Influences of IEQ in General
People spend most of their time indoors, where the effects of the indoor environment on their QoL could be numerous. Even though we can be unconscious of our surroundings if we are busy with tasks, there is a general agreement that buildings’ indoor environments affect occupants in many ways: Places affect us “beyond their biological effects, they make us feel
uncomfortable and ill-at-ease, energetic and stimulated or relaxed and at peace. . .They can work so deeply into our being that they affect our state of health” (Day, 2002).
Several factors may alter the quality of the indoor environment, such as Connectivity with Nature (through views, indoor plants, daylighting); IAQ; Lighting; and Thermal Comfort (temperature) are also responsible. Studies concerned with Connectivity with Nature show that exposure to nature affects our mental fatigue (Kaplan, 1995). Kuo and Sullivan (2001) suggested that vegetation in public housing could reduce crime and aggressiveness; according to them, the greener the surrounding, the lower level of fear, violence, and incivility within residents. Vegetation and water could reduce stress (Schroeder, 1991) and are “natural tranquilizers” (Berg, van den Top, & Kranendonk, 1998). Other studies showed an influence of nature on restorative ability: Ulrich’s (1984) hospital study found higher rates of recovery for patients with windows in rooms that had natural views. Daylighting is found to affect the emotional well-being of people; a study conducted by Heschong, Wright, and Okura (2002) in a school building suggested that students in day-lit classrooms were found to be happier. IAQ also impacts occupants’ health, and improved Light and Temperature can increase productivity (Fisk, Price, Faulkner, Sullivan, & Dibartolomeo, 2002).
Influences of IEQ in Workspaces
“Specific features of office space, such as temperature, lighting, noise, privacy, physical comfort (i.e. furniture), and aesthetics such as the colour and texture of surfaces can affect the productivity, satisfaction and overall well-being of office workers. It may even affect their health or perceived health, as reflected in the number of sick days taken by an employee (further impacting productivity).” (Andrew, Chang, & Nicholson, 2008)
The IEQ of office workspaces is particularly essential, as the majority of the labor force in North America works in offices (Vischer, 1989), and people may spend more than 50% of their time in office spaces. Offices are the primary focus of understanding a workplace in the Information Age (McCoy, 2002). The influence of these offices could have both direct and indirect impacts on the community: employees’ QoL might be directly affected, and the quality of work done by them might influence the quality of services provided to the rest of the community. To the contrary, well-performing work environments can promote health, comfort, and productivity (Ochoa & Capeluto, 2006; Vischer, 2007). A high-quality work environment provides many enriching merits to workers’ social lives, such as autonomy and responsibility, development of human capacity, promotion of positive work, supervision, and opportunities for advancement.
Years ago (in 1979), a popular multi-story conventional office building in Canada—the Terrasses de la Chaudiere near Ottawa—faced the problem of office workers who refused to work because they felt that the interior air was polluted and that they had suffered from repeatedly getting sick. Their complaints about the indoor air were announced to the public (The Citizen, 1979). Later, in 1980, another complaint was made about a pervading “stench” in the same building and that people suffered from nausea, dizziness, and headaches (The Citizen, 1980, 3). In Melbourne, Australia, a group of workers refused to go to their work at video display terminals due to their feeling of discomfort from bad lighting, uncomfortable furniture, muscle pain, repetitive strain injury, and joint swelling in different body areas, such as their wrists, arms, and necks (Vischer 1989). In another modern office building, a woman suffered from repeated headaches and eyestrain, keeping her unproductive and unwell; several attempts to solve the problem were undertaken, and finally it was discovered that the culprit was the glare caused by the artificial lighting reflected on her desk cover (Vischer 1989). Those results emphasize the importance of listening to the occupants and realizing that their lived experience may need to be addressed by altering codes, standards, and GBRSs assumptions about occupants’ health, comfort, and productivity. Such findings also give insights that can guide design decisions in the workplace, as well as focus on the need of incorporation of IEQ factors that depend on occupants’ lived experiences as indicators of quality.
In 1998, the popular cartoonist Scott Adams illustrated the office environment in his
Dilbert cartoons. As shown in Figure 5, he presented (very well) several occupants’ responses
toward their cubicles, underlining their complaints about the inadequate work environment. Influences of the IEQ in work environments on occupants’ QoL can be classified into physical, psychological, and functional influences.
Figure 5. The office environments in Scott Adams’ “Dilbert” cartoons
Source: Bauman, F. (2013). Thermal Comfort Research at the Center for the Built Environment, Center for the Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley, May 2013
Physical Influences of the Work Environment on Building Occupants
The physical influences of work environments include any impact on occupants’ physical health and safety. Many findings have identified links between employees’ health and aspects of the physical environment at work, such as IAQ, Ergonomic and Furniture, and Lighting (Dilani, 2004; Milton, Glencross, & Walters, 2000; Veitch & Newsham, 2000). Examples include nausea, runny nose, and irritated eyes, which are caused by toxins in the finishing
materials, furniture, contaminated indoor air, or lack of sufficient natural ventilation and circulation of indoor air. Similarly, the presence of toxic materials seems to cause building occupants to experience more headaches, dizziness, and tiredness (Wargocki, Wyon, Baik, Clausen, Fanger, 1999). Fisk et al. (2002) suggested that 16–37 million cases of colds and flu per year could be avoided by improving IAQ, resulting in $6–$14 billion in annual savings in the United States. Also, the symptoms of SBS could be reduced by 20–50%, resulting in $10– $30 billion in annual savings in the United States (Milton et al., 2000). Other influences of the physical work environment also include back and neck pain due to bad posture from uncomfortable furniture.
Psychological Influences of the Work Environment on Building Occupants Psychological influences caused by the indoor environments of workspaces are multiple, and they include stress, anxiety, depression, and lack of motivation; theories about the cause of stress due to environmental conditions have their origin in psychological studies undertaken several decades ago (Vischer, 2003).
A commonly-known psychological problem associated with the high-rise buildings (which constitute a popular component of modern office building complexes) is people’s complaint of being separated from nature (Haber, 1977). Kaplan et al. (1988) had earlier reported that office workers who have outdoor views of natural scenery like trees and grass have less job stress than workers whose views consist of built components like roads or buildings. Stress is one of the most common psychological influences caused by the indoor environment of workspaces (Vischer, 2003). Other features in the built environment that could affect occupants have been found to affect emotional well-being; Daylighting, for example, appears to make people happier (Heschong et al., 2002).
Functional Influences of the Work Environment on Building Occupants
The quality of work environments and how they influence employees’ productivity is an area of research that concerns architectural, environmental, and interior designers, managers and business owners, as well as the employees themselves. People are more likely to quit their jobs if they cannot bear their physical work environment (Vischer, 1989). Unsatisfactory
work environments not only affect employees; they also affect their organizations’ bottom- lines directly and indirectly. There is increasing evidence regarding the time and energy wasted by employees in coping with poorly-designed workspaces; this is of obvious interest to employers, who want their employees to invest their time and energy in work (Vischer, 2008). In addition to negative impacts caused by higher rates of absenteeism due to illness (asthma, eye strain, back & neck pains, etc.), there are other negative consequences to consider: low morale, less place-attachment, higher employee turnover, reduced motivation, stress, anxiety, reduced performance, less effective collaboration and communication. All contribute to difficulty in getting the work done, and any one of these factors is likely to affect organizational productivity (Vischer, 1989, 2003, 2008; Haynes, 2007; Arnold, 2004; Heerwagen et al., 2004; Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994). Studies have shown that improved light and temperature can increase productivity (Fisk, 2000). Further impacts on the workers’ performance or productivity include having an unsupportive work environment for the tasks performed; for example, difficulty in accessibility to equipment and resources and inefficiency accompanied with the length of time spent to fix uncomfortable situations.