What is more important; User control or centralised management of environmental conditions in office building?

“We shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us”, once proclaimed Winston Churchill in his speech to the House of Commons in 1943. Indeed, building design and building environment significantly affect an occupant’s health, performance, cognitive function, energy consumption, and working style (Allen & Macomber, 2020). Therefore, building design process must address energy demand, building form, construction, materials, operation and maintenance, and above all, the long-term needs of the occupants throughout the life cycle of buildings (Williams, 2007).

In the early twentieth century, European office buildings were designed with a cellular floor plan, and office spaces were arranged around a central corridor or an atrium (Jeska, 2002). There was a higher level of control in these arrangements as each worker was assigned to a personal office and could adjust lighting and windows according to their preferences. However, the advancement of building construction and technology changed the architectural designs of the workplace. The introduction of mechanical ventilation, centralized heating systems, and artificial lighting made deeper floor plans possible without the need for natural lighting and ventilation (Shahzad et, al., 2016). As a consequence, this type of design flourished, particularly in the US, where massive open-plan buildings were designed and built, such as the 1906 Sears Roebuck and Co. building, accommodating a marked increase in the number of employees in a special nine-story open-plan building (Nag, 2018). These open-plan offices were and continue to be designed to provide a large office area with no dividing walls or doors, making the workplaces equal for all (Nag). This type of layout was designed to be business-oriented; however, they did not respond to occupants’ individual needs; instead, they were designed to be cost-efficient, easy to renovate, set up, and flexible to organizational change (Jaein Jeong et al., 2008). Accordingly, user control in any sense was not considered – the focus was on maximizing occupancy.

Nonetheless, these designs, relying on centralized management of environmental conditions within the building, are problematic as they fail to consider the unique characteristics of individuals, their needs, and requirements (Jazizadeh et. al., 2014). While short-term costs may be saved in building open-concept spaces divided by cubicles, the long-term cost as a result of the effects on health, well-being, and productivity is questioned, thus making a case for designs that focus more on user control of the environmental conditions of a building. Therefore, this essay will explore problems with centralized management of environmental conditions and solutions on how user control resolves said problems, particularly focusing on the dimensions of health and well-being, thermal preferences, and ventilation.

Health and well-being – the problem with centralized management and user control solutions

One of the most common and serious health issues workers face is a decline in mental health due to work-related stress (Ferrie, 1997). Stress has tremendous consequences not only for individuals but also for organizations and governments, affecting the quality of work and potentially causing severe financial damage to both the individual and the company. In fact, it’s estimated that 40% of the absenteeism in US is related to stress, leading to an annual loss of $300 billion USD for businesses and the economy (Lamb & Kwok, 2016).Workplaces have tremendous effects on employees’ quality of life, as workers spend one-third of their life at work and 90% of their time indoors (Allen & Macomber, 2020). Evidence shows that stress at work is not only caused by workload and long working hours but inadequate Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) directly affects the performance and well-being of workers as it can significantly reduce self-reported work performance and objectively measured cognitive performance by between 2.4% and 5.8% in most situations, and by up to 14.8% in rare cases (Lamb & Kwok, 2016). Stress due to a poor indoor environment may reduce motivation, cause fatigue and distraction, leading to a reduction in physical and mental health and, indirectly, work performance (Lamb & Kwok). Improving IEQ will likely produce small but pervasive increases in productivity (Worthington, 2006).

An important aspect of the workplace that affects employees’ behaviour is the layout of office space and personal access to control environmental factors (Maher & von Hippel, 2005). Open-plan offices are problematic as they unequally distribute access to window space due to deep floor plans (Figure 1).

Consequently, only those around the perimeter have access to natural sunlight and operable windows that may provide fresh air. While this may be a benefit to the few who find themselves by the window, it also opens another set of problems for them too; they are now faced with the dilemma of personal comfort versus the comfort of all those around them when it comes to opening the window for air or uncovering to allow sunlight in. Workers in open-plan offices also complain about a lack of privacy due to the high occupancy of the workspaces and noise distraction and thermal discomfort (Inalhan, 2003). Analysis of open-plan offices show that there are more distractions in open-plan offices than in conventional offices with higher user control over their indoor environment (Hopkinson, 1966). Therefore, while open-plan offices are designed to be cost-efficient, they need to be designed to support individuals’ needs and preferences.

In contrast to open-plan offices, user-oriented workplaces are designed to respect users’ demands, where each worker is provided with a private working space to control lighting, thermals, and ventilation (Shahzad et al., 2016).

For example, in Norway, workplace regulations are made to protect workers’ rights by respecting individuals’ differences and perceptions of thermal comfort; each employee is provided with a private space (Figure 2) in which they have access to windows, user-friendly blinds, and individual temperature control (Shahzad et. al.). Measurable results were demonstrated, with 30% higher satisfaction rate in offices where users had entire control of thermal comfort (Shahzad et. al). As a result, greater personal control determines greater occupant health, well-being, and satisfaction (Kwon et. al., 2019).

Thermal preferences

Many modern workplaces utilize HVAC environmental control systems with centralized air conditioning and heating. However, without user-led decentralization, these systems cannot meet the diverse comfort requirements of occupants (Jazizadeh et. al., 2014). Most modern centralized HVAC systems suffer from two inherent problems. Firstly, they cannot meet the diverse comfort requirements of the occupants. Secondly, they heat or cool an entire zone even when it is only partially occupied (Kalaimani et al., 2018). In other words, centralized air conditioning systems are set to meet the preferences of the majority but contradictory to their intended purpose, studies show that users report dissatisfaction with thermal comfort in centrally controlled buildings simply because thermal comfort varies among people of different ages, genders, physiological, metabolic differences (ASHRAE, 2010).

There is also a problem of overcooling due to ill-planned air-conditioning systems. This is problematic for several reasons; it increases the energy requirement of the system, but it also creates discomfort for many occupants since overcooling exacerbates gender inequality in thermal comfort. Colder indoor temperatures disproportionately affect the thermal satisfaction of women (Parkinson et. al., 2021). With that in mind, this thermal inequality is not only a discomfort; it also comes with measurable differences in productivity and cognitive performance. A study about gender and the effects of temperature in the office revealed that women perform better at cognitive tasks in higher temperatures and more poorly in colder temperatures (Chang & Kajackaite, 2019). Conversely, men performed worse in warmer temperatures while better in cooler temperatures. While what is warm or cool is subjective and depends on the individual, with a temperature range of 16 to 33’C, females showed a statistically significant increase in performance when temperatures were on the warmer side of this range, while men performed better at the cooler side of the scale (Chang & Kajackaite).

What these two studies together reveal is the need for user control of individual spaces. Not only is this a justice issue of gender equality and equity, but it also has a direct effect on cognitive function, affecting job performance, quality of work, and the bottom line of a business operation. It demonstrates that business efficiency, productivity, and comfort are interlinked.

One solution proposed for this problem in existing spaces is through Personal Environmental Comfort Systems (PECS). These systems create a combination solution where individual occupants are provided with local fans, heating, and cooling devices for each individual space to counterbalance the overall climate of the office, and they work together with an adaptive system that manages them to create an optimal local climate (Boudier & Hoffmann, 2022). Nonetheless, are these truly a real long-term solution? Medical science shows us that space heaters and dermal-based heaters, for instance, seat warmers, leave users at risk of dermatological conditions such as “Toasted Skin Syndrome” (Haleem et. al., 2021). Furthermore, PECS do not resolve the issues of ventilation, in-office polluted air and reducing the spread of respiratory diseases like COVID-19. While it does provide a partial advantage in controlling the microclimate of the surrounding space, more is needed, and this next section will discuss the importance of adequate ventilation as we seek to find an optimal user-controlled system.

Ventilation in the COVID-19 era

One of the critical aspects of thermal comfort is ventilation; inadequate ventilation systems, which are commonly based on central control models, result in inefficient removal of pollutants from indoor air and display signs of sick building syndrome (SBS) among the occupants. While thermal control systems are designed to provide thermal comfort and fresh air and remove moisture, inadequately designed ventilation systems are associated with the prevalence of SBS (Nag, 2018). A study examining 7043 employees in 61 office buildings in the Netherlands demonstrates this; it revealed that poorly designed air conditioning systems and humidifiers were accountable for causing sick building syndrome among occupants (Preller et. al., 1990). However, when ventilation rates were increased and the effectiveness of the centralized system was improved in 176 office buildings in Kuala Lumpur, then a reduction in air pollutants and SBS was noted (Syazwan et al., 2009). Even with this improvement, severe problems still exist.

As a result of COVID-19, the workplace has forever changed, and serious problems arise with centralized ventilating systems as mechanically ventilated. Air-conditioned buildings not only increase CO2 and SBS symptoms (Nag, 2018), but the leakage in the air-handling unit and airflow between rooms are accountable for transmitting respiratory aerosols that can carry infectious agents (Afshari et al., 2021). To demonstrate this, an experiment was conducted to test the effect of HVAC on the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The results revealed that when a viral droplet designed to mimic SARS-CoV2 was released in one room, it was soon spread through the central ventilation system to other parts of the building (Vlachokostas et al., 2022).

Nonetheless, it was found that balanced ventilation systems providing fresh air and exhaust ventilation into each room do not spread airborne contaminants compared to the supply and exhaust ventilation systems (Afshari et al., 2021). To demonstrate this directly, a comparative study of ventilation systems of office buildings in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway was performed. Respectively, the buildings measured in each country had different implementations of ventilation systems, and the spread of airborne contaminants in each one was examined. Typical ventilation systems in Swedish offices (Figure 3) are designed to allow the air to flow from the offices to the corridors to be exhausted; this method, problematically, allows the spread of airborne contaminants into the corridors (Afshari et. al., 2021).

While airflow did not exchange between adjusting rooms, contaminants were not contained as it was still possible for contaminated air to be transmitted to those transiting the hallways. Similarly, in Denmark, ventilation systems pump air into each room (Figure 4), creating a difference in air pressure between rooms and allowing air exchange between the occupant rooms, increasing the spread of infections through wall cracks and openings (Afshari et. al.).

Nonetheless, finally, it was observed that the balanced ventilation system in Norway offices eliminated the spread of infections (Figure 5) because each room was equipped with fans and a duct system to inject and exhume the same level of air, allowing greater user control of ventilation without changing air pressure in the space thus preventing air flow between the offices (Afshari et. al.).

Thus, herein demonstrates the benefit of a user-control system with ventilation. The user-control system provides a dual-solution, providing those in the room with greater control of the climate and also protecting those in the room and the rest of the building from cross-contamination of pollutants and airborne pathogens.

Conclusion

In conclusion, user-controlled environmental conditions provide numerous benefits over the problematic centrally controlled systems. With user control, an increase in productivity and employee satisfaction may be provided, allowing individuals with different thermal needs to work and perform better in their desired environment. Furthermore, user-controlled systems are better suited to address the range of thermal preferences required in office spaces. This is particularly important in addressing the gender dimension of the workplace, as studies have been very clear with statistical significance that women are more productive in warmer temperatures.

PECS were briefly discussed as a possible solution; however, they may present a new set of health concerns. They also fail to resolve ventilation problems that ultimately require future office spaces to be designed with isolated offices utilizing the Norway model of the final section. As we continue to face an uncertain future of respiratory illnesses, future building designs must include considerations that provide user control and safety from spread of airborne diseases.

With that said, proponents of centralized systems may argue its efficiency in cost, and that such arrangements when it comes to open-office layouts are more social and conducive to social interaction and collaboration in the workplace. Nonetheless, these systems often deliver poor indoor environments and reduce employees’ health and mental well-being by using unrepresentative operations without considering human-related variables. They are not always energy efficient and do not always respond to users’ needs.

And finally, if future workplaces want to attract talented employees, they must provide proper environments that value innovation and employees’ demands to achieve productivity goals and generate breakthrough innovations. It’s crucial for the government and the private sector to establish regulations that ensure to preserve of workers’ rights and maintain their health, not only a businesses bottom line.

References:

Please contact to request references.