The health of our planet is clearly important – but there are reasons other than the earth’s wellbeing to build and work green.
Allen, MacNaughton, Satish, Santanam, Vallarino and Spengler (results published in Environmental Health Perspectives), studied people who worked in a green environment and found that their higher order cognitive function was enhanced there.
More specifically: “On average, cognitive scores were 61% higher on the Green building day and 101% higher on the two Green+ building days than on the Conventional building day…VOCs and CO2 were independently associated with cognitive scores… Cognitive function scores were significantly better in Green+ building conditions compared to the Conventional building conditions for all nine functional domains.” Examples of the cognitive functions tested include: decision making, developing strategies and responding to crises.
The team shares details of their process: study participants “on different days…were exposed to IEQ conditions representative of Conventional (high volatile organic compound (VOC) concentration) and Green (low VOC concentration) office buildings in the U.S. Additional conditions simulated a Green building with a high outdoor air ventilation rate (labeled Green+) and artificially elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels independent of ventilation.”
In 2007, Leaman and Bordass surveyed people across the United Kingdom and found that people working in environmentally responsible buildings felt better about the image presented by their building and the way the building met their needs than people who were working in conventional buildings. They were also more tolerant of comfort-related problems (e.g., temperature, ventilation, noise, lighting) in green buildings than workers in conventional buildings were of similar issues.
Newsham, Birt, Arsenault, Thompson, Veitch, Mancini, Galasiu, Gover, Macdonald and Burns (2013) conducted a post-occupancy review of 12 green buildings in Canada and the northern United States, and found that, “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.”
Galen Cranz and her team at the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a post-occupancy evaluation of a new green office building (the David Brower Center, Berkeley, CA; 50,000 square feet; LEED Platinum; Cranz, Lindsey, Morhayim, and Lin, 2014). They share that “Even though prior research shows that user reaction to specific features of green buildings is negative or mixed (lighting and thermal comfort varies across green buildings, and acoustics are negatively rated in most cases), overall building satisfaction is high…This is probably because of the buildings’ green label: It seems that people feel good about being affiliated with a green building.”
Finally, the GSA conducted a post-occupancy evaluation of 12 environmentally responsible buildings in its portfolio (2008). The GSA study was unusual because it assessed the environmental, financial and psychological implications of building design features simultaneously. The buildings assessed scored above average on polls of occupant satisfaction:
“The study provides important new evidence that occupant satisfaction is higher in sustainably designed buildings. Occupant satisfaction is important because it correlates with personal and team performance. That often means higher productivity and creativity for an organization.”
In buildings that had lower levels of occupant satisfaction, “The (GSA) study found that occupant satisfaction is undermined by poor acoustics, lighting, and maintenance problems. A low level of ambient noise, a lack of sound masking, and a perceived lack of privacy make acoustic quality worse.”
Green building is good for the earth and the performance of the organizations that cover it.
Joseph Allen, Piers MacNaughton Usha Satish, Suresh Santanam, Jose Vallarino, and John Spengler. 2016. “Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 124, no. 6, http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/.
Galen Cranz, Georgia Lindsey, Lusi Morhayim, and Annie Lin. 2014. “Communicating Sustainability: A Postoccupancy Evaluation of the David Brower Center.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 826-847.
General Services Administration Public Buildings Service, Office of Applied Science. 2008. “Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings.”
Adrian Leaman and Bill Bordass. 2007. “Are Users More Tolerant of ‘Green’ Buildings.” Building Research and Information, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 662–673.
Guy Newsham, Benjamin Birt, Chantal Arsenault, Alexandra Thompson, Jennifer Veitch, Sandra Mancini, Anca Galasiu, Bradford Gover, Iain Macdonald, and Gregory Burns. 2013. “Do ‘Green’ Buildings Have Better Indoor Environments? New Evidence.” Building Research and Information, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 415-434.