Resultados de los Cuestionarios o Ficha de Evaluación del Protocolo

This literature review enables the researcher to define the concepts used in this study, such as QoL, QWL, and IEQ. It also helps to review the GBRSs and the LEED-criteria in the context of QoL, environment-behavior, and environmental psychology; hence, criticize the IEQ criteria of LEED, address its shortcomings, and question whether it is addressing sufficient measures to improve occupants’ QoL. The literature also led to the determination of IEQ variables and measuring indicators that will be investigated in this study. The relevant theories provide a better understanding of what to expect from a quality work environment. They provide an understanding of what aspects to be considered to propose a theoretical framework that could potentially guide the assessment criteria of IEQ in office buildings. This theoretical framework aims to provide a sustainable and humane work environment for a better QoL than what is already applied in conventional or LEED-certified office buildings.

Studies indicate that QoL is composed of several life domains, where QWL is one of them, and that the work environment may influence the QWL and the quality of work done (productivity). Hence, investment in comfortable work environments builds the premises for occupants’ health, comfort, and productivity (overall QoL), fulfilling the social and economical dimensions of sustainable development.

There is mounting evidence that the IEQ of buildings can affect their occupants physically (e.g., with Ambient Conditions like temperature, humidity, light, acoustics, and IAQ), physiologically (e.g., especially with Sick Building Syndrome symptoms of asthma, eyestrain, headache, nausea, etc.), socially (e.g., with the amount of interaction and collaboration, etc.), psychologically (e.g., by producing stress, anxiety, emotions, etc.), and functionally (e.g., by affecting the ability to get their work done). All of these aspects impact occupants’ satisfaction, health, comfort, and productivity (Herbst. 1962; Lawler, 1975; Walton, 1980; Haynes, 2007; Arnold, 2004; Heerwagen et al., 2004; Ochoa & Capeluto, 2006; Vischer, 2007; Fischer & Vischer, 2004).

Occupants’ favourable features in green building design include views, natural light, natural ventilation, high quality of air, and control over their environment (Leaman & Bordass,

2007). However, these features are not measured in the LEED checklist and credit score, as the LEED IEQ category is composed mainly of six main factors: IAQ, Low-Emitting Materials, Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control, Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort, and Daylighting and Views. Hence, aspects such as control of glare and connectivity with nature (views, plants, water, etc.) are examples of favorable design features in green buildings that are not addressed in LEED.

Studies on the IEQ of green buildings, and LEED-certified buildings specifically, have shown many user complaints. Light and acoustic qualities were a standout complaint with most of the reported studies. Other complaints included lack of visual privacy and difficulties with controllability of systems. Another issue was the increased use of daylight, and that while it saves on energy consumption and there is a psychological benefit, it does, however, create more glare, produces thermal gain, and may result in insufficient lighting on days with cloudy sky conditions (Abbaszadeh et al., 2006; Lee & Guerin, 2009; Turner, 2006).

Furthermore, studies comparing green/LEED-certified buildings to conventional buildings do not seem to corroborate that green buildings are superior, despite improvements perceived by occupants in some areas related to the IEQ in green buildings. There are still some areas in the IEQ where conventional buildings showed better results and were more favorable by the occupants, such as in the Acoustics Quality, Lighting Quality, and more comprehensible Control of Systems or over the environmental conditions (Abbaszadeh et al., 2006; Leaman & Bordass, 2007; Lee & Kim, 2008). Moreover, some studies didn’t show significant differences between occupants’ responses regarding the IEQ in LEED or conventional office buildings (Paul & Taylor, 2008; Woo, 2010). The objective of green buildings’ design is to improve occupants’ health, comfort, and productivity, which are supposed to provide a better QoL than conventional buildings. Hence, it is required to know whether buildings designed with a green intent, and especially those evaluated under the LEED GBRS, are actually performing as expected, and whether the sustainable building design goals and targets are achieved in practice.

By reviewing the previously comparative studies between green/LEED and conventional buildings, the following aspects were found: The major sources of improvements found in LEED/green buildings were mainly associated with the IAQ, Furnishings, Image, Cleanliness

and Maintenance (Abbaszadeh et al., 2006; Lee & Kim, 2008). IAQ is an essential quality influencing occupants’ Health and Physical Comfort, which in turn is expressed in occupants’ Satisfaction and Perceived Performance. The improved IAQ in LEED/green buildings was mainly due to design features that encourage natural ventilation and the minimization or improved control of toxic or volatile materials. Regarding the Furnishings, Image, Cleanliness and Maintenance, it has been suggested that LEED/green buildings are relatively newer than conventional ones and hence their newer furnishings and design look better, which could easily explain occupants’ higher level of satisfaction with these aspects.

Occupants’ perceptions of Thermal Comfort range from satisfactory, insignificant improvement, to unsatisfactory in green buildings. Studies that showed less comfort with Thermal Comfort in LEED-certified buildings found it perceived by occupants as either too hot or too cold (Paul & Taylor, 2008; Leaman et al., 2007; Leaman & Bordass, 2007). This might be due to systems operating ineffectively in green buildings, raising the important issue of maintenance and regular checks. Notably, LEED-certified building ratings are given at the time of certification, but there is no guarantee for their performance afterwards.

Furthermore, there is a gap between occupants’ overall assessment of Comfort, Satisfaction, or Performance and the individual assessment of each IEQ in LEED-certified buildings. The overall assessments were perceived as better in LEED/green buildings. However, when individual IEQ factors are broken down, there were no significant improvements in many IEQ factors such as Acoustics, Lighting, Layout, and Thermal Comfort (Huizenga et al., 2005; Abbaszadeh et al., 2006, Lee & Kim, 2008).

Gaps and limitations in the literature show a need for more studies about occupants’ experience in LEED-certified buildings. The number of IEQ factors tested in previous literature is limited. There is a lack of studies that address occupants’ responses using qualitative methods or mixed-methods approaches; the most common tool used was questionnaires. This limits the results of previous research into the testing of prescriptive IEQ factors without having an opportunity of exploring and documenting other influential factors on occupants’ QoL—or listening to the occupants’ justifications of assessment. In addition, there is a lack of models that consider the levels of meaning of IEQ in green buildings. There is a necessity for having a comprehensive assessment framework for the IEQ in green

buildings that can consider both humane and sustainable aspects for an improved inclusive occupants’ QoL. As stated by Scott,

“Should green buildings not only work differently, but also look, feel, and be conceived

differently?. . . Sustainability is as much about enhancing culture, livability, health, and place-making as it is about the development and application of technology for reducing energy dependence, CO2 production, and mitigating the abundant use of resources.”

(Scott, 2006)