Content uploaded by Andrew Thatcher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Thatcher on Feb 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The impact of a ‘green’ building on
employees’ physical and psychological
wellbeing
Andrew Thatchera,* and Karen Milnera
aPsychology Department, School of Human & Community Development, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, WITS, 2050, South Africa
Abstract. Multiple claims and some empirical findings suggest that ‘green’ buildings should be healthier (psychologically and
physically) and promote greater productivity than conventional buildings. The empirical evidence in this regard over the last
decade or so has been inconclusive suggesting either that the studies are flawed or that there are specific aspects of green build-
ings that promote wellbeing and productivity and others that do not. This study looks at a longitudinal comparison of two
groups; a group that moved into South Africa’s first GreenStar-accredited building and a group that did not. Measures were
taken before the move and six months later. Results demonstrated that the ‘green’ building did not produce significantly better
physical or psychological wellbeing, or higher perceived productivity. These results are discussed in relation to suggestions for
what design features to focus on that may produce significant results.
Keywords: psychological wellbeing, physical wellbeing, GreenStar accreditation; perceived productivity; workplace indoor
environmental quality
1. Introduction
Since buildings are obviously built for human oc-
cupation it makes sense from an ergonomics perspec-
tive to focus on the occupants’ health, productivity,
and efficiency. In general terms, the relationship be-
tween improved indoor environmental quality and
increased occupant wellbeing and productivity is
well-documented in the literature [7] [8] [12] [19]
[26] [27]. Further, Baird [2] argues from a financial
perspective that it makes sense to focus on the well-
being and productivity of employees when consider-
ing building efficiency since employee salaries easily
outweigh the costs associated with building design
and building use (e.g. energy, water, waste removal,
etc.). This study investigates the claims of improved
physical and psychological wellbeing for Green
buildings in South Africa’s first GreenStar accredited
building.
*
* Corresponding author: andrew.thatcher@wits.ac.za
1.1. Green buildings
Internationally there have been moves in the last
two decades to produce various voluntary bench-
marks and standards to guide the promotion, design
and operation of “green buildings”. Such certification
systems include the British Establishment Environ-
mental Assessment Method (BREEAM, from the UK,
launched in 1990), the Leadership in Energy and En-
vironmental Design (LEED, from the US, launched
in 1993), GreenStar Australia (launched in 2003),
GreenStar South Africa (launched in 2008), and the
National Australian Built Environment Rating Sys-
tem (NABERS, from Australia, launched in 2000).
These rating tools award credits for lifecycle?? ele-
ments including: management of the building site, the
choice of site and the ecology of that site (before,
during and after construction), the choice of materials,
innovation in the design (such as passive heating,
cooling, and lighting systems), water and energy use,
and how a building integrates with other human and
environmental services such as transport networks
Work 41 (2012) 3816-3823
D
OI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0683-3816
IOS Press
3816
1051-9815/12/$27.50 © 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserve
d
[10]. Issues related to occupant health and productiv-
ity feature prominently in the various international
green building rating systems, usually as a dimension
referred to as indoor environmental quality, in vary-
ing degrees captures features related to employee
wellbeing, satisfaction, and productivity [11]. Based
on general studies into improving indoor environ-
mental quality these rating tools encourage building
designers to incorporate features that will improve
occupants’ wellbeing and productivity (e.g. increased
daylight, improved ventilation systems, more “fresh”
air and less recycled air, reduced glare from the sun
and artificial lighting, and reduced volatile organic
compounds - VOCs). Due to the focus on these ele-
ments it is widely believed (even actively promoted)
that green buildings are more comfortable, healthier,
and produce higher productivity levels than conven-
tional buildings. However, Heerwagen and Zagreus
[17] have noted that these claims were not always
justified.
1.2. Evaluations of the impact of Green buildings on
occupants’ health and productivity
Birt andNewsham[5] observed that there were a
limited number of detailed examinations of green
building performance available in the public domain.
While measures of productivity gains in green build-
ings are relatively well-established, the relationships
for physical and psychological wellbeing are less
well-documented. Early case studies of green build-
ings [26] produced consistent evidence that green
buildings increased productivity (in one building the
claim was for a 28% increase in productivity), a re-
duction in absenteeism, and improved building use
satisfaction levels. More recently, support for the
impact of green buildings, while still generally fa-
vourable, is more mixed. Generally, studies that re-
port on improved productivity either use absenteeism
as a proxy for productivity [33] or ask respondents to
indicate how much their work environment has im-
proved their productivity [1] [17]. The most compre-
hensive study assessing productivity directly [28]
found evidence for increased typing speed and billing
amounts, reduced absenteeism, but no perceived pro-
ductivity change. Other studies have found that ab-
senteeism rates have remained unchanged [24]. Stud-
ies that look at user satisfaction with the physical
environment generally find positive satisfaction rat-
ings for green buildings [28] [3] [9] [15] [32] How-
ever, studies have also consistently found that noise
[6] [9] [17] [24] [33], thermal comfort [9] [17]
[25][33] , and lighting conditions [1] [6] [17] [24]
were problematic in some green buildings. This lack
of consistency in the results would suggest there are
some design aspects of green buildings or some as-
pects of the work context that are more important in
determining positive reactions to the physical envi-
ronment. For example, Heerwagen [15] found sig-
nificant differences between different groups of
workers in satisfaction with the physical environment,
but only for the office workers who worked during
the day and not for shiftworkers. She found that re-
spondents across-the-board felt overworked at the
end of a work shift. Studies that draw comparisons
across a range of green buildings also produce incon-
clusive results. Abbaszadeh [1] for example com-
pared 21 “green” buildings to 160 “non-green” build-
ings and found that users were most satisfied with
thermal comfort and air quality (and least satisfied
with noise and lighting conditions). Fowler and Ra-
uch [9] examined 12 green buildings and found that
while satisfaction with the indoor environment was
generally high, noise and thermal comfort were lower
than national benchmarks. The US Green Building
Council [33] report examined 25 LEED-accredited
buildings and found that these buildings were higher
than the national average on satisfaction scores (es-
pecially on lighting) but lower than the national aver-
age for thermal comfort and noise. Leaman et al.
[22]examined 22 green buildings and 23 conventional
buildings and found that the green buildings were
rated significantly lower on thermal comfort, noise,
and some lighting conditions (i.e. glare). Paul and
Taylor [24] examined two “non-green” buildings and
a GreenStar-accredited building and found no signifi-
cant differences on satisfaction ratings, except for
thermal comfort where the green building was per-
ceived to be significantly warmer.
Part of the reason for the inconsistencies in results
is due to design differences between buildings and in
part due to methodological issues. From a methodo-
logical perspective most of the studies only assess
satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality as
a post-occupancy measure. Unfortunately, only tak-
ing a post-occupancy measure tells us very little
about what conditions were like before employees
moved into the green building. It could be that em-
ployees were already satisfied with building condi-
tions before moving into a green building. Evans [7]
called for more longitudinal designs in order to un-
derstand the relationships between people and their
wellbeing responses to the built environment. Further,
comparing green buildings to conventional buildings
on post occupancy measures may be meaningless
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical 3817
because employees in different buildings may be in
different organizations, working in different indus-
tries, and doing different types of work. For example,
Paul and Taylor [25] compared a green building at
one university with two green buildings at another
university. Differences in satisfaction ratings may
have been due to the different organizational settings.
Many of the studies do not include any comparison
group or comparison groups that are not directly rele-
vant. Some of the studies draw comparisons with
national benchmark databases [1] [6] [9] [17] [33].
Only Paevere and Brown [24] draw direct compari-
sons between buildings in the same organization.
2. Methods
2.1. Procedures
The study was conducted in a large financial insti-
tution with more than 10 000 employees across the
country. The new Green Building could accommo-
date as many as 1500 staff members when fully oc-
cupied. The study design was longitudinal (Time 1
before any employees moved and Time 2 six months
after the treatment group had moved to the Green
Building) with two groups: a treatment group where
employees moved from existing buildings to the new
Green Building and a contrast group where employ-
ees stayed in their existing building (“Other”). A total
of 2525 emails were sent to two randomly selected
samples from each of these groups (approximately
1200 employees from each group). The email con-
sisted of a short covering note inviting participation
and a hyperlink to the online version of the survey.
Volunteer respondents completed the survey online
and clicked on the submit button at the end of the
survey. Clicking the submit button was considered as
consent to participate. At Time 1 there were 655
completed responses returned. Six months later 611
emails were sent to respondents who had responded
to the Time 1 survey and who had provided valid
employee numbers. At Time 2 there were 251 re-
sponses received. After matching the Time 1 respon-
dents to the Time 2 respondents based on valid em-
ployee numbers there were 240 respondents.
2.2. The Green building
The building was the first GreenStar accredited
building in South Africa and should be considered as
a test case for other green buildings in the country.
The Green building received GreenStar rating of 46
credits (45 credits are required for a four star Green-
Star rating) and 16 (out of 27; or 59% of the available
credits) credits for the Indoor Environmental Quality
dimension. The building featured a ventilation system
with a rate of fresh air intake twice the national stan-
dard, a monitoring system for CO2 levels connected
to the ventilation system, lighting systems that re-
duced flicker and were movement sensitive, interior
paints and carpeting with reduced VOC levels, and
80% of the office area had exterior views. In addition,
the Green building had a freshwater catchment sys-
tem, a “black” water treatment facility, a building
user guide, and 95% recycled steel in the main frame
of the building.
The “Other” buildings were a variety of pre-
existing office buildings which did not have a
“green” intent in their design. They pre-date the
GreenStar rating tool and therefore have no rating
information. The existing buildings did not have fresh
air ventilation and no individual control of lighting or
ventilation.
2.3. Sample
From the 240 respondents who responded at Time
1 and were matched to Time 2 there were 161 re-
spondents in the treatment group (Green building)
and 79 respondents in the contrast group (Other
buildings). There were 149 males and 91 females in
the sample. The respondents were from a range of
different ethnic groups. The average age of the re-
spondents was 40.85 years (with a standard deviation
of 9.97 years) and they had an average of 12.33 years
working for the organisation (with a large standard
deviation of 9.18 years). There were 66 respondents
who indicated that they had at least one chronic un-
derlying illness including asthma, high blood pres-
sure, a psychiatric disorder, and diabetes mellitus.
2.4. Measures
The first part of the survey captured biographical
information including age, gender, race, organisa-
tional level, tenure, disability, and chronic underlying
illness. In the second part of the survey the primary
variables of interest were assessed. These measures
were taken both at Time 1 and at Time 2. There are a
number of post-occupancy building surveys that have
been used in previous studies (e.g. Building User
Survey and Center for the Built Environment’s occu-
pant satisfaction survey). We chose to use separate
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical
3818
measures common and independently validated in the
ergonomics and organisational psychology literature.
Psychological wellbeing was assessed using the
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale
(WEMWBS) [30].The WEMWBS is a 14-item scale
with five response categories assessed over the past
month (i.e. none of the time, rarely, some of the time,
often, all of the time). Tennant et al. [30] reported an
internal consistency of 0.91 in a general population
sample and good criterion-related validity.
Physical wellbeing was assessed using the Sick
Building Syndrome (SBS) questions [13]. This is a
set of 15 items that assess different physical well-
being factors related to SBS on a 4-point frequency
scale over the previous month (i.e. never, 1-3 times
per month, 1-3 times per week, every day).
Perceptions of physical work conditions were as-
sessed using 14 items taken from Hedge et al. [13].
Respondents were required to indicate the frequency
of negative aspects of the work environment on a 4-
point frequency scale over the previous month (i.e.
never, 1-3 times per month, 1-3 times per week,
every day). These were treated as individual items in
the analysis.
Job satisfaction was assessed by a single item ask-
ing “Taking everything into consideration how do
you feel about your job as a whole?” (from very dis-
satisfied to very satisfied). Wanous et al. [34] ob-
served that single-item measures of job satisfaction
were parsimonious and at least as good as multiple
items in assessing global measures of job satisfaction.
Absenteeism was assessed by a single item asking
“During the last 12 months, how many days sick
leave have you taken?”
Presenteeism was assessed by a single item asking
“During the last 12 months, how many days did your
work despite being ill because you felt you had to?”
Since presenteeism was highly skewed as a variable
we followed Biron et al. [4] by dividing presenteeism
by absenteeism to produce a ratio of number of days
absent-present against number of days absent.
Perceived productivity was assessed on a single
item asking “On a scale of 0-100 percent (where
100% is full capacity), rate how well you have been
working over the last month in relation to your full
capacity.”
3. Results
Data were also collected on how much time re-
spondents spent in their respective buildings while at
work. These results are found in Table 1 and show no
significant differences between the Other group and
the Green Building group.
Table 1
Average time spent in the building.
Green
Building
group
Other
group
Hours per day in the build-
ing 8.87 8.63
Hours per day at their desk 7.08 7.48
Days per week in the
building 4.93 5.01
As shown in Table 2 and Table 3 there were no
significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2
on measures of perceived productivity, psychological
wellbeing, physical wellbeing, job satisfaction, or
absenteeism in either group. Presenteeism was sig-
nificantly higher at Time 2 in the Green Building
group (t=1.46, p<0.01). As shown in Table 4 and
Table 5, the Other group perceived significantly
poorer lighting, more drafty conditions, an unpleasant
odour, more dusty, and increased electrostatic shocks
at Time 2. In the Green Building group the work en-
vironment was perceived as significantly better in
terms of temperature and ventilation at Time 2. How-
ever, statistically the lighting conditions were per-
ceived as poorer, the air movement was too drafty,
there was more likely to be an unpleasant odour in
the air, and it was perceived to be dustier at Time 2.
Both groups perceived working conditions to be less
noisy at Time 2.
Similarly, when the two groups are compared at
Time 1 there were almost no significant differences
between the groups. The Green Building group had
significantly higher job satisfaction (t = 2.44; p <
0.05) and a significantly higher propensity to stay in
the organisation at Time 1 (t = 3.03; p < 0.01), al-
though these differences were non-significant at Time
2. It was noticeable that the Other group experienced
significantly less dryness (t = 2.37; p < 0.05), noisi-
ness (t = 2.22; p < 0.05), and dustiness (t = 3.13; p <
0.01) at Time 1. At Time 2 these differences between
the two buildings were non-significant (suggesting
improvements for the Green Building group) but the
Other group was significantly less likely to experi-
ence electrostatic shocks ( t = 2.51; p < 0.05).
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical 3819
Table 2
Comparisons of wellbeing and productivity from T1 to T2 – Other group
Variable T1 T2 t-statistic Sign.
Psychological wellbeing 3.55 3.47 0.70 NS
Physical wellbeing 2.97 2.89 0.81 NS
Job satisfaction 3.27 3.47 1.25 NS
Propensity to stay 3.07 3.19 0.71 NS
Productivity (last month) 77.51 77.92 0.12 NS
Productivity (last 2-3 months) 78.28 80.03 0.53 NS
Productivity (last 4-6 months) 80.62 80.14 0.15 NS
Productivity (last 7-12 months) 80.84 78.58 0.69 NS
Absenteeism 3.51 4.52 1.72 NS
Presenteeism 3.44 3.20 0.09 NS
Table 3
Comparisons of wellbeing and productivity from T1 to T2 – Green Building group
Variable T1 T2 t-statistic Sign.
Psychological wellbeing 3.59 3.52 1.03 NS
Physical wellbeing 3.01 2.97 0.61 NS
Job satisfaction 3.67 3.53 1.36 NS
Propensity to stay 3.40 3.26 1.39 NS
Productivity (last month) 77.20 77.15 0.02 NS
Productivity (last 2-3 months) 79.18 77.61 0.73 NS
Productivity (last 4-6 months) 79.35 77.76 0.69 NS
Productivity (last 7-12 months) 77.88 79.04 0.46 NS
Absenteeism 3.56 4.49 1.23 NS
Presenteeism 2.01 5.69 1.46 <0.01
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical
3820
Table 4
Comparisons of physical work conditions from T1 to T2 – Other group
Physical environment condition T1 T2 t-statistic Sign.
Temperature too warm 2.87 3.07 1.40 NS
Temperature too cold 2.87 3.06 1.02 NS
Lighting too dim 3.53* 2.67 6.09 <0.01
Lighting too bright/glaring 3.59* 2.35 9.91 <0.01
Insufficient ventilation 2.89 3.13 1.37 NS
Too drafty 3.45* 2.46 7.16 <0.01
Too little air movement 2.90 3.09 1.10 NS
Air too dry 3.29 2.78 3.39 <0.01
Air too humid 3.60 2.49 8.72 <0.01
Distracting ambient noises 2.72 3.29* 3.14 <.010
Unpleasant odour in the air 3.32* 2.79 3.72 <0.01
Stale air 3.17 2.86 1.87 NS
Dusty air 3.33* 2.71 4.01 <0.01
Electrostatic shocks 3.55* 2.47 8.23 <0.01
* physical conditions that were better
Table 5
Comparisons of physical work conditions from T1 to T2 – Green Building group
Physical environment condition T1 T2 t-statistic Sign.
Temperature too warm 2.80 3.23* 3.55 <0.01
Temperature too cold 2.95 3.06 0.97 NS
Lighting too dim 3.37* 2.68 6.94 <0.01
Lighting too bright/glaring 3.55* 2.34 14.30 <0.01
Insufficient ventilation 2.76 3.23* 3.58 <0.01
Too drafty 3.62* 2.44 12.26 <0.01
Too little air movement 2.75 3.17* 3.16 <0.01
Air too dry 2.94 2.99 0.04 NS
Air too humid 3.69* 2.34 16.93 <0.01
Distracting ambient noises 2.37 3.48* 9.02 <0.01
Unpleasant odour in the air 3.16* 2.78 3.57 <0.01
Stale air 2.96 2.83 1.13 NS
Dusty air 2.86* 2.57 2.49 <0.05
Electrostatic shocks 3.53* 2.23 15.61 <0.01
* physical conditions that were better
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical 3821
4. Discussion
Contrary to a number of the green building ac-
creditation claims, the Green Building group did not
consistently produce significantly better psychologi-
cal and physical wellbeing or perceived productivity
gains from Time 1 to Time 2. Noise levels, thermal
comfort (specifically an appropriately warm building),
ventilation levels, and air movement were all signifi-
cantly better in the Green Building at Time 2. The
findings for noise and thermal comfort were contrary
to a large proportion of the previous studies [17] [9]
[25] [33]. The improvements in ventilation and air
movement were consistent with previous research
[25].
Green Building group respondents perceived that
the lighting conditions, dust, draftiness, and odours in
their workplace had significantly worsened. The find-
ing with respect to lighting was consistent with a
good proportion of previous findings [1] [17] [20] but
the results for dust, drafts, and air quality were not.
The reduction in lighting conditions was not surpris-
ing given that the organisation struggled with the
commissioning of the advanced lighting system. The
GreenStar certification process did not impact di-
rectly on the physical and psychological wellbeing of
building occupants (although impacts may be indirect
or imperceptible – e.g. off-gassing from paints and
adhesives) in this study.
Kellert [20] refers to ‘green’ architectural design
specifications (e.g. LEED, BREEAM, GreenStar,
etc.) as being “low environmental impact design” (p.
120) that may lead to reduced environmental impact
but not to “enhancing and restoring positive contact
between people and nature [that] can foster human
well-being and productivity” (p. 122). From this we
suggest that these ‘green’ building specifications,
while better overall for the environment, may not
automatically lead to improved physical and psycho-
logical wellbeing or perceived productivity gains.
Heerwagen [14] notes specifically with regards to
indoor environmental quality in green buildings: “it’s
not how green you make it – it’s how you make it
green” (p. 353). There are several recommendations
from the literature on how to do this. Based on find-
ings from the Building User Survey, Leaman [21]
proposes that rapid responses to conditions (through
personal control over environmental conditions [14]);
focusing on discomfort alleviation; communicating
the design intent; reducing technological complexity;
and understanding the dynamics of occupation den-
sity are the key factors in ensuring employee wellbe-
ing and productivity in buildings. Heerwagen and
Hase [16] take a slightly different approach suggest-
ing that designers should focus on biophilic design
(i.e. design that connects humans to nature). This
would involve designing buildings where windows
give natural daylight and views to natural landscapes,
gathering places outdoors, and passive viewing of
nature inside buildings (e.g. water, plants, and ani-
mals). According to Heerwagen and Hase [16] bio-
philic buildings should provide refuge, water, biodi-
versity, sensory variability, biomimicry, playfulness,
and enticement. Certainly, there is a growing body of
literature supporting the idea that the incorporation of
nature into our built environment has positive wellbe-
ing benefits [18] and higher productivity [23] [31].
Study limitations include the fact that only one or-
ganisation was used and the sample size (while rea-
sonable for a longitudinal study) was relatively small.
The Time 1 measurement was taken in May/June (in
the middle of winter just before/during the transition)
and the Time 2 measurement was taken in Decem-
ber/January (in the middle of summer, six months
after relocation). It is possible that: (a) the different
times of year may mask any real underlying differ-
ences (e.g. the end of the year holidays versus the
middle of year colds); or (b) the time period of six
months may be insufficient to measure any real dif-
ferences. Heerwagen [15] for example, reported using
a nine months interval in their study of Herman Mil-
ler’s green building. Many organisational change
interventions produce feelings of uncertainty and
disorientation especially immediately preceding and
following a change intervention [29]. Employees
often find the change process itself stressful and take
time to accustomise to the change/s. Heerwagen [15]
noted that most organisations experience a drop in
productivity when workers move, so perhaps a non-
significant difference six months after a move might
be indicative of improved productivity in the future.
It could be that we have taken measurements at a
point where the advantages of the changes are now
beginning to take effect but there has not yet been
sufficient time to see improvements. Follow-up in-
vestigations are proposed.
References
[1] S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus, D. Lehrer & C. Huizenga, Occu-
pant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green
buildings, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, Lisbon, Vol. III,
2006, pp. 365-370.
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical
3822
[2] G. Baird, Incorporating user performance criteria into Building
Sustainability Rating Tools (BSRTs) for buildings in operation,
in Sustainability, 1, 2009, pp. 1069-1086.
[3] G. Baird, Sustainable Buildings in Practice What the Users
Think, 2010, Routledge, New York.
[4] C. Biron, J. Brun, H. Ivers & C.L. Cooper, At work but ill:
psychosocial work environment and well-being determinants
of presenteeism propensity, in J. Pub. Mental Health, 5, 2006,
pp. 26-37.
[5] B. Birt & G.R. Newsham, Post-occupancy evaluation of en-
ergy and indoor environment quality in green buildings: a re-
view, in 3rd International Conference on Smart and Sustain-
able Built Environments, Delft, Netherlands, June 15-19, 2009,
pp. 1-7.
[6] R. Bunn, R. Tales from the Rivergreen. BSRIA Delta T, 2007,
pp. 12-16.
[7] G.W. Evans, The built environment and mental health, J.
Mental Health, 80, 2003, pp. 536-555.
[8] W.J. Fisk, Health and productivity gains from better indoor
environments and their relationship with building energy effi-
ciency, in Ann. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 2000, pp. 537-566.
[9] K.M. Fowler & G.M. Rauch, Assessing green building per-
formance: a post-occupation evaluation of 12 GSA buildings,
in U.S. General Services Administration Report, 2008, avail-
able from:
www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/GSA_Assessing_Green_Full_Rep
ort.pdf [accessed August 2011]
[10] K. Gowri, Green building rating systems: an overview, in
ASHRAE Journ., 46, 2004, pp. 56-60.
[11] A. Hedge, The sprouting of “green” ergonomics, in HFES
Bull., 51, 2008, pp. 1-3.
[12] L. Heschong, R.L. Wright & S. Okura, Daylighting impacts on
human performance in school, in J. Illumin. Engin. Soc.,
Summer, 2002, pp. 101-114.
[13] A. Hedge, W.A. Erickson & G. Rubin, Predicting sick build-
ing syndrome at the individual and aggregate levels, in Envi-
ronment International, 22, 1996, pp. 3-19.
[14] J. Heerwagen, Green buildings, organizational success, and
occupant productivity, in Building Res. Inform., 28, 2000a, pp.
353-367.
[15] J. Heerwagen, Do green buildings enhance the well being of
workers, in Environ. Design + Const. Mag., 2, 2000b, pp. 24-
30.
[16] J. Heerwagen & B. Hase, Building biophilia: connecting peo-
ple to nature in building design. Environ. Design + Const.
Mag., 3, 2001, pp. 30-36
[17] J. Heerwagen & L. Zagreus, The human factors of sustainable
building design: post occupancy evaluation of the Phillip Mer-
rill Environmental Center, 2005, available from:
www.wbdg.org/pdfs/human_factors_cbf.pdf [accessed August
2011].
[18] R. Kaplan, The role of nature in the context of the workplace,
in Landscape & Urban Planning, 26, 1993, pp. 193-201
[19] G. Kats, The costs and financial benefits of green buildings, in
California Sustainable Building task Force, Sacramento, 2003.
[20] S.R. Kellert, Building for life: designing an understanding the
human-nature connection, in Washington: Island press, 2005
[21] A. Leaman, human factors: the bottom line, in Ecolibrium,
December, 2009, pp. 36-38.
[22] A. Leaman, L. Thomas & M. Vandenberg, 'Green' buildings:
what Australian building users are saying, in EcoLibrium, No-
vember, 2007, pp. 22-31.
[23] V.I. Lohr, C.H. Pearson-Mims & G.K. Goodwin, Interior
plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a
windowless environment, in J. Environ. Horticulture, 14, 1996,
pp. 97–100.
[24] P. Paevere & S. Brown, Indoor environment quality and occu-
pant productivity in the CH2 building: post-occupancy sum-
mary, 2008, CSIRO, available from
http://melbourne.vic.gov.au/Environment/CH2/Evaluation/Do
cuments/CH2_Post_Occupancy_Summary.doc [accessed Au-
gust 2011]
[25] W.L. Paul & P.A. Taylor, A comparison of occupant comfort
and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional
building, in Build. & Environ., 43, 2008, pp. 1858-1870.
[26] J.J. Romm. & W.D. Browning, Greening the building and the
bottom line, Rocky Mountain Institute Snowmass, 1994.
[27] M. Schweitzer, L. Gilpin & S. Frampton, Healing spaces:
elements of environmental design that make an impact on
health., in J. Alt. Compl. Med., 10, 2004, S71-S83.
[28] Sustainability Victoria, Employee productivity in a sustainable
building: pre- and post-occupancy studies in 500 Collins Street,
2006, available from:
www.resourcesmart.vic.gov.au/.../500_Collins_Productivity_S
tudy.pdf [accessed August 2011].
[29] V. Swanson & K. Power, Employees’ perceptions of organiza-
tional restructuring: the role of social support, in Work &
Stress, 15, 2001, pp. 161-178.
[30] R. Tennant, L. Hiller, R. Fishwick, S. Platt, S. Joseph, S.
Weich, J. Parkinson, J. Secker, J. & S. Stewart-Brown, The
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS):
development and UK validation, in Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 5, 2007, p. 63.
[31] C.M. Tennessen & B. Cimprich, Views to nature: affects on
attention, in J. Environ. Psych., 15, 1995, pp. 77-85.
[32] L.E. Thomas & G. Baird, Torrent Research Centre, Ahmeda-
bad, Gujarat, India, in G. Baird (ed.), Sustainable Buildings in
Practice What the Users Think, 2010, Routledge, New York,
pp. 313-323.
[33] US Green Building Council – Chicago Chapter, Regional
green building case study project: a post occupancy study of
LEED projects in Illinois, 2009, available from:
http://www.usgbc-illinois.org/?p=3809 [accessed August
2011].
[34] J.P. Wanous, A.E. Reichers & M.J. Hudy, M.J., Overall job
satisfaction: how good are single-item measures, in J. Appl.
Psych., 82, 1997, pp. 247-252.
A
. Thatcher and K. Milner / The Impact o
f
a ‘Green’ Buildin
g
on Emplo
y
ees’ Ph
y
sical 3823
