some research suggests that occupants
of environmentally sustainable buildings feel better psychologically, although this
area of research is in its infancy.
With increasing sustainability legislation worldwide, this is an important area of
research, which may help to provide a business case for achieving occupant health
and productivity aims as well as environmental and economic aims through
sustainable development.
Sustainable construction has focused on environmental sustainability but this may
have contributed to improved health, satisfaction and wellbeing amongst building
users. Sick building syndrome and poor indoor air are contributory factors to ill health
and reduced productivity but this paper suggests that sustainable building practices
will reduce these effects, improving the quality of buildings for their occupants.
This paper takes the form of a literature review, firstly considering the history of and
rationale for sustainable development in the built environment and argues that
building performance measures need to take account of people factors such as
employee perceptions and also that the design of workplaces should be regarded as a
strategy for productivity enhancement. The paper concludes that further research is
required into the role of sustainable construction in providing healthy, productive
buildings with high occupant satisfaction scores.
If rigorous research shows that substantial productivity gains can be achieved in
sustainable buildings, this will help to build the business case to show the financial
viability of investment in green buildings at the corporate level. However, substantial
further research is required towards this.
Sustainable development in the built environment
The Brundtland Report produced the most widely used definition of sustainable
development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED,
1987). Sustainable development involves three key factors; environmental
responsibility, economic profitability and social awareness and achieving the right
balance between them (CIRIA, 2006). The property and construction industry in the
UK contributes to all three elements of sustainable development in a number of ways.
Traditionally however, sustainable development issues in the property and
construction industry have tended to focus on the importance of ‘sustainable
construction’. Dickie and Howard (2000) define sustainable construction as ‘the
contribution of construction to sustainable development’. However, in practice it
appears that the focus is mainly directed at environmental sustainability. The property
and construction industry impacts the environment in its contribution to waste
creation, energy use, water use, recycling and re-use of materials, pollution and
biodiversity. Environmentally the industry has the largest impact and, therefore, has
the biggest opportunity to make a difference. The industry also contributes
economically to the UK with employment, an emphasis on profitable growth and
socially responsible investment (SRI). Finally, the social impact of the built
environment affects the way society lives and works. Consequently the need to build
sustainably is important as ‘what we build today will provide the built environment of
the future and will influence the ability of future generations to meet their needs’
(ibid).
The policy of the UK Government for sustainable development is set against Global
initiatives. In 1992 the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and
Development), held in Rio de Janeiro, discussed the ways of achieving sustainable
development. The Summit set out 27 principles supporting sustainable development
and agreed an action plan; Agenda 21. Part of this was for all countries to develop
national sustainable development strategies. In 1994 the UK was one of the first
countries to do so (DTI, 2004).
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1999 targets were agreed worldwide
on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; the target for the EU was to reduce
emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 (ibid). The UK has set itself the
target of reducing these gas emissions by 8-12% by 2010. In response to these global
agreements sustainability has been high on the Government’s agenda. In 1999 it
published a new strategy document; ‘A better quality of life - strategy for sustainable
development for the United Kingdom’. This report identified four main aims of the
Government strategy:
Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
Effective protection of the environment;
Prudent use of natural resources;
Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference and the associated Copenhagen
Accord was one of the most recent global climate change summits, which has a stated
aim of keeping global warming to below 2°C, but some authors argue that national
emissions-reduction pledges, which accompany the document are insufficient to meet
the objective (Rogelj and Meinshausen, 2010).
The goal of the Copenhagen meeting was to finalise a legally binding international
agreement, which had been under negotiation since the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Bali in 2007 and was intended to fill the gap when the Kyoto
Protocol expires in 2012 (Sandler and Schiffman Kymer, 2010). Although the
conference fell short of expectations, Sandler and Schiffman Kymer argue that the
resulting Accord did move climate change legislation in the right direction.
The UK Government’s strategy for sustainable construction was published in 2000 by
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (now
Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) which follows
from the 1999 priorities (DETR, 2000). The document sets out ways that the
construction industry could contribute to the achievement of more sustainable
development. These are:
Being more profitable and more competitive;
Delivering buildings and structures that provide greater satisfaction, well-being
and value to customers and users;
Respecting and treating its stakeholders more fairly;
Enhancing and better protecting the natural environment;
Minimising its impact on the consumption of energy (especially carbon based
energy) and natural resources.
These provide the framework for discussion on the environmental impact of
sustainable construction. The latest Strategy for Sustainable Construction (2008)
builds on the principles developed in 1999 by emphasising the need for a behavioural
change in the industry. The strategy aims to move towards ‘lean construction’, which
not only supports the environmental objectives, but can improve profitability of the
overall project. Investment is critical to any construction project and sustainability
issues are becoming a factor in this area too.
Sustainable construction to sustainable workplaces
While environmental considerations in the built environment have tended to focus on
building ‘green’, and are often given prominence by organisations, health and well-
being considerations of the workplace are more difficult to quantify and have tended
to be given less attention. However, there is increasing recognition that achieving
sustainable development in the built environment goes beyond sustainable
construction, to focusing on sustainable workplaces.
With suggestions that employee disengagement is increasing (Pech and Slade, 2006),
it is important to provide workplaces that positively influence employee well-being.
Engaged employees have an energetic and effective connection with their work and
look upon it as challenging rather than stressful (Bakker et al., 2008). Pech and Slade
(2006) argue that the focus is often on symptoms of disengagement such as
distraction, lack of interest, poor decision-making and high absence rates, rather than
the root causes. Smith and Pitt (2008) suggest that the workplace may be a key root
cause.
Research has indicated that improving the working environment reduces complaints
and absenteeism and increases productivity (Roelofsen, 2002). Workplace
satisfaction has been associated with job satisfaction (Wells, 2000) and perceptions of
workplace quality have a significant effect on building users’ psychology.
Fleming (2004) argues that the current use of quantitative building performance
measures fails to account for the effect of occupiers’ perceptions of their environment
and that facilities managers currently see buildings as containers of products rather
than containers of people, with idiosyncratic thoughts and perceptions. He proposes
that analysis of actual perceptions against ideal or expected perceptions would
provide a platform for establishing a set of performance indicators that move away
from the current paradigm and provide an alternative platform for analysis.
Studies have shown that job resources are positively associated with work
engagement and these include physical, social or organisational aspects of the job that
may reduce job demands, assist achievement of work goals or stimulate personal
growth, learning and development (Bakker et al., 2008). It is possible, therefore, that
the workplace could be considered a job resource, which either positively or
negatively impacts upon engagement.
Lee and Brand (2005) found a positive correlation between perceived personal control
over the physical environment and self-reported job satisfaction. They also found that
perceived personal control was positively related to workplace satisfaction. Where
people are tied to workplaces in open plan layouts, it can be harder to achieve the
comfort levels they prefer, so with more control over their environmental conditions
and use of time and space in the building, tend to be happier (Leaman and Bordass,
2007). However, Leaman and Bordass (2007) also point out that, while people like the
ability to tweak and fine-tune conditions to their liking, too much choice can annoy
them as they do not want to spend too much time adjusting building controls.
Availability and use of personal controls may be higher in green buildings, but this
does not always lead to optimal comfort conditions (Brown and Cole (2009).
Warnock (2007) argues that environmental assessment tools such as BREEAM in the
UK and LEED in the US are useful in guiding industry towards best practice and
improving the quality of buildings for occupants. This is in line with the UK
government’s strategy for sustainable construction (DETR, 2000). Indeed, BREEAM
rigorously assesses parameters including health and wellbeing (BRE, 2011).
A healthy working environment can be defined as an environment that is free from
negative health contaminants and where safety hazards are reduced to the minimum.
A healthy working environment will contribute to staff feelings of well-being.
Therefore, indoor air quality (IAQ) is one of the key concerns in workplaces and is an
area where sustainable building methods may have considerable impact.
Health and wellbeing in sustainable buildings
One of the key negative health aspects of buildings is Sick Building Syndrome. This
phenomenon emerged as a recognised workplace problem in the 1980s (Tong and
Leaman, 1993). With the move to air-conditioned buildings over the last 50 years or
so and more recently, energy-efficient buildings, the environmental conditions for
Sick Building Syndrome have been created. Symptoms of illness relating to sick
building syndrome include eye, nose and throat irritation; dry skin and mucous
membranes; skin rash; mental fatigue; headaches and airway infections; cough;
hoarseness, wheezing, itching, hyper-sensitivity; nausea and dizziness (Rooley, 1997).
These symptoms will generally disappear shortly after leaving the building. Thomas-
Mobley et al. (2005) define a sick building as:
“one in which 20 per cent or more building occupants experience
similar acute health effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a
building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified.”
Sick Building Syndrome can be caused by poor ventilation, enabling the build up of
indoor pollutants. Tong and Leaman (1993) also point out that management can create
an organisational culture which increases the sensitivity of the building population to
environmental conditions. For example, by setting inadequate environmental
performance standards, lacking suitable building performance data, failing to
anticipate the consequences of change, ignoring job stress factors or responding
slowly to environmental complaints.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are present in buildings, particularly in new or
recently refurbished buildings. They are typically associated with materials derived
from petroleum products and arise in off-gassing from a variety of building products,
furnishings, cleaning products (Williams, 1998), paints, adhesives, carpeting,
upholstery, panelling, plastic, vinyl, copying machines, computers and hundreds of
other office products (Wolverton and Wolverton, 1993). He et al. (2007) found VOCs
to be emitted in varying amounts by the lubricating oil in mechanical parts of office
printers. These include substances such as Benzene and Formaldehyde, which in low
concentrations can cause skin irritation and dry throats but in higher concentrations
are linked to cancer (Guo et al., 2004; Wolverton et al., 1989; Rooley, 1997).
Guo et al. (2004) carried out a study of indoor environments in Hong Kong to risk
assess exposures to individual VOCs in different environments, including offices.
They found that benzene, styrene, methylene chloride, chloroform, trichloroethene
and tetrachloroethene were the most prevalent VOCs in selected indoor environments.
In the Hong Kong study (Guo et al., 2004), benzene was found to account for
approximately 40 per cent of the lifetime cancer risk associated with each category of
indoor environment. Benzene is a natural component of crude oil (Karakitsios et al.,
2007) and is found in a range of office products. Styrene also accounts for a large
proportion of lifetime cancer risk in offices (Guo et al., 2004).
Formaldehyde is a colourless gas and is present in urea formaldehyde foam insulation
(UFFI), particle board, adhesives, some textiles (Rooley, 1997), resins used in wood-
based products and a variety of other widely used products (Williams, 1998). It is a
suspected carcinogen, an irritant (particularly of the eyes) and an asthmogen (Rooley,
1997). It has been classified as a mutagen and in Germany, indoor formaldehyde
concentrations in air have often been found to be higher than the legal German
tolerance value (Giese et al., 1994).
Williams (1998) points out that building occupants may be exposed to many
pollutants simultaneously and although exposure to individual contaminants may be
extremely low, the combined effects over time may be much more significant.
Allergen sensitisation occurs when the body is exposed to an allergen resulting in an
altered capacity to react to that substance. Further exposure can lead to
immunoreaction such as asthma, rhinitis, alveolitis, dermatitis or eczema (Rooley,
1997). Some allergens found in offices are (ibid):
Insect detritus.
House dust mite excreta.
Fungal spores (Penicillium, Trichoderma, Mucro, Cladosporium, Stemphylium,
Aspergillus alternaria).
Isocyanates (toluene, hexamethylene, diphenylmethane, napththalene,
formaldehyde, phthalate anhydrides, natural resins, enxymes, animal proteins).
Contaminated air may also result from contamination of fresh air intakes such as
emissions from the building itself or other nearby buildings; vehicle exhaust from
street traffic, car parks and loading docks; contamination from industry, streets and
construction sites; or outdoor contaminants from other sources being transferred to
unexpected situations by wind currents (Williams, 1998). A further example of
indoor air pollution is airborne particles, which were found to be produced in
significant quantities from office printers (He et al., 2007). They concluded that toner
cartridge and the age of the cartridge could be the most significant factors affecting
printer emissions.
Resolution of indoor air problems has tended to focus on ventilation. Costa and James
(1995) point out that there is a move towards naturally ventilated buildings with
opening windows, effective use of daylight, reduced energy consumption and
maintenance costs and that there is a broad shift in favour of more natural,
biologically oriented building service solutions as opposed to chemically oriented,
highly engineered solutions. Similarly, Smith et al., (1998) argue that buildings which
are designed and constructed to be environmentally benign are healthier for users in
comparison to contemporary buildings, many of which, they argue, are
environmentally damaging and unhealthy for their users.
As a result of the importance of air quality in buildings, a great deal of attention has
been given to the selection of building materials for enhanced indoor air quality in
several of the green building rating systems and standards (Alevantis and Levin,
2011). For example, the new BREEAM 2011 Technical Manual includes a section on
indoor air quality within a comprehensive chapter on health and wellbeing, including
issues such as visual comfort, thermal comfort, water quality, acoustic performance
and safety and security (BRE, 2011).
Some research has shown that sustainable buildings may be healthier than buildings
constructed using traditional methods and materials. Palanivelraja and Manirathinem
(2010) contend that sustainable buildings use resources such as energy, water,
materials and land more efficiently, with more natural light and better air quality so
that these buildings contribute to improved health, comfort and productivity.
Singh et al (2010) investigated changes in employees’ health perceptions in areas such
as asthma and allergies, following a move from traditional to green offices, assessed
using LEED. Overall they found substantial reductions in self-reported absenteeism
and affected work hours resulting from perceived improvements in health and
wellbeing and that employees perceived a positive effect of their new environment on
productivity.
Green solar architecture was pioneered in Germany by architect Dieter Schempp,
whereby the indoor climate in the building is regulated using plants (Freeman, 2008).
By using trees and plants within buildings, the desirable aspects provided by natural
elements outlined above may be realised. Green solar architecture provides a possible
methodology for achieving healthy buildings through sustainable building design and
construction.
Sustainable workplace influences on productivity
A range of literature exists relating to different elements of the workplace in
contributing to productivity such as:
Personal control
Privacy
Interior planting
Personalisation
Colour
Windows and lighting.
Lee and Brand (2005) found a positive correlation between perceived personal control
over the physical environment and self-reported job satisfaction. They also found that
perceived personal control was positively related to workplace satisfaction. However,
Veitch and Gifford (1996) found that although choice led to perceptions of increased
control, it also led to a performance decrement among the participants in their trial.
They suggest self-presentation and fear of failure were heightened in those
participants who were given a choice and that these findings have implications for the
relationship between facilities managers and building occupants (Veitch and Gifford,
1996).
While privacy is one of the key complaint areas, especially in open plan offices
(Duvall-Early and Benedict, 1992; Goodrich, 1982; Kupritz, 1998). There are,
however, positive distractions, such as trees, plants and water (James, 2007) that may
be incorporated into buildings to improve workplace quality and productivity.
Goodrich (1982) also advocates using large plants to increase privacy perceptions.
He states that workers agreed that plants made the office more pleasant and informal
and this seemed to reduce their need for high privacy levels. Shibata and Suzuki
(2002) found that peoples’ mood may be affected by plants and
Kaplan (1993) asserted that those with a view of nature such as trees and greenery
were more satisfied and that even a short exposure to a natural setting can serve a
restorative function:
“Those with a view of nature felt less frustrated and more patient,
found their job more challenging, expressed greater enthusiasm for
it, and reported higher life satisfaction as well as overall health”
(ibid).
Kaplan (1993) suggests that having natural areas at the workplace can be useful for
views or direct involvement such as lunch areas and areas to walk. Bringing nature
into buildings is becoming increasingly popular with the use of landscaped atria and
“streets” within buildings.
Larsen et al (1998) add support for workplace plants, finding that office plants
increased participants’ perceptions of office attractiveness and comfort. Surprisingly
however, they found that productivity reduced with greater numbers of plants. They
suggest this may be due to the repetitive nature of the task in their study.
Hanie et al (2010) suggest that natural elements play an important role in buildings
and can simply the occupants’ psychological behaviour and wellbeing. However,
while sustainable buildings are likely to utilise natural materials to a greater extent,
Hanie et al stop short of making this connection. Their suggested solutions to improve
indoor environmental quality include increasing ventilation rates, pollutant source
removal, air cleaning, flexible design, education and communication among
occupants, management and maintenance personnel and location of the building
(ibid.), which are relevant considerations in any building, sustainable or otherwise.
Green solar architecture is an example of sustainable buildings utilising natural
elements, whereby the indoor climate in the building is regulated using plants
(Freeman, 2008). By using trees and plants within buildings, the desirable aspects
provided by natural elements outlined above may be realised. Green solar architecture
provides a possible methodology for achieving healthy buildings through sustainable
building design and construction.
Recent studies have shown perceptual benefits of indoor plants in terms of reductions
in pressure, health concerns, increases in morale, preference for plants, productivity,
privacy, comfort and a substantial decrease in sickness absence following the
installation of plants (Smith et al., 2011) as well as improvements in indoor air
quality (Smith and Pitt, 2011).
Colour is an important determinant of user perceptions but it appears often to be
overlooked. Wright (2005) points out that workplace colour decisions will influence
staff motivation and absenteeism as well as portraying a certain image to clients.
Stone and English (1998) undertook a study of the effects of task type, colour and the
presence of a poster on subjects’ mood, satisfaction and performance. They studied
the effect of red and blue partitions in the workspace and found that perceived privacy
was higher in the blue partitions than in the red. A study of red, white and green
offices (Kwallek and Lewis, 1990) found that subjects preferred working in the white
environment but significantly more errors were made in the white office than in the
red. However, subjects working in the white office rated it less distracting than those
working in the red office.
Stone and English (1998) found that perceived room temperature was affected by
colour. Those working in blue partitioned areas perceived it to be cooler than those in
red workspaces. This may have sustainability implications in terms of energy use.
Building users could potentially be made to feel cooler in warm climates and vice
versa. The detailed psychological effects of colours are beyond the scope of this
paper but clearly workplace colour is an important consideration and one which can
significantly influence organisational performance.
Access to windows and artificial lighting will also affect the perceptions of building
users. There tends to be a strong preference for windows among occupants, however,
Stone and Irvine (1994) found no evidence that windows effect higher performance
levels. Their study found that a windowless room appeared to reduce stimulation
from the environment, which was beneficial for tasks such as filing but potentially
limiting for tasks benefiting from stimulation such as creative tasks (ibid). Goodrich
(1982) reported that having a window was psychologically important to workers as it
provided more mental freedom, a chance to get away from the problem to gain new
insight and a broader perspective as well as reducing fatigue and stress. However,
negative effects were sunlight producing glare on computer screens and solar heat
gain.
However, while this provides an interesting insight into some productivity
considerations in workplace design, these factors may not be immediately recognised
as elements of environmentally sustainable construction. Closer analysis may yield
some possibilities though. The BREEAM Offices 2008 Assessor Manual (BRE, 2009)
includes a section on health and wellbeing, including factors such as access to
daylight, external views, high frequency lighting, lighting levels, occupant control
over lighting, natural ventilation, indoor air quality, volatile organic compound
emissions, thermal comfort, microbial contamination and acoustic performance. This
suggests that the majority of the considerations outlined above are closely linked to
sustainable buildings in terms of health and wellbeing considerations.
Research has also suggested that user perceptions may be different in sustainable
buildings, compared to conventional buildings. Baird and Oosterhoff (2008) studied
user perceptions in a range of sustainable commercial and institutional buildings in
eleven countries. They found that occupants judged these buildings to be healthier and
they perceived themselves to be more productive in sustainable buildings. They also
found that several factors had a high correlation with health, such as productivity,
building design, comfort overall, space in the building, summer temperatures, winter
conditions, lighting, noise and winter temperatures.
Similarly, Leaman and Bordass (2007) carried out occupant surveys in 177 buildings
in the UK and found that green-intent buildings score better on summary variables for
ventilation/air in summer and winter, comfort overall, perceived productivity and
possibly temperature in winter. However, when the data is examined in more detail,
the picture is less optimistic. The summary variables take the context though, and
occupants appear to be more forgiving of green buildings, perhaps because features
that they like are present, such as outside views, shallower plan forms, more control
and better use of natural light and often more care taken in their briefing, design and
management (Leaman and Bordass, 2007).
Singh et al (2010) claim that the improvements they found in perceived productivity
in those moving into green buildings could result in an additional 38.98 work hours
per year for each occupant of a green building.
However, some studies have found little improvement in perceptions and sometimes
building users may be less satisfied in sustainable buildings (Zeiler and Boxem,
2009).
Clearly, much greater research is required in this area and it is suggested that using
perceptions of green buildings as a central theme of future research could yield some
interesting results and may help to move towards a more convincing business case for
investment in sustainable buildings.
Conclusions
This paper has reviewed sustainability in buildings from a high level, global
perspective before considering how policy translates into the provision of sustainable
workplaces.
Sustainable development has come to the fore over the last twenty to thirty years,
largely due to increasing legislation worldwide. Sustainable construction has tended
to focus mainly on environmental sustainability, but it is likely that this focus has also
brought about sustainable workplaces in terms of users’ health, satisfaction and
wellbeing. In this regard, there is a need for building performance measures to take
account of people-oriented factors such as employee perceptions. By improved
management of perceptions, productivity gains may be realised. Environmental
assessment tools such as BREEAM may help improve the quality of buildings for
occupants.
Sick building syndrome and poor indoor air quality can adversely affect health and
productivity, but sustainable building practices such as natural ventilation, use of
more natural materials, access to daylight and external views will reduce the
likelihood of poor indoor air, as well as providing psychological benefits such as
those provided by access to nature in the workplace.
The paper argues that workplaces designed to be environmentally sustainable should
also be regarded as a strategy for productivity enhancement and management issues
need to be considered in the design of work space. Evidence suggests that building
users perceive sustainable buildings as being healthier and more conducive to
productivity, also being more forgiving of such buildings. Substantial further research
is required in this complex area of human perception.
This paper suggests that healthy buildings can be achieved through sustainable
construction approaches. However, whilst the initial outcomes of existing research
look promising, substantial research is now required into the areas of indoor comfort
and building user perceptions in sustainable buildings due to the knowledge gap in
this area.
References
Alevantis, L., Levin, H. (2011). “Materials-related IAQ.” ASHRAE Journal, March
2011, pp. 86-88.
Baird, G., Oosterhoff, H. (2008) “Users’ perceptions of health in sustainable buildings
worldwide.” Healthy and Creative Facilities, Proceedings of the CIB W70
Conference in Facilities Management, Edinburgh, UK, 16th – 18th June 2008, pp. 649
- 656.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Taris, T.W. (2008) “Work engagement:
An emerging concept in occupational health psychology.” Work & Stress, Vol. 22,
No. 3, pp. 187 – 200.
BRE (2009) “BREEAM Offices 2008 Assessor Manual.” BRE Environmental and
Sustainability Standard, BES 5055: Issue 3.0. Building Research Establishment.
BRE (2011) “BREEAM New Construction non-domestic buildings: Technical
Manual. SD5073-2.0:2011: Issue 1. Building Research Establishment.
Brown, Z., Cole, R.J. (2009) “Influence of occupants’ knowledge on comfort
expectations and behaviour.” Building Research and Information, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.
227-245.
CIRIA (2006) Compliance+ Sustainability. [online] Available at:
http://www.ciria.org/complianceplus/sustainability.htm
Costa, P., James, R.W. (1995) “Constructive use of vegetation in office buildings.”
Plants for People Symposium, The Hague, Netherlands, 23 November 1995.
Available at:
http://www.healthygreenatwork.org/index_en.cfm?act=artikelen.details&varart=18
[Accessed 30/12/08].
DETR (2000). Building a Better Quality of Life; A Strategy for more Sustainable
Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. [online].
Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/sustain/bql/pdf/sus_cons.pdf
Dickie, I and Howard, I (2000). BRE Digest 446: Assessing environmental impacts of
construction. BRE Centre for Sustainable Construction.
DTI (2004). Sustainable Construction Brief 2. Department of Trade and Industry.
H.M.S.O.
Duvall-Early, K., Benedict, J. (1992) “The relationships between privacy and
different components of job satisfaction.” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 5,
pp. 670 - 679.
Fleming, D. (2004) “Facilities management: a behavioural approach.” Facilities, Vol.
22, No. 1/2, pp. 35 - 43.
Franz, J. (1997) “The Indoor Plants.” In Menges, A. (ed.) LOG ID BGW Dresden.
Opus.
Freeman, K. (2008) “Plants in Green Buildings.” Ambius White Paper – 01. Ambius
University: Buffalo Grove, USA.
Giese, M., Bauer-Doranth, U., Langebartels, C., Sandermann Jr., H. (1994)
“Detoxification of formaldehyde by the spiderplant (Chlorophytum comosum L.) and
by soybean (Glycine max L.) cell-suspension cultures,” Plant Physiology, Vol. 104,
pp. 1301 – 1309.
Goodrich, R. (1982) The Perceived Office: The Office Environment as Experienced
by its Users. In: Wineman, J. (1986) Behavioral Issues in Office Design. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York. pp. 109 - 133.
Guo, H., Lee, S.C., Chan, L.Y., Li, W.M. (2004) “Risk assessment of exposure to
volatile organic compounds in different indoor environments,” Environmental
Research, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 57 - 66.
Hanie, O., Aryan, A., MohammadReza, L., Elham, L. (2010). “Understanding the
importance of sustainable buildings in occupants environmental health and comfort.”
Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 194-200.
He, C., Morawska, L., Taplin, L. (2007) “Particle emission characteristics of office
printers”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 17, pp. 6039 – 6045.
James, P. (2007) “Indoor green space: influences your health.” Senses, Brain and
Space Workshop, Salford University, 8th-9th March 2007. Available at:
http://www.rgc.salford.ac.uk/peterbarrett/p/?s=10&pid=6 [Accessed: 10/08/2007].
Kaplan, R. (1993) “The role of nature in the context of the workplace.” Landscape
and Urban Planning, 26, No. 1 - 4, pp. 193 - 201.
Karakitsios, S.P., Papaloukas, C.L., Kassomenos, P.A., Pilidis, G.A. (2007)
“Assessment and prediction of exposure to benzene of filling station employees,”
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 41, No. 40, pp. 9555 – 9569.
Kupritz, V. (1998) “Privacy in the workplace: The impact of building design.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 341 - 356.
Kwallek, N., Lewis, C. M. (1990) “Effects of environmental colour on males and
females: A red or white or green office.” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 275
- 278.
Larsen, L., Adams, J., Deal, B., Kweon, B., Tyler, E. (1998) “Plants in the workplace:
The effects of plant density on productivity, attitudes and perceptions.” Environment
and Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 261 - 281.
Leaman, A., Bordass, B. (2007) “Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings?”
Building Research and Information, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 662 – 673.
Lee, S.Y., Brand, J.L. (2005) “Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions
of the work environment and work outcomes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 323 - 333.
Palanivelraja, S., Manirathinem, K.I. (2010). “Studies on indoor air quality in a rural
sustainable home.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 68,
pp. 141-145.
Pech, R., Slade, B. (2006) “Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing
problem?” Handbook of Business Strategy, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 21 - 25.
Roelofsen, P. (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, No. 3, pp. 247 - 264.
Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M. (2010) “Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry.” Nature,
Vol. 464, Issue 7292, pp. 1126-1128.
Rooley, R. (1997), “Sick Building Syndrome – the real facts: What is known, what
can be done,” Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 1/2, pp. 29 - 33.
Sandler, L.M., Schiffman Kymer, R.I. (2010) “Copenhagen Accord: Outcomes, Next
Steps and Business Implications.” Environmental Claims Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.
144-149.
Schempp, D. (1997a) “Concepts of Solar Architecture.” In Menges, A. (ed.) LOG ID
BGW Dresden. Opus.
Schempp, D. (1997b) “Aspects of the architectural and interior design.” In Menges,
A. (ed.) LOG ID BGW Dresden. Opus.
Shibata, S., Suzuki, N. (2002) “Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and
mood.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 265 - 272.
Singh, A., Syal, M., Grady, S.C., Korkmaz, S. (2010). “Effects of green buildings on
employee health and productivity.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No.
9, pp. 1665-1668.
Smith, A., Pitt, M. (2008) “Preference for plants in an office environment.” Healthy
and Creative Facilities, Proceedings of the CIB W70 Conference in Facilities
Management, Edinburgh, UK, 16th – 18th June 2008, pp. 629 – 637.
Smith, A., Pitt, M. (2011) “Healthy Workplaces: Plantscaping for indoor
environmental quality.” Facilities, Vol. 29, No. 3/4, pp. 169-187.
Smith, A., Tucker, M., Pitt, M. (2011) “Healthy, productive workplaces: Towards a
case for interior plantscaping.” Facilities, Vol. 29, No. 5/6, pp. 209-223.
Smith, M., Whitelegg, J., Williams, N. (1998) “Greening the Built Environment.”
Earthscan Publications, London.
Stone, N., English, A. (1998) “Task type, posters and workspace color on mood,
satisfaction and performance.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.175 - 185.
Stone, N., Irvine, J. (1994) “Direct or indirect window access, task type and
performance.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 57 - 63.
Thomas-Mobley, L., Roper, K.O., Oberle, R. (2005), "A proactive assessment of sick
building syndrome", Facilities, Vol. 23 No.1/2, pp.6-15.
Tong, D., Leaman, A. (1993) “Sick building syndrome: Strategies and tactics for
managers.” Facilities, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 19 – 23.
Veitch, J., Gifford, R. (1996) “Choice, perceived control and performance decrements
in the physical environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 3,
pp. 269 - 276.
Warnock, A.C. (2007) “An overview of integrating instruments to achieve sustainable
construction and buildings.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 427-441.
WCED (1987) “Our Common Future.” Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. [online]. Available at: http://www.un-
documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
Wells, M. (2000) “Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office
personalization in employee and organizational well-being.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 239 - 255.
Williams, P. (1998) “Air-conditioned environments: System faults affecting occupant
productivity and well-being in Australian buildings,” The Cutting Edge 1998. RICS
Research.
Wolverton, B.C., Johnson, A., Bounds, K. (1989) “Interior landscape plants for indoor
air pollution abatement: Final Report.” National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Report No. TM-101768. Available at:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930073077_1993073077.pdf
(Accessed 14/01/2008).
Wolverton, B.C., Wolverton, J.D. (1993) “Plants and soil microorganisms: Removal
of formaldehyde, xylene and ammonia from the indoor environment,” Journal of the
Mississippi Academy of Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 11 – 15.
Wright, A. (2005) “Colour in commercial interiors.” Facilities Management, Vol. 12,
No. 5, pp. 22 - 23.
Zeiler, W., Boxem, G. (2009). “Ventilation of sustainable schools: better than
traditional schools?” ASHRAE Transactions 2009, Vol. 115, Part 2, pp. 815-823.