Newsham, G R; Birt, B J; Arsenault, C; Thompson, A J L; Veitch, J A; Mancini, S; Galasiu, A D; Gover, B N; MacDonald, I A and Burns, G J (2013) Do green buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Building Research & Information, 41(4), pp. 415-434. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of 12 green and 12 conventional office buildings across Canada and the northern United States was conducted. Occupants (N = 2545) completed an online questionnaire related to environmental satisfaction, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, health and well-being, environmental attitudes, and commuting. In each building on-site physical measurements at a sample of workstations (N= 974) were taken, including: thermal conditions, air quality, acoustics, lighting, workstation size, ceiling height, window access and shading, and surface finishes. Green buildings exhibited superior performance compared with similar conventional buildings. Better outcomes included: environmental satisfaction, satisfaction with thermal conditions, satisfaction with the view to the outside, aesthetic appearance, less disturbance from heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) noise, workplace image, night-time sleep quality, mood, physical symptoms, and reduced number of airborne particulates. A variety of physical features led to improved occupant outcomes across all buildings, including: conditions associated with speech privacy, lower background noise levels, higher light levels, greater access to windows, conditions associated with thermal comfort, and fewer airborne particulates. Green building rating systems might benefit from further attention in several areas, including: credits related to acoustic performance, a greater focus on reducing airborne particulates, enhanced support for the interdisciplinary design process and development of POE protocols.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; environmental assessment; green buildings; indoor environment; leadership in energy and environmental design; occupant satisfaction; post-occupancy evaluation |
| Index terms: | satisfaction, design process, United States, Canada, ventilation, office building, indoor environment, particulate, job satisfaction, health and wellbeing, aesthetic, building performance, organizational commitment, environmental design, post-occupancy evaluation, green building, evidence, privacy, questionnaire, thermal comfort, finishes, occupant satisfaction, sleep quality, mood, window, air quality, environmental assessment, shading |
| Subjects: | design methods, climate science, environmental impact, user-centered design, mental health and wellbeing, air quality, construction type, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, evaluation methods, project delivery, environmental science, sustainability and energy, building materials, Geography, factor and component analysis, building design, management, design practice, architectural elements, environmental engineering, quality assurance, behavioral psychology, environmental health, professional ethics, sociology, health conditions and diseases |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Human Resources, Quality Management |
| 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