Action: Discuss the importance of indoor environmental quality vs. energy reduction by analyzing the breakdown of operating costs (e.g. rent, staff, energy, maintenance) in a typical office building. Indicate how this information may influence decisions regarding energy efficiency measures.
Student A:
When considering the financial benefits of energy efficient measures for an office building, most people think of the direct financial value of the reduced operating costs from lower energy usage. The complex relationship that these energy efficient measures has with occupant comfort, well-being, health, and productivity is still, too often, overlooked (Brager, 2013).
Most people spend 90% of their time indoor. In addition, 80-90% of the costs of an office building are related with workers’ pay, compared to only 1% being linked to the energy usage of a building (Brager, 2013). The financial benefits of even small improvements in the productivity of staff, or anything that impacts their ability to be productive through better Indoor environmental quality are significantly higher than those of energy use savings (Brager, 2013).
The term Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) describes the relationship between occupant comfort, well-being, health, and productivity, with the indoor environmental factors, thermal comfort, (day)lighting, acoustics and air quality. There is a large body of research available on this subject which finds significantly reduced illness symptoms, reduced absenteeism and increases in perceived productivity in office buildings with good indoor environmental quality over workers in a group that lacked these features (Health Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices., 2014) (Brager, 2013).
Furthermore, a good indoor environmental quality (IEQ) positively encourages health and wellbeing, and stimulate productivity. Design strategies that makes this possible put users in personal control of their personal indoor environment, maximize daylight, increase fresh airflows with natural ventilation, limit C02 levels and pollutants in the air and have a passive design where possible (Brager, 2013) (Health Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices., 2014).
The estimated financial cost associated with poor IEQ range in the hundreds of billion a year. Considering the potential return on investment of tackling these costs should be at the top of designers list, above energy reduction (Brager, 2013).
Student B:
Energy consumption in buildings has become an essential part of the EU’s energy policy. In the European Union buildings accounts for around 40 percent of total energy consumption and produce around 37 percent of the overall carbon emissions. National energy reduction policies for buildings have been set up to meet the EU roadmap reduction from 88 percent to 91 percent of 1990 CO2 levels by 2050 (Clements-Croome, 2014).
There is allot of research result available on the environmental conditions, temperature and indoor air quality and their effects on performance. Without the proper understanding of human requirements there is a risk that energy reduction policies for buildings may negatively affect the environmental conditions and peoples’ happiness, well-being and productivity (Clements-Croome, 2014).
On a daily basis, human beings are exposed to drivers that act on the environmental systems and result in levels or states of sound, light, heat and air quality that can disturbs or stimulate the sensory systems in an undesirable or desirable way, which will affect health and work performance positively or negatively (Clements-Croome, 2014).
When you add the consideration that most people spend about 90% of their lives in buildings, designing the internal environment to limit the possibilities of infectious disease, allergies and asthma, and building related health symptoms, referred to as ‘Sick Building symptoms(SBS)’, becomes imperative (Clements-Croome, 2014). Some research questioned the causal factors of SBS as perhaps biased to those who complain more than others, or those who are more sensitive and more susceptible to environmental influences. Every building, person and environment and hence their perception differs from one another. Emotions and reactions from a host of stimuli can be subject by one perceived negative or positive factor which tilts the judgement. With objective data and collection systems using modern developments such as wireless sensor networks connecting people to their environment and building one can obtain measured data in real time. Nevertheless, the results of research on the subject clearly shows that people can feel unwell when they are working in a poor internal environment but recover when they leave it. Designers should aim to satisfy the most sensitive people rather than design for average preferences, that neglect individual differences (Clements-Croome, 2014).
Fisk (1999) and Clements-Croome (2000a,b) calculated that the salaries of workers exceeds the typical office buildings energy and maintenance costs and the annual construction rental costs by a factor of at least 25. Evans et al (1998) concluded that business costs, including salaries, exceeded operating costs by 40:1 and capital costs by 200:1.
The false perception is that the possible increase in costs when designing buildings that add value to the user experience and limit environmental is without payback. However, considering the total lifecycle cost, the payback period will be under 3 years (Clements-Croome, 2014).
With an integral multi-disciplinary design approach, a balanced set of design measures can be implemented that create and maintain a good indoor environmental quality and reduce energy usage as well (Clements-Croome, 2014).
Student A and B:
When it comes to energy efficiency and occupants comfort, the design objectives for office buildings is one of health risk and economic consequences. Today buildings account for 40 percent of total energy consumption and produce around 37 percent of the overall carbon emissions. There is a clear need, understanding and political willpower for reducing the energy usage of buildings (Clements-Croome, 2014).
It is common practice to express financial benefits of design measures for an office building in the value of the reduced operating costs from lower energy usage. However, there is a complex relationship that these energy efficient measures have with occupant comfort, well-being, health, and productivity (Brager, 2013). Without the proper understanding of the human requirements of the users, there is a risk that energy reduction policies for buildings may negatively affect the environmental conditions and occupant’s happiness, well-being and productivity (Clements-Croome, 2014). The design of office buildings should concentrate on user-centered design principles and on satisfying the occupant within the workplace, because the organizational performance is a factor associated with the individual (Clements-Croome, 2014).
The estimated financial cost associated with poor Indoor environmental quality range in the hundreds of billion a year (Clements-Croome, 2014). Considering the potential return on investment of tackling these costs should be at the top of designers list, above energy reduction. Furthermore, a good indoor IEQ positively encourages health and wellbeing, and stimulate productivity. Design strategies that make this possible put users in personal control of their personal indoor environment, maximize daylight, increase fresh airflows with natural ventilation, limit C02 levels and pollutants in the air and have a passive design where possible (Clements-Croome, 2014) (Brager, 2013) (Health Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices., 2014).
There are a lot of good designs that work well for both energy reduction and occupants. However, to say that most energy efficient measures are automatically measures that make occupants healthier and more productive or vice versa, will be far too simple. For instance, maximizing daylight could require a designed balance of heat gain and loss, smart controls of lighting fixtures, interior and exterior blinds to cope with the variations in daylight availability in different seasons and climates. Another example is the use of chilled beams rather than fan-coil units, this can reduce background sound to below desired levels for masking distracting noises. Even passive design measure like exposed thermal mass for night cooling can assist the propagation of distracting sounds and results in more aural discomfort (Health Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices., 2014).
However, with an integral multi-disciplinary design approach, a balanced set of design measured can be implemented that create and maintain a good indoor environmental quality and reduce energy usage as well.
References:
- Brager, G. S. (2013). Benefits of improving occupant comfort and well-being in buildings. In Proceedings of the 4th international Holcim forum for sustainable construction: The economy of sustainable construction (pp. 181-194).
- Clements-Croome, D.J. (2014). Sustainable Intelligent Buildings for Better Health, Comfort and
- Well-being. Report for Denzero Project. European Union: Brussels.
- World Green Building Council. (2014). Health Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices. Retrieved from
- World Green Building Council site: http://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/health-wellbeing-and-productivity-offices-next-chapter-green-building