Ghanbariazarneir, S.; Maskell, D.; Darby, A.; Heshmati, K. and Walker, I. (2026) The relationship between temperature, relative humidity, and productivity in workplace settings. Building Research & Information, 54(5), pp. 611-631. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Despite most people spending the majority of their time indoors, especially at work, the impact of indoor environments on productivity remains largely unmeasured. While decarbonization efforts prioritize environmental benefits, their unintended effects on indoor environmental quality and worker productivity have not been fully assessed through both objective and subjective methods. This study is the first to examine the relationship between indoor environmental quality, well-being, and productivity, using both forms of measurement. Volunteers experienced 12 hygrothermal (temperature and relative humidity) conditions in a simulated office at the University of Bath's VSimulator. Cognitive tests and questionnaires assessed productivity. A mixed-effects model evaluated the influence of these conditions, alongside participant characteristics, such as sex, geographical background, and first language. Results showed that both objective and subjective productivity followed inverted-U-shaped patterns, declining when temperatures deviated from optimal levels. Notably, the optimal range was broader for objective than subjective measures, indicating that people may feel discomfort without it reducing their performance. While relative humidity alone had no significant effect, its combination with temperature influenced self-reported productivity. These findings underscore the importance of optimizing indoor environments to support both subjective and objective productivity, carrying major financial implications for organizations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cognitive functions; indoor environment quality; productivity; relative humidity; subjective productivity; temperature |
| Index terms: | well-being, relative humidity, indoor environment, discomfort, productivity, volunteer, cognitive test, indoor environmental quality, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | mental health and wellbeing, health risk and incident analysis, environmental health, practitioner, environmental science, air quality, data collection methods, cognitive psychology, management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here