Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

Promoting energy services in offices: How do office workers see their role?
Satu Paiho *, Heidi Saastamoinen, Sami Karjalainen
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, P.O Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Since buildings account for approximately 40% of the energy consumption in EU, all the measures in increas-
Energy efficiency ing their energy efficiency should be promoted. Office workers' role in promoting energy services e.g. demand
Offices
response of the offices is not clear. It has not been assessed, what exactly the stakeholders involved in decision
End user role
making (employer, real estate manager, property owner) and in maintenance, service and implementation of
Demand response
new technologies (service companies, technology providers) are expecting from the office workers when pro-
moting the energy services. The active role of office workers is often seen just as an enabler of energy savings.
In this article, office workers' role and understanding about their potential means in promoting energy services
in offices was studied with quantitative on-line surveys and 17 stakeholder interviews in order to support the
selection of energy services targeted to these office workers. Interviewees saw office workers' possibilities to
promote energy efficiency or demand response actions limited but their acceptance of actions necessary. Other
stakeholders can affect to the office workers’ acceptance with various means (e.g. with proper communica-
tion) and that way increase office energy efficiency. However, participating to demand response actions re-
quires more extensive communication between stakeholders in order to be acceptable, not decrease working
efficiency nor damage the property. Office workers could consider more possibilities to promote energy effi-
ciency compared to what other stakeholders expected from them. However, most of them did not see partial
fixing of office conditions possible as the other stakeholders did with better view of limitations of the real es-
tate.

1. Introduction and literature review
Today, buildings account for approximately 40% of energy con-
sumption and 36% of CO2 emissions in EU [1] and without energy ef-
ficiency measures, these shares keep rising due to growing building
stock [2]. Demand-response, real time energy management and opti-
mized energy management are listed as good practice ICT measures
towards energy efficient buildings and enhancing comfort [2]. Ade-
quate ventilation, temperature and lighting are preconditions for
safety and healthiness of office workers and minimum requirements
for these conditions are set by the Council of the European Communi-
ties [3]. In addition, indoor conditions have huge impact on office oc-
cupants’ productivity [4].
Typically, Western people spend majority of their time indoors. In
a Finnish study [5], the 167 subjects spent over 80% of their time in-
doors. This emphasizes the importance of indoor conditions for occu-
pants. From this perspective it is easy to understand that D'Oca et al.
[6] highlight the research needs for integrating human dimensions
into the building operation. Furthermore, Hong et al. [7] summarize
that occupant behavior impacts on building energy performance have
been largely oversimplified or ignored throughout the entire process
of building operation. In addition, Heiskanen et al. [8] address the im-
portance of interacting between energy end-users and energy practi-
tioners. Zhang et al. [9] estimate the energy-saving potential related
to occupant behavior to be in the range of 5%–30% for commercial
buildings in their review of the role of occupant behavior in building
energy performance.
The user behavior related studies on residential buildings and pro-
viding feedback to the users for improved energy-efficiency are com-
mon, e.g., Ref. [10–13]. Vellei et al. [14] used in-depth energy, envi-
ronmental and motion sensing to generate real-time context-aware
feedback through a smartphone application and collected subjective
data and clothing levels through questionnaires. They conclude that
real-time feedback could lower radiator and room temperatures with-
out significantly affecting occupant thermal comfort. Nilsson et al.
[15] investigated the potential of home energy management systems

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Satu.Paiho@vtt.fi (S. Paiho).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101602
Received 2 December 2019; Received in revised form 27 April 2020; Accepted 19 June 2020
Available online 26 June 2020
2352-7102/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Paiho et al.
(HEMS) to foster reductions in energy use and concluded that impact
on energy consumption varies widely across individual households.
Hyvönen et al. [12] explored the possibilities of an Internet-based
monitoring and feedback service for motivating households to volun-
tary change their consumption behavior towards a more climate-
friendly direction. Even if the majority of the participants found the
service difficult to use, most participants considered it useful. Obinna
et al. [16] evaluated energy performance and user experiences in two
residential smart grid pilots. They noticed that end-users prefer tech-
nologies that automatically shift their energy use.
Workplace related occupancy studies mainly focus on occupant
satisfaction [17–19], providing feedback to office-workers about en-
ergy issues [20–24] and implementing intervention programs [25,26]
in order to improve office energy efficiency. Liu et al. [27] examined
occupant satisfaction in certified Chinese office buildings. Feige et al.
[18] examined the impact of sustainable office buildings on occupan-
t's comfort and self-assessed performance and work engagement. Their
results showed that the building itself has a clear impact on the com-
fort level of the building user. Furthermore, building users were not
interested in working in fully automated buildings but instead felt the
need to have an influence on their work environment [18]. Shahzad
et al. [28] compared user satisfaction in offices with high and low
thermal control. Occupant comfort was higher in a traditional office
compared to an open-plan office.
Carrico & Riemer [29] studied group-level feedback in motivating
energy conservation in the workplace. The employees were sent a
monthly e-mail containing a graph summarizing their building's en-
ergy use during the previous months. This led to 7% energy savings
compared to buildings where feedback was not sent [29]. Orland et
al. [30] evaluated the effectiveness of a virtual pet game in reducing
plug-loads in a mid-size commercial office and found out that average
energy consumption declined by 13%. Murtagh et al. [22] investi-
gated the effect of individual feedback on energy use at the work desk
and found statistically significant energy reduction. Boomsma et al.
[31] tested energy visualization in a social services office and high-
lighted the complexities of energy-related behaviors in the workplace.
After testing energy information dashboards in four different college
campuses, Timm & Deal [32] highlight that the dashboards can be ef-
fective at improving facility management approaches, but they are
less useful for measurably affecting occupant attitudes and behaviors.
All these studies deal with providing feedback to the user, rather than
using feedback from the user in energy management. Intervention
programs have proven to have at least temporary impact on energy
consumption [15,25].
Theories such as motivation-opportunity-ability (MOA) frame-
work, norm activation model (NAM) and theory of planned behaviors
(TPB) have been used in exploring energy-savings behaviors [33].
When motivations to save energy in the workplace were studied [34],
it was observed that environmental concerns and the commitment to
the company (the more the employees identify with the company they
work in) correlates with their motivation for energy savings [34]. Ac-
cording to Isaksson et al. [35], results in energy efficiency and conser-
vation are obtained only when people collaborate and support each
other, and lack of engagement and co-workers’ support spread among
the employees. Murtagh et al. [22] suggested that electricity con-
sumption of work desk devices in universities may potentially be re-
duce by 32% by switching off these appliances, but individuals are
not prepared to change their energy use behavior and their motiva-
tion needs to be harnessed.
When Finnish stakeholders were interviewed about the future of
district heating in Finland [36], the most often mentioned user related
challenges were lack of knowledge of district heating, such as easiness
of heat supply, and increased competition with other heating sources.
Additional services, indoor environment services and prosumers were
considered as the major opportunities in the same study. Especially,
2
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
selling indoor conditions and living comfort, instead of pure heat, was
seen as an important opportunity [36]. This may reflect that users are
also open to new services influencing indoor conditions.
Demand response is considered as one potential solution to tackle
flexibility needs of future energy markets (e.g. Ref. [37,38]). Several
authors have analyzed its potential in different contexts (e.g. Ref.
[39–43]). Furthermore, Kubli et al. [44] investigated residential pro-
sumers willingness to co-create distributed flexibility. Their results in-
dicate that current and potential electric car and solar photovoltaic
(PV) users exhibit a higher willingness to co-create flexibility than
heat pump users [44].
It is not clear, whether people are able to observe the deviations
needed for participating demand response. On the other hand, it has
been observed that the occupant comfort is not greatly impacted al-
though deviations are allowed for the supply water or air temperature
(depending on the heating system) [45]. However, according to Salo
et al. [46], if changes are applied with local radiators, the changes are
easily perceived by persons situated next to them. Women have been
found more sensitive to thermal changes than men [47].
Good et al. [48] list barriers related to demand response in a
Smart Grid. These include fundamental (social, economic and techno-
logical) and secondary (regulations, markets, physical constraints)
barriers. Social barriers are further divided to organizational and be-
havioral. Although, these social barriers are known, international lit-
erature lacks studies on how office stakeholders see their own and
others' roles in enabling demand response, energy efficiency, and of-
fice comfort. This study aims at filling the gap by studying how office
workers can promote energy services in offices. Such information is
crucial when updating buildings' smartness levels. The remaining sec-
tions are organized as follows. Section 2 describes the methods used.
Section 3 deals with providing feedback on energy related indoor con-
ditions. Section 4 introduces results on office workers' readiness to de-
mand response actions. Section 5 outlines results on office workers'
and other relevant stakeholders’ interviews addressing energy services
in offices. Section 6 discusses the findings and Section 7 concludes the
study.
2. Material and methods
The study had two phases. Firstly, an on-line survey about office
workers' willingness to provide feedback and potential demand re-
sponse actions in offices was performed. Secondly, representatives of
different stakeholders were interviewed about their attitudes towards
energy efficiency in offices and means to promote demand response
actions in offices. Both surveys and interviews are often used and
largely accepted methods to study human dimension of energy aspects
in buildings [49]. Our focus was on office workers’ roles and under-
standing about their possibilities to influence energy services in build-
ings. Fig. 1 shows the main phases of the work which are next de-
scribed more in detail.
2.1. First phase
In the first phase, a survey to collect quantitative data on office-
workers’ satisfaction, knowledge, and willingness to contribute on en-
ergy related issues and services, and attitudes towards some prese-
lected demand response actions was made. The core idea was to im-
plement an on-line survey, which is quick and easy to answer. So, the
questions were simple with predefined alternatives. Mainly no open
questions were used but one question had an option to answer openly
as well.
The survey formulation had 5-stages:
S. Paiho et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602

of the respondents worked as researchers (64%). This is the same per-

centage as the share of researchers of the whole VTT staff. When
counting staff supporting research and staff supporting business the
shares of “other” work (31%) and management work (5%) were also
about the same as in general at VTT.

2.2. Second phase

In the second phase, fully-structured interviews were made to dif-

ferent stakeholders. The questions were established at several meet-
ings among the authors, once we had first considered potential ones
individually. The final selection and formulation was done after seri-
ous considerations which questions would best support the targets.
The interviews had three parts:

1) Ways to give and receive feedback

2) Essential factors in office workers' working conditions: are they
Fig. 1. Principles of the work.
energy related?
3) Roles and expectations in promoting energy services and demand
1) Minimizing errors in survey setting by reviewing general
respond
guidance on how to prepare a scientific survey [50–52] related to
occupant behavior,
The second phase interviews were made in phone calls and they
2) Defining the exact survey targets,
typically lasted for about an hour depending on the interviewee. Alto-
3) Preparing an initial survey,
gether 17 persons were interviewed. Table 2 shows the distribution of
4) Testing the initial survey with a small test-group of five persons,
interviewed persons. Because the focus was on office workers, the ma-
5) Improving and finalizing the survey based on collected feedback.
jority of the interviewees represented that category. In the first phase
in the on-line survey, office workers were asked whether they would
Based on the feedback given by the test-group, some of the ques-
be willing to participate in a continuation interview related to the
tions were simplified and the amount of given alternatives was re-
subject. The interviewed office workers, employer representative and
duced. It became evident that the questions cannot be very compli-
real estate managers interviewed in the third phase were selected
cated, i.e. the easiness to answer was a key issue. In addition, some
from the obtained list of positive answers to the question. The repre-
explaining text was included.
sentatives of the office workers, the employer and the real estate man-
Selecting a specific group is often done in surveys and question-
agers all worked in VTT. The interviewed office workers were located
naires, for example students of a university [53] and consumers build-
to two cities and eight buildings. The interviewed focus group in-
ing their own new detached house in a particular residential area [54]
cluded only one representative of the employer (a human resources
were used for such a purpose. This work was conducted under Smart
manager representing the middle management). The top management
Otaniemi innovation ecosystem [55] in the task, in which human fac-
was not interviewed which can be considered as a limitation. The
tors, user experiences and quality of service was assessed to propose
property owners' representatives and service company representative
smart control system and update to the building HVAC (Heating, ven-
were chosen from those related to VTT's office buildings. Technology
tilation, and air conditioning) system for VTT's office buildings. Thus,
providers were chosen from the ones working on the Smart Otaniemi
VTTers became the target group for the study. VTT Technical Re-
innovation ecosystem [55] as there is a strong emphasis on demand
search Centre of Finland Ltd is a research organization with about
response solutions.
2200 employees around Finland [56].
All the VTTers were invited to respond to the survey. After the sur-
3. Providing feedback on indoor conditions
vey was launched, a request to answer was shared in the company in-
tranet, in the internal Yammer (which is a freemium enterprise social
This section summarizes the results of the on-line survey about of-
networking service used for private communication within organiza-
fice workers’ readiness to provide feedback on indoor conditions
tions [57,58]), in the company Teams [59] and with direct personal
(asked in the first phase) and the results of interviews related to ac-
communications (such as informing colleagues during the coffee
tual feedback given and obtained in the second phase.
breaks or in telecommunications of other projects). Email to all VT-
Even if this is not an indoor air quality study, the overall satisfac-
Ters was not sent to inform them of the survey, but before mentioned
tion of the indoor conditions was asked. This was followed by ques-
actions were determined being sufficient. It was also told that re-
tions dealing with the willingness to provide feedback with different
sponding to the survey takes 10 min. The survey was open for two
channels, the desired density to give feedback, and about the issues
weeks in October 2018. There were 221 responses.
feedback could be given.
The share of female respondents was 46.6%, which is bigger than
the share of women at VTT (about 38%). This is in line with some
studies that women tend to respond more likely than men (e.g. Refs. Table 2
[60]). Table 1 shows the age distribution of the respondents. Majority Number of interviewed stakeholders.

Stakeholder Number of interviewed persons

Table 1
office worker 8
Respondents’ age distribution. employer 1
Age Share real estate manager 2
property owner 2
under 35 years 23.1% service company 1
35–50 years 38.9% technology provider 3
over 50 years 38.0% Total 17

3
S. Paiho et al.
Giving the list of indoor conditions, the respondents were asked:
“Generally speaking, are you satisfied of the following conditions in
the office?” The results can be seen in Fig. 2. After the initial survey
to the test-group, explaining terms “fug, smell, freshness etc.” were in-
cluded to the alternative “air quality”. The people were most satisfied
about lighting (83.7% were satisfied). In most of the office buildings,
at least the lights of at each individuals’ office desks can be controlled
by the office-workers. Perhaps this partly explains the good overall
rating. In total 57.9% were satisfied about the temperature. Both in
indoor temperature and in air quality, the men were more satisfied
than the women were. Below 50% of the respondents were satisfied
about the noise level. This is understandable since the most work ei-
ther in a shared room or in an open-plan office. Similarly, Kim et al.
[61] noticed significant discrepancy between worker groups in private
office and open-plan office on their perception of acoustics. Only a
few (about 3%) respondents were not satisfied about any of the men-
tioned indoor conditions.
An idea has been raised that feedback about the indoor conditions
in workplaces could be collected. That's why it was important to ask if
the office workers would be willing to provide feedback and with
which channel (Fig. 3), how often they could provide it and about
which workplace conditions they would be willing to give it. Overall,
most respondents would be willing to provide feedback (Fig. 3) since
only 4.5% were not willing at all. Majority (84.6%) would preferably
use a computer application to do so. Furthermore, the women would
Fig. 2. General satisfaction of the indoor conditions (N = 221).
Fig. 3. Willingness to provide feedback using different channels. NOTE! It was possible to select more than one feedback channel (N = 221).
4
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
rather give feedback using a nearby panel, a screen, a “happy or not”
device (such as for example the one introduced in Ref. [62]) etc.
(52.4%) than using a mobile application (29.1%) while the men
would prefer using a mobile application (42.4%) rather than a nearby
panel (37.3%). It seems that the most preferable channel for users to
give feedback on indoor conditions has not been studied. However,
some studies deal with the most effective ways to provide feedback to
the users in order to reduce energy consumption (e.g. Ref. [63]).
The respondents who were willing to provide feedback (N = 213)
were asked how often they could give it. Fig. 4 shows that the most
favorite density would be either weekly (46%) or when there is need
to complain (39.9%). Roughly every fifth could give feedback rarely
than once a week and less than 20% could give it even daily. Overall,
these results indicate that the people are not willing to provide feed-
back too often.
Additionally, the ones who could give feedback were asked about
which indoor conditions they could give it (Fig. 5). The majority
could provide feedback on temperature, air quality and noise. In addi-
tion, lighting and disturbances caused by other people received shares
of over 50%. In general, there were not much gender differences in
the answers. This question was the only one where there was also the
possibility to give an answer in writing if there were something else
the respondents could provide feedback. None of these answers re-
vealed anything special related to energy aspects. Such issues were
S. Paiho et al.
Fig. 4. The desired feedback density (N = 213).
Fig. 5. The issues the respondents could provide feedback (N = 213).
mentioned as ergonomics, cleaning, continuous change of workplaces,
uncomfortable workspaces, and network problems.
The office workers were also asked, what they do when they are
not satisfied with the office conditions. Great diversification was seen
in answers. Some office workers did not do anything, some did do
something themselves e.g. open windows or adjust the condition with
control device in the room and some changed the place to work (an-
other room, remote work). Contacting a real estate manager, a super-
visor, or the person causing the problem was mentioned as well as
feedback through computer application (especially towards service
provider).
Staddon et al. [64] underlined that the manner in which feedback
is presented is equally significant to its information. It was concluded
that individual feedback is less effective to feedback obtained from a
group. In this study, interviewees apart from office workers were
asked to tell, how they receive feedback. Email, phone call and con-
tacts from the real estate manager were listed as the main pathways,
although electric channels for feedback were seen most useful, since
they enable storing and tracing the feedback. It was also mentioned
that real estate managers’ have an essential role in filtering the unnec-
essary feedback from the office workers. A feedback panel in each
floor was told to clarify the situation in an entire building. A two-way
feedback channel was seen possibly useful towards better acting upon
feedback.
5
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
After giving feedback on energy or environmental issues, the office
workers considered the problem being either fixed or not. Other inter-
viewees also brought out the possibility of partial fixing of the issue;
sometimes building services are simply not enough to fix the problem
properly and sometimes there are not enough resources available to
fix the issue in time. Such a partial fixing seems to appear as not fix-
ing or fixing to an office worker.
4 Readiness to demand response actions in offices
Demand response actions may influence energy services of end
users for example by weakening indoor conditions. The aim was to
collect quantitative data on some major actions in heating, cooling
and electricity. The results expressed in the following give an overall
image about the office workers’ attitudes and reflect the alternatives
people are willing to accept. To help the survey respondents, “demand
response” was defined: “In general, demand response refers to trans-
ferring electricity or heating consumption to more favorable energy
production moments.” The intention for the definition was to give a
short description if the respondents were not aware of the term.
S. Paiho et al.
3.1. Temperature drop in heating
In Finland, the target indoor temperature in the offices during the
heating season is 21.5 °C [65]. Fig. 6 shows the shares of respondents
allowing (46.2%) and not allowing (54.3%) the temperature some-
times automatically drop to 18 °C in their workplace during the heat-
ing season. The drop to 18 °C was asked since it is considered as the
minimum allowed indoor temperature in Finland. However, most
Finns and especially women consider it too low. It is remarkable that
even about 46% of the respondents would allow such an occasional
drop. There were some gender differences, which are in line with the
previous studies indicating that women are typically more sensitive to
temperature [66–68].
Those who could allow the temperature drop (N = 102) were also
asked how long the drop could last (Fig. 7). Majority thought that the
drop could last between 1 and 2 h (45.1%) or more than 2 h (40.2%).
In Finland, there are companies offering demand response services in
heating (e.g. Ref. [69,70]). They could utilize these results when fine-
tuning their services.
3.2. Temperature rise in cooling
In Finland, the target indoor temperature in the offices during the
cooling season is 24.5 °C [26]. Fig. 8 shows the shares of respondents
Fig. 6. The consent to a temporary temperature drop to 18 °C. The question was “During the heating season, would you sometimes allow the temperature auto-
matically drop to 18 °C in your workplace?”
Fig. 7. Acceptable duration of the temperature drop (N = 102).
6
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
allowing (43%) and not allowing (57%) the temperature sometimes
automatically rise to 26 °C in their workplace during the cooling sea-
son. A little less would allow a rise in temperature (Fig. 8) than a fall
(Fig. 6). Interestingly, those willing to accept the rise (N = 95) would
allow it to last quite long (Fig. 9). Only 7.4% thought it could last less
than 1 h.
3.3. Electrical breaks
The survey included a question about the acceptance of certain
electrical breaks. The respondents could select several alternatives.
The question highlighted that the respondents should assume being at
the workplace and that the action would affect themselves. The list of
options was selected based on the feedback received during the draft
survey testing.
Fig. 10 shows the readiness to certain electrical breaks. Preventing
the use of elevators was the most acceptable; almost 72% could accept
it. One explanation may be that the VTT facilities are not very tall.
The tendency to use stairs instead of elevators is higher when going
upwards [71]. For example, if the number of floors to travel is three,
one out of five selects to walk stairs when going upwards but every
second uses stairs when coming down [72].
The second most acceptable (59.3%) electrical break turned out to
be preventing the internal heating of cars and preheating of engines
S. Paiho et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602

Fig. 8. The consent to a temporary temperature rise to 26 °C. The questions was: “During the cooling season, would you sometimes allow the temperature auto-
matically rise to 26 °C in your workplace?”

Fig. 9. Acceptable duration of the temperature rise (N = 95).

Fig. 10. The consent to electrical breaks. The question was: “Which of the following electrical breaks you could accept (assuming you are at the workplace and
that the action would affect you)?”

7
S. Paiho et al.
(Fig. 10). This had quite a significant difference between genders
since more women (67%) could accept this than men (52.5%) could.
Turning off the cooling and preventing electrical car charging both
were nearly as acceptable (about 42%). Almost 11% would not accept
any of the mentioned alternatives. Less than 30% could allow reduc-
ing ventilation.
It was also asked how long the electrical breaks could last (Fig.
11). This was asked from those who could accept some of the breaks
(N = 197). This was not asked separately break by break but instead
the electrical breaks in general. The categories asked were selected
considering existing and planned future electricity markets. The ma-
jority responded that the electrical break could last over 1 h. Even
about a third could accept a break lasting between 15 and 60 min.
These durations were much longer than what was thought to be an-
swered.
4. Stakeholder views on office energy services
This section introduces interviewees' opinions on essential indoor
conditions and their ability to influence on those. In addition, stake-
holders’ roles in promoting energy efficiency and demand response
actions in offices are addressed.
4.1. Essential factors in office workers’ working conditions
4.1.1. Stakeholder views of energy related indoor conditions in offices
The answers to the first question of essential factors to office work-
ers working conditions brought out matters influencing both physical
Fig. 11. Acceptable duration of the electrical breaks (N = 197).
Table 3
Essential factors of indoor conditions in offices defined by office workers and other stakeholders. The colors reflect to amounts the factors were mentioned: the
darker, the more interviewees mentioned the issue.
8
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
and mental well-being. Energy related factors included temperature,
indoor air quality/adequate air conditioning, and lighting. In addi-
tion, conditions that are related to office arrangements, construction,
work equipment and intercourse were listed. These factors included
ergonomics, sound environment, comfortability, draftiness, adequate
tools, and odors. The essential factors mentioned in the interviews can
be seen in Table 3.
Most of the actors listed temperature and indoor air quality as an
essential factor to the office workers’ working conditions, since they
affect to the ability to work and to the office comfort. Because office
work is static, variations in these conditions are easily perceived.
Maintaining proper temperature from season to season was seen as a
challenge in office buildings; both too cold and too hot working envi-
ronment had been experienced. The indoor air quality was described
with adjectives good, clean, fresh, sufficient, stuffy and bad. It was
mentioned that carbon dioxide levels should be kept within certain
limits.
Lighting was also characterized as a fundamental condition and an
enabler for the work since it affects workers’ ability to see properly.
In addition, lighting was told to affect office workers mood and vivac-
ity. Since lighting was less mentioned, lousy lighting may have been
experienced less frequently than variations in temperature and indoor
air quality. Draftiness was mentioned in terms of insufficient insula-
tion and wrongly directed air conditioning. Some of the interviewees
work also in laboratory or pilot environments, and might have ig-
nored question outlining conditions in offices.
S. Paiho et al.
4.1.2. Stakeholders’ ability to affect indoor conditions
Office workers’ view was that they have limited possibilities to af-
fect office indoor conditions. They can affect temperature by adjusting
thermostats or temperature controllers and by opening windows.
Clothing was mentioned as one way to adapt to varying temperatures.
Sometimes, office workers can adjust air conditioning. Lighting
was seen as an adjustable condition as well. In open-plan offices,
some actions were told to affect co-workers’ conditions, which limits
the possibilities to use them. In addition, the possibility to work re-
motely was a matter of choice for many.
The employer representative was a human resources manager and
considered mainly actions related to management of people, whereas
the other interviewees saw the employer role often as a tenant of the
real estate. The human resources manager can point out the effects of
indoor conditions such as sick leaves. The real estate managers
pointed out their possibilities to communicate the observed deviations
to the property owners and to the service company if the deviation in
a certain condition remains unwanted.
The property owner mentioned the possibility to react to the cus-
tomer's requests by being in contact with the service company and su-
pervise the problem solving. As a customer to service and technology
providers they can affect by contracts to all physical aspects. They can
also survey the office workers and act upon the feedback.
The service companies were providing technical building services
or facility services. They can do targeted improvements to conditions
and give instructions to adjusting temperature and air-conditioning.
The technology providers saw their role as enablers for comfort offer-
ing new technologies and integrating them to existing systems.
Fig. 12. Stakeholder interactions.
Table 4
Expectations for the office workers in enabling the energy efficiency of offices. The darker the color, the more interviewees mentioned the issue.
9
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
4.2. Stakeholder roles and expectations in promoting energy efficiency in
offices
In general, the question of what one can expect from another actor
in promoting energy efficiency of offices was answered by listing the
possibilities the actor has for promoting rather than the actual expec-
tations. Depending on the mentioned stakeholder interactions (Fig.
12), the stakeholders were more or less aware what can be expected
from each other. The listed expectations were mainly reasoned by fur-
ther defining possibilities to implement them as actions or by impacts
of actions.
4.2.1. Office worker
All interviewees mentioned switching off unnecessary lighting as
an expectation to office worker. However, some of the interviewees
pointed out that achieved energy savings would be small especially if
lighting is automated. In addition, possibilities to adjust the lights in
open-plan offices were questioned; it was mentioned that a spotlight
at each working desk might enable more energy savings. Office work-
ers came up with more ways to save energy with lighting than the
other actors did. The office workers should switch off the lighting
when not needed and when leaving the office in the evening. Daylight
utilization was seen as an option for electric lighting. Dubois & Blom-
sterberg [73], noticed that energy intensity of lighting significantly af-
fects to office buildings’ energy consumption. They also bring up uti-
lizing daylight, but state that increasing window-to-wall rations create
risk for overheating and glare.
Switching off the unnecessary electricity consuming devices in of-
fices is often seen as one important option to save energy in offices
[74,75] and “plug load” as fastest growing category of electricity us-
age in office building [30]. The stakeholders expected the office work-
ers to switch off computers when not needed and use the power save
mode. The office workers pointed put other electricity consuming de-
vices such as coffee machines, drying cabinets for clothing and eleva-
tors.
Most of the other stakeholders expected some tolerance in temper-
ature deviations from the office workers. A couple of the office work-
ers mentioned this expectation as well. The property owners and the
technology providers expected office workers to be active in demand-
ing better indoor conditions, which relates to the office workers men-
tioning that they are expected to give feedback of indoor conditions
and related problems. The expectations towards office workers are
listed in Table 4.
4.2.2. Employer
The expectations for the employers (Table 5) were seen mainly as
interactions towards employees such as giving instructions related to
energy savings, acting as an example, encouraging, rewarding, listen-
ing and superintending. From the property owner's, service company's
and technology provider's point of view, the employers were also seen
as customers, who can decide, choose and pay of the energy efficiency
S. Paiho et al.
Table 5
Expectations for employer. The stronger the color, the more mentioned the topic.
measures and demand actions. Following possibilities were addressed
to employers: choosing energy efficient devices and equipment, choos-
ing the real estate/location for the office, choosing the preference be-
tween the office conditions (healthiness, energy efficiency, location),
and possibly choosing the electricity or heating technology for in-
stance ground source heat or solar PV. According to the office work-
ers, the employers can demand more personalized temperatures and
air conditioning and establish tenancy agreements that require energy
efficiency or modern energy efficient automation. The service com-
pany also mentioned demanding up-to-date lighting.
4.2.3. Real estate manager
A general view was that the real estate manager (Table 6) has the
best view, how to allocate the energy saving actions; he knows the
real estate, its devices and office workers’ habits. The real estate man-
agers themselves brought up their role as observers and supervisors,
who give feedback related to office conditions to relevant parties. The
office workers also expected communication, interactions and guiding
from the real estate managers. They listed different specific interac-
tions such as communicating to the property owner, acting as a link-
age between the office worker and the service company and listening
to the end users. The technology providers and service companies
mentioned that the real estate manager could affect to the office en-
Table 6
Expectations for the real estate manager. The stronger the color, the more mentioned the topic.
Table 7
Expectations for the property owner. The stronger the color, the more mentioned the topic.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
ergy system by being an active agent between those who offer new
technologies or services and those, who can make decisions about
them. The property owner was mentioned as such a decisive actor.
4.2.4. Property owner
Especially the office workers and the employer representative
listed different physical measures of which the property owner (Table
7) can decide to increase energy efficiency. These were related to con-
struction (e.g. insulation, materials, building envelope, building ele-
ments, windows) or energy/automation system (e.g. heat recovery,
technology choices, property management system, heat and air condi-
tioning settings).
The employer and the service company expected that the property
owners make contracts that enable energy efficiency; maintenance
and energy contracts were mentioned. Taking care of the maintenance
and informing of renovations were seen as the property owner's re-
sponsibility. The office workers and the real estate managers also ex-
pected the property owner to monitor the energy consumption, func-
tionalities of the property, and maintenance. Algorithms and intelli-
gent monitoring were mentioned in terms of localizing and timing the
disruptions.
S. Paiho et al.
4.2.5. Service company and technology provider
The service company (Table 8) mentioned that they make a yearly
updated long-term maintenance plan, which includes suggestions of
energy conservation measures. In addition, they constantly keep a
check list on the state of devices, which was also mentioned as an ex-
pectation by the property owners and the technology providers. Main-
taining the agreed conditions and proper up keeping of buildings were
mentioned as the basis for the energy efficiency measures.
The communication was mentioned most often as an expectation
towards the service company. It should forward the information of en-
ergy related deviations and problems to the property owner and the
real estate manager. The possibility to take the conservation measures
on their agenda and suggesting an energy related service to the prop-
erty owner were seen as options.
The least expectations were addressed to the technology provider
(Table 9). The service company perceived itself as a technology
provider since it offers both new services and technologies for build-
ing automation. Offering and training to utilize new technologies
were expected from the technology provider. They were also seen as
enablers for savings and their responsibility is to develop and test new
solutions. The technology providers mentioned that they enable using
the real estate devices only according to the needs.
4.3. Stakeholders’ means to promote demand response actions in offices
The interviewed stakeholders were asked how they see their own
and other stakeholders’ roles in promoting demand response in offices
and what kind of means should not be used. The means mentioned
most often for each stakeholder are summarized in Fig. 13. The means
to promote demand response actions were generally found as a more
difficult subject to discuss than what a stakeholder expects from an-
other. It was not clear to all interviewees what demand response
means, although short explanation was given. The interviewees often
referred to their earlier answers, which may indicate that it was
rather difficult to realize the difference between energy efficiency and
demand response and that the means to promote the demand response
were similar to actions that are expected from stakeholders in terms
of energy efficiency. The office workers means to promote demand re-
sponse were seen very limited: They can accept and adapt to needed
actions. Changes in clothing was mentioned as a specific means to
adapt to possible temperature changes by couple of interviewees.
The office workers and the real estate manager saw the employer
as the one that can decide whether the office will participate in de-
mand response actions or not, and determine terms and limits for
them. Both the office workers and the employer representative men-
tioned that the employers can offer flexible working hours and possi-
bility to work remotely, if demand response actions lead to weakening
of office conditions. The employer representative mentioned also em-
ployers’ means to encourage the office workers towards actions in
saving energy and communicate realizing actions.
The office workers listed justifying, steering and motivating as
means for the real estate manager. The employer representative added
that the real estate managers know the real estate and its possibilities
related to demand response. However, the real estate managers ques-
Table 8
Expectations for the service company. The stronger the color, the more mentioned the topic.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
tioned their possibility to target the actions for instance to certain sec-
tors of buildings.
The property owners were faceless actors for the office workers.
Generally, their view was, that the property owners do the big align-
ments and decisions regarding to demand response actions. The em-
ployer representative mentioned that tenancy agreements affect to
property owners means in terms of what they can do and what is their
motivation towards actions (e.g. if electricity is included in the rent).
This was also mentioned by the property owners; they are able to pro-
mote demand response, if the conditions in the office do stay in
agreed limits. The real estate manager did point out that means to
promote demand response actions require negotiations between the
property owner and the employer (seen as tenant). Decisions such as
“the office will participate Earth Hour” cannot be made by the prop-
erty owner nor the employer alone.
The service providers means included basically only realizing
agreed measures or bringing out the limits for planned changes in
technology use. The technology providers were seen as a vague actor;
they can only offer and implement technologies.
Similarly, it was asked if there are means which are not desirable
to promote demand response. Fig. 14 summarizes what is not wanted.
The office workers are willing to accept short breaks in heating, cool-
ing or electricity but long breaks are seen as an obstacle for working.
Similarly, no other means hindering work are desired. The employer
should not do anything by force but rather listen what the employees
do accept. In addition, the real estate managers need to listen to the
employees. The property owners should not do unilateral decisions
nor too drastic actions. If the employee cannot notice an action (for
example it lasts only for a short period), it is acceptable. The service
company should not do anything by itself but only based on the con-
tracts or requests. It should also communicate properly. The technol-
ogy provider must not give false promises and realize unethical mar-
keting.
Based on the interviews, the office workers are willing to accept
temporary worsening of indoor conditions in offices if certain condi-
tions are met. The productivity of work should not be affected nega-
tively so only a slight worsening of indoor conditions could be ac-
cepted. For the acceptance, good and frequent communication is es-
sential. It is important that the office workers know why the worsen-
ing of conditions is happening and how long that lasts. Worsening of
conditions should not be random but known in advance. Some office
workers may choose to work remotely during these periods. The office
workers want to know what kind profit (e.g. decrease in consumption
or emissions, or money saving) is achieved and how large is the
profit. Who gets the benefit or is this performed as a joint effort to
combat climate change?
5. Discussion
It should be noticed that in general researchers, acting as the focus
group in this study, are often environmentally conscious, which may
limit comparing the results to generic office buildings. It can be con-
sidered as weakness for the study that survey and the interviews were
conducted at VTT only due to an assignment to pinpoint the suitable
S. Paiho et al.
Table 9
Expectations for technology provider. All the issues were mentioned by only a
few interviewees.
All interviewees (N = 17)
Offering the new solutions
Training
Enabling savings/Seeking for a solutions with best price- quality ratio to customers
Developing and testing
services for this specific organization. The comparison to other type of
organization would have brought more information and it would be
worth a follow-up study. Bluyessen et al. [76] discuss that it is diffi-
cult to pinpoint the contribution of building, social and personal fac-
tors to answers obtained in questionnaire studies. These factors can-
not be pinpointed to specific respondents either. However, this study
may still indicate the magnitude of office workers’ acceptance levels.
General satisfaction to indoor conditions was not the focus of this
study. It was only surveyed as a “warm up” to more specific questions
on feedback willingness, energy efficiency and demand response.
However, there was a significant difference between the satisfaction
of the women (48.5%) and the men (66.1%) on the indoor tempera-
ture. Some previous studies indicate that women are more sensitive to
thermal comfort than men (e.g. Ref. [66–68]). In a Chinese study
Fig. 13. Different stakeholders' foreseen means to promote demand response actions in offices.
Fig. 14. Unwanted means to promote demand response actions in offices.
12
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
[17], satisfaction on temperature was not asked in a similar way but
overall the office-workers were pretty satisfied.
During the interviews, the office workers were asked to define in-
door conditions of which they give feedback. Other office stakehold-
ers on the other hand were asked to define of which office condition
they receive feedback. Temperature was mentioned by most of inter-
viewees. This is in line with the study by Frontczak & Wargocki [77],
in which surveyed studies showed that users consider thermal comfort
the most important parameter influencing satisfaction with indoor en-
vironmental quality. However, many office workers said they do not
give feedback at all. In addition, office workers listed indoor air, ven-
tilation, air conditioning, lightning, ergonomics, odors and noise. The
answers are in line with the options of first quantitative phase.
The most often listed factors that were considered essential for of-
fice workers working conditions are in line with the ones found to af-
fect significantly to occupants productivity by Al Horr et al. [78] and
in post-occupancy evaluation study by Middlehurst [79]. In previous
study concentrating on the productivity [80], the outdoor conditions
and seasonal changes have been observed to affect to workers percep-
tions. This study was implemented in Finland, in which relatively low
outdoor temperatures and air humidity are the prevailing weather
condition, although seasonal changes are well noticeable. Some of the
interviewees said that the deviations in indoor conditions were more
noticeable during the change of seasons.
S. Paiho et al.
Our study focused on office workers’ role and means on promoting
energy services. Office occupants can act as kind of non-physical sen-
sors [7] when utilizing new energy services. In addition, technical de-
vices such as internet of things devices [81] or Wi-Fi networks [82]
can provide important data to smart energy service implementations.
However, our work concentrated on the human dimension.
It was understood that some alternatives for potential electrical
breaks, such as turning off lights or preventing the use of some de-
vices, would irritate people too much. Therefore, they were left out
from the study. In addition, it needs to be highlighted that a compre-
hensive study on electricity demand response potential in Finnish of-
fices does not exist (e.g. Refs. [83]) even if some case analyses in
other building types have been made [84–86]. In German offices [87],
the technical potential of electricity flexibility was estimated to be
only 6.4% and the practical potential only 1.4% of the theoretical po-
tential, correspondingly.
When considering potential electrical breaks for demand response
actions, less than a third could accept reducing ventilation. This may
indicate that ventilation is considered as an important service, which
should not be touched without a clear reason or only for very short
periods. This is an important result since it has often been considered
that developing demand response solutions which would temporarily
either reduce or turn off ventilation could be one of the most potential
demand response actions e.g., Ref. [85]. However, this could also
have remarkable negative side effects on air quality if lasting too long.
The Finnish building code on ventilation [88] states that “The build-
ing must be designed and constructed in such a way that no harmful
gases, particles or microbes nor comfort-lowering odors are present in
the indoor air”. In addition, some reference design values during
building operation are given. For example, the exhaust air supply rate
in an office space should be designed to meet at least 1.5 (dm3/s)/m2
during the building operation. In a German study [87], ventilation af-
ter air conditioning was considered the second largest potential source
for demand response in offices even if the technical potential was as-
sessed to be only 4% of the theoretical one.
It is not clear, whether the needed thermal changes would require
adaptation [46,89]. Office workers' comfort does not deteriorate dur-
ing the demand respond implementations even though significant de-
viations (+10/-20 °C) of supply water temperature of the radiator
network are introduced [45]. On the other hand, demand respond
days got lower ratings for thermal comfort if office workers were situ-
ated next to the radiators [46]. During the interviews, examples of in-
convenient variations in room temperature were brought out, such as
intensive cooling of office during the summer time or local hot spot
due to shining sun. It was mentioned that an office worker has some
possibility to affect room temperature, but few found the effect of
control measures insufficient. This may indicate that controlled short-
term deviations have smaller effect on office worker's satisfaction than
unpleasant standard conditions if they cannot be controlled. In addi-
tion, Salo et al. [46] noticed that local uncomfortable spots and lim-
ited possibilities to personalize the room temperature in an open-plan
office were seen as a problem. Thus, in order to evaluate the possibili-
ties of demand respond in office buildings, it would be interesting to
evaluate differences in applying the demand respond with different
heating systems.
6. Conclusions
This study focused on office workers' role and understanding about
their possible means when promoting energy services in offices. In ad-
dition, other stakeholders' perspectives were studied. The work con-
centrated on potential of providing feedback, office workers’ readi-
ness to demand response actions, and stakeholder views on impor-
tance of office energy services.
13
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
Respondents were generally willing to provide feedback on their
workstation conditions and giving feedback was not seen problematic.
In order to increase the likelihood to obtain feedback in the long
term, easy to use computer application that requires actions less than
weekly would serve the best.. Temperature and indoor air quality
were listed most often as essential factors to office workers’ working
conditions. These in addition to lighting were considered fundamental
conditions for static office work, and thus, possible changes in these
conditions, should be carefully analyzed and monitored, when new
energy efficiency services are considered and applied. These were also
the conditions, office workers give most feedback.
Based on the survey and questionnaire, the possibilities for energy
efficiency services can be considered high, since over 40% of the re-
spondents would allow an automatic temporary temperature drop or
rise, which necessary wouldn't even be the outcome of the services ac-
cording to technology provider, but the objective would be to conduct
the services without noticeable changes in conditions. Furthermore,
the drop or rise could last even over 2 h.
The most favorable electrical break would be preventing the use of
elevators. Reducing ventilation was the least favorable electrical
break. There were also concerns of the operation of essential equip-
ment. Thus, when promoting demand response action by electrical
breaks, the equipment in place for irregular use and that can be re-
placed without waiting with self-conducted actions, would be the first
to cut down on the electricity feed. Most respondents thought an elec-
trical break could last over 1 h.
Office workers’ ability to affect office indoor conditions was con-
sidered to be limited. The possibilities were seen to be restricted by
the functionalities and state of the office building. In case of unsatis-
factory office conditions, office workers mainly tried to solve the
problem themselves or by contacting the real estate manager. Accord-
ing to office workers, their feedback either did or did not fix the prob-
lem, whereas other stakeholders also brought out the possibility to
partially fix the issue. This indicates that the communication is in es-
sential role, when setting up energy efficiency services that possibly
affect the office workers.
The stakeholders spoke about expectations towards the other
stakeholders rather than their means to promote energy efficiency. It
was expected that office workers switch off unnecessary lighting and
electricity consuming devices and adapt to and tolerate certain devia-
tions in office indoor conditions. Other stakeholders admitted that of-
fice workers can do only small things themselves, but could have
higher tolerance towards small changes in indoor conditions. The of-
fice workers mentioned more ways they can save energy compared to
what other stakeholders expected from them. It appeared that the of-
fice workers are well aware of what they can do to save energy, but
their ability to conduct the required actions may be underestimated or
they fail in long term due to lack of/indeterminate expectations from
other stakeholders.
Although the office workers possibilities to promote demand re-
sponse in office were seen limited, their acceptance is in a key role.
The employers can affect to the acceptance by arranging flexible
working hours and place. They can also affect through company val-
ues. The property owner can alone affect only with manners that are
unnoticeable to the tender, but together with the employer and the
service provider it can agree on the permissible deviations in condi-
tions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Satu Paiho: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Visualization, Supervision. Heidi Saastamoinen: Conceptual-
ization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writ-
ing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Sami
S. Paiho et al.
Karjalainen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writ-
ing - original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors hereby confirm that they do not have any known con-
flicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted within Smart Otaniemi activities funded
by Business Finland Smart Energy program and VTT Technical Re-
search Centre of Finland Ltd.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101602.
References
[1] European Commission, The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, Factsheet.
(n.d.). doi:10.1109/COMST.2018.2846401.
[2] European Commission, Good Practice in Energy Efficiency - Clean Energy for All
Europeans, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2833/75367.
[3] Official Journal of the European Communities, COUNCIL DIRECTIVE concerning
the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual
directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), 1989.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31989L0654.
[4] R. Kosonen, F. Tan, The effect of perceived indoor air quality on productivity loss,
Energy Build. 36 (2004) 981–986, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.06.
005.
[5] T. Hussein, P. Paasonen, M. Kulmala, Activity pattern of a selected group of
school occupants and their family members in Helsinki — Finland, Sci. Total
Environ. 425 (2012) 289–292, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.03.
002.
[6] S. D’Oca, T. Hong, J. Langevin, The human dimensions of energy use in
buildings: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81 (2018) 731–742, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.019.
[7] T. Hong, D. Yan, S. D’Oca, C. fei Chen, Ten questions concerning occupant
behavior in buildings: the big picture, Build. Environ. 114 (2017) 518–530,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.006.
[8] E. Heiskanen, M. Johnson, E. Vadovics, Learning about and involving users in
energy saving on the local level, J. Clean. Prod. 48 (2013) 241–249, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.019.
[9] Y. Zhang, X. Bai, F.P. Mills, J.C.V. Pezzey, Rethinking the role of occupant
behavior in building energy performance: a review, Energy Build. 172 (2018)
279–294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.05.017.
[10] M. Vellei, S. Natarajan, B. Biri, J. Padget, I. Walker, The effect of real-time
context-aware feedback on occupants’ heating behaviour and thermal adaptation,
Energy Build. 123 (2016) 179–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.
045.
[11] A. Nilsson, M. Wester, D. Lazarevic, N. Brandt, Smart homes, home energy
management systems and real-time feedback: lesson for changing energy
consumption behavior from a Swedish field study, Energy Build. 179 (2018) 15–
25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.026.
[12] K. Hyvönen, M. Saastamoinen, M. Hongisto, A. Kallio, C. Södergård, A monitoring
and feedback service as a way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of
consumption, Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36 (2012) 221–227, https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1470-6431.2011.01077.x.
[13] U. Obinna, P. Joore, L. Wauben, A. Reinders, Comparison of two residential
Smart Grid pilots in The Netherlands and in the USA, focusing on energy
performance and user experiences, Appl. Energy 191 (2017) 264–275, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.086.
[14] M. Vellei, S. Natarajan, B. Biri, J. Padget, I. Walker, The effect of real-time
context-aware feedback on occupants’ heating behaviour and thermal adaptation,
Energy Build. 123 (2016) 179–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.
045.
[15] A. Nilsson, M. Wester, D. Lazarevic, N. Brandt, Smart homes, home energy
management systems and real-time feedback: lesson for changing energy
consumption behavior from a Swedish field study, Energy Build. 179 (2018) 15–
25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.026.
[16] U. Obinna, P. Joore, L. Wauben, A. Reinders, Comparison of two residential
Smart Grid pilots in The Netherlands and in the USA, focusing on energy
performance and user experiences, Appl. Energy 191 (2017) 264–275, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.086.
[17] Y. Liu, Z. Wang, B. Lin, J. Hong, Y. Zhu, Occupant satisfaction in Three-Star-
certified office buildings based on comparative study using LEED and BREEAM,
Build. Environ. 132 (2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.
011.
14
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
[18] A. Feige, H. Wallbaum, M. Janser, L. Windlinger, Impact of sustainable office
buildings on occupant’s comfort and productivity, J. Corp. Real Estate. 15 (2013)
7–34, https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-01-2013-0004.
[19] S. Shahzad, J. Brennan, D. Theodossopoulos, B. Hughes, J.K. Calautit, Energy and
comfort in contemporary open plan and traditional personal offices, Appl. Energy
185 (2017) 1542–1555, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.100.
[20] A.R. Carrico, M. Riemer, Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: an
evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education, J. Environ.
Psychol. 31 (2011) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.004.
[21] B. Orland, N. Ram, D. Lang, K. Houser, N. Kling, M. Coccia, Saving energy in an
office environment: a serious game intervention, Energy Build. 74 (2014) 43–52,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.01.036.
[22] N. Murtagh, M. Nati, W.R. Headley, B. Gatersleben, A. Gluhak, M.A. Imran, D.
Uzzell, Individual energy use and feedback in an office setting: a field trial, Energy
Pol. 62 (2013) 717–728, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2013.07.090.
[23] C. Boomsma, J. Goodhew, S. Pahl, R.V. Jones, The feasibility of saving energy in
challenging organisational contexts: testing energy visualisation in a social
services office in the United Kingdom, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15 (2016) 58–74,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.02.004.
[24] S.N. Timm, B.M. Deal, Effective or ephemeral? The role of energy information
dashboards in changing occupant energy behaviors, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 19
(2016) 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.020.
[25] E. Matthies, I. Kastner, A. Klesse, H.-J. Wagner, High reduction potentials for
energy user behavior in public buildings: how much can psychology-based
interventions achieve?, J. Environ. Soc. Sci. 1 (2011) 241–255, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13412-011-0024-1.
[26] A. Nilsson, K. Andersson, C.J. Bergstad, Energy behaviors at the office: an
intervention study on the use of equipment, Appl. Energy 146 (2015) 434–441,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.045.
[27] Y. Liu, Z. Wang, B. Lin, J. Hong, Y. Zhu, Occupant satisfaction in Three-Star-
certified office buildings based on comparative study using LEED and BREEAM,
Build. Environ. 132 (2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.
011.
[28] S. Shahzad, J. Brennan, D. Theodossopoulos, B. Hughes, J.K. Calautit, Energy and
comfort in contemporary open plan and traditional personal offices, Appl. Energy
185 (2017) 1542–1555, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.100.
[29] A.R. Carrico, M. Riemer, Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: an
evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education, J. Environ.
Psychol. 31 (2011) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.004.
[30] B. Orland, N. Ram, D. Lang, K. Houser, N. Kling, M. Coccia, Saving energy in an
office environment: a serious game intervention, Energy Build. 74 (2014) 43–52,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.01.036.
[31] C. Boomsma, J. Goodhew, S. Pahl, R.V. Jones, The feasibility of saving energy in
challenging organisational contexts: testing energy visualisation in a social
services office in the United Kingdom, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15 (2016) 58–74,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.02.004.
[32] S.N. Timm, B.M. Deal, Effective or ephemeral? The role of energy information
dashboards in changing occupant energy behaviors, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 19
(2016) 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.020.
[33] D. Li, X. Xu, C. Chen, C. Menassa, Understanding energy-saving behaviors in the
American workplace: a unified theory of motivation, opportunity, and ability,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 51 (2019) 198–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2019.
01.020.
[34] C. Leygue, E. Ferguson, A. Spence, Saving energy in the workplace: why, and for
whom?, J. Environ. Psychol. 53 (2017) 50–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.
2017.06.006.
[35] C. Isaksson, C. Hiller, A.-L. Lane, Active, passive, non-existing or conditional?
Social relations shaping energy use at workplaces, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 51 (2019)
148–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2018.12.014.
[36] S. Paiho, H. Saastamoinen, How to develop district heating in Finland?, Energy
Pol. 122 (2018) 668–676, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.025.
[37] S. Paiho, H. Saastamoinen, E. Hakkarainen, L. Similä, R. Pasonen, J. Ikäheimo, M.
Rämä, M. Tuovinen, S. Horsmanheimo, Increasing flexibility of Finnish energy
systems—a review of potential technologies and means, Sustain. Cities Soc. 43
(2018) 509–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.015.
[38] K.M. Luc, A. Heller, C. Rode, Energy demand flexibility in buildings and district
heating systems – a literature, Adv. Build. Energy Res. (2017) 1–23 0, https://doi.
org/10.1080/17512549.2018.1488615.
[39] L. Söder, P.D. Lund, H. Koduvere, T.F. Bolkesjø, G.H. Rossebø, E. Rosenlund-
Soysal, K. Skytte, J. Katz, D. Blumberga, A review of demand side flexibility
potential in Northern Europe, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91 (2018) 654–664,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.104.
[40] V. Olkkonen, S. Rinne, A. Hast, S. Syri, Benefits of DSM measures in the future
Finnish energy system, Energy 137 (2017) 729–738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.05.186.
[41] S. Rotger-Griful, R.H. Jacobsen, R.S. Brewer, M.K. Rasmussen, Green lift:
exploring the demand response potential of elevators in Danish buildings, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 32 (2017) 55–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.011.
[42] M.H. Shoreh, P. Siano, M. Shafie-khah, V. Loia, J.P.S. Catalão, A survey of
industrial applications of Demand Response, Elec. Power Syst. Res. 141 (2016)
31–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.07.008.
[43] R. D’hulst, W. Labeeuw, B. Beusen, S. Claessens, G. Deconinck, K. Vanthournout,
Demand response flexibility and flexibility potential of residential smart
appliances: experiences from large pilot test in Belgium, Appl. Energy 155 (2015)
79–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.101.
[44] M. Kubli, M. Loock, R. Wüstenhagen, The flexible prosumer: measuring the
S. Paiho et al.
willingness to co-create distributed flexibility, Energy Pol. 114 (2018) 540–548,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.044.
[45] A.K. Mishra, J. Jokisalo, R. Kosonen, T. Kinnunen, M. Ekkerhaugen, H. Ihasalo, K.
Martin, Demand response events in district heating: results from field tests in a
university building, Sustain. Cities Soc. 47 (2019) 101481, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scs.2019.101481.
[46] S. Salo, J. Jokisalo, S. Syri, R. Kosonen, Individual temperature control on
demand response in a district heated office building in Finland, Energy 180 (2019)
946–954, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.035.
[47] S. Karjalainen, Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review, Indoor Air 22
(2012) 96–109, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00747.x.
[48] N. Good, K.A. Ellis, P. Mancarella, Review and classification of barriers and
enablers of demand response in the smart grid, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 72
(2017) 57–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.043.
[49] M.V. Bavaresco, S. D’Oca, E. Ghisi, R. Lamberts, Methods used in social sciences
that suit energy research: a literature review on qualitative methods to assess the
human dimension of energy use in buildings, Energy Build. 209 (2020) 109702,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2019.109702.
[50] A. Wagner, W. O’Brien, B. Dong, Exploring Occupant Behavior in Buildings:
Methods and Challenges, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61464-9.
[51] G. Iarossi, Power of Survey Design: A User’s Guide for Managing Surveys,
Interpreting Results, and Influencing Respondents, World Bank Publications, 2006
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/vtt/detail.action?docID=459526.
[52] H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: the
Living Questionnaire, Cambridge University Press, 2000 https://ebookcentral.
proquest.com/lib/vtt/detail.action?docID=147324.
[53] M. Golbazi, A. El Danaf, C.B. Aktas, Willingness to pay for green buildings: a
survey on students’ perception in higher education, Energy Build. 216 (2020)
109956, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2020.109956.
[54] M. Åkerman, M. Halonen, N. Wessberg, Lost in building design practices: the
intertwining of energy with the multiple goals of home building in Finland,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 61 (2020) 101335, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2019.
101335.
[55] Smart Otaniemi, There is no sustainable future and good life without smart
energy accessed https://smartotaniemi.fi/. (Accessed 14 July 2019).
[56] VTT, VTT technical research Centre of Finland Ltd accessed 2019. https://www.
vttresearch.com/. (Accessed 27 June 2019).
[57] Wikipedia, Yammer, (accessed March 17, 2019) 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Yammer.
[58] Microsoft, What is Yammer? (accessed March 17, 2019) 2019. https://support.
office.com/en-gb/article/video-what-is-yammer-1b0f3b3e-89ee-4b66-aac5-
30def12f287c.
[59] Microsoft, Microsoft Teams, Meet the hub for teamwork in Office 365 accessed
2019. https://products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software.
(Accessed 17 March 2019).
[60] W.G. Smith, A record-linkage analysis of university faculty. Online survey
response behavior, 2008. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501717.pdf.
[61] J. Kim, R. de Dear, Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off
in open-plan offices, J. Environ. Psychol. 36 (2013) 18–26, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007.
[62] HappyOrNot Ltd, HappyOrNot webpage accessed 2018. https://www.happy-or-
not.com/en/. (Accessed 14 December 2018).
[63] A. Kamilaris, J. Neovino, S. Kondepudi, B. Kalluri, A case study on the individual
energy use of personal computers in an office setting and assessment of various
feedback types toward energy savings, Energy Build. 104 (2015) 73–86, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2015.07.010.
[64] S.C. Staddon, C. Cycil, M. Goulden, C. Leygue, A. Spence, Intervening to change
behaviour and save energy in the workplace: a systematic review of available
evidence, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17 (2016) 30–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.
2016.03.027.
[65] Työpiste, Verkkolehti, Duunitohtori, Mikä on sopiva lämpötila toimistossa? 1.3.
2012 2012. https://www.ttl.fi/tyopiste/mika-sopiva-lampotila-toimistossa/.
(Accessed 20 December 2018).
[66] S. Karjalainen, Gender differences in thermal comfort and use of thermostats in
everyday thermal environments, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 1594–1603, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2006.01.009.
[67] Z. Wang, R. de Dear, M. Luo, B. Lin, Y. He, A. Ghahramani, Y. Zhu, Individual
difference in thermal comfort: a literature review, Build. Environ. 138 (2018)
181–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2018.04.040.
[68] H. Liu, Y. Wu, D. Lei, B. Li, Gender differences in physiological and psychological
15
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101602
responses to the thermal environment with varying clothing ensembles, Build.
Environ. 141 (2018) 45–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2018.05.040.
[69] Fourdeg, Better use of energy with intelligent heating accessed 2018. https://
www.fourdeg.com/. (Accessed 21 December 2018).
[70] Leanheat, Smart building control and maintenance powered by IoT accessed
2018. https://leanheat.com/. (Accessed 21 December 2018).
[71] CIBSE, Transportation Systems in Buildings - CIBSE Guide D - 2015, fifth ed.,
CIBSE, 2015.
[72] R.D. Peters, J. Haddon, Lift passenger traffic patterns: applications, current
knowledge and measurement, Elev. BARCELONA 1996, Int. Congr. Vert. Transp.
Technol, Barcelona, 1996 https://www.peters-research.com/index.php/support/
articles-and-papers/50-lift-passenger-traffic-patterns-applications-current-
knowledge-and-measurement.
[73] M.C. Dubois, Å. Blomsterberg, Energy saving potential and strategies for electric
lighting in future north european, low energy office buildings: a literature review,
Energy Build. 43 (2011) 2572–2582, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.07.
001.
[74] I. Metzger, A. Kandt, O. VanGeet, Plug load behavioral change demonstration
project, 2011. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/52248.pdf.
[75] A. Kamilaris, J. Neovino, S. Kondepudi, B. Kalluri, A case study on the individual
energy use of personal computers in an office setting and assessment of various
feedback types toward energy savings, Energy Build. 104 (2015) 73–86, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2015.07.010.
[76] P.M. Bluyssen, M. Aries, P. van Dommelen, Comfort of workers in office
buildings: the European HOPE project, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 280–288,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.07.024.
[77] M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influence
human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 922–937
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132310003136.
[78] Y. Al Horr, M. Arif, A. Kaushik, A. Mazroei, M. Katafygiotou, E. Elsarrag,
Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the
literature, Build. Environ. 105 (2016) 369–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2016.06.001.
[79] G. Middlehurst, R. Yao, L. Jiang, J. Deng, D. Clements-Croome, G. Adams, A
preliminary study on post-occupancy evaluation of four office buildings in the UK
based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Intell. Build. Int. 10 (2018) 234–246,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2018.1495607.
[80] M.K. Nematchoua, P. Ricciardi, J.A. Orosa, S. Asadi, R. Choudhary, Influence of
indoor environmental quality on the self-estimated performance of office workers
in the tropical wet and hot climate of Cameroon, J. Build. Eng. 21 (2019) 141–
148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.007.
[81] H.N. Rafsanjani, A. Ghahramani, Towards utilizing internet of things (IoT)
devices for understanding individual occupants’ energy usage of personal and
shared appliances in office buildings, J. Build. Eng. 27 (2020) 100948, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2019.100948.
[82] H.N. Rafsanjani, A. Ghahramani, Extracting occupants’ energy-use patterns from
Wi-Fi networks in office buildings, J. Build. Eng. 26 (2019) 100864, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2019.100864.
[83] L. Söder, P.D. Lund, H. Koduvere, T.F. Bolkesjø, G.H. Rossebø, E. Rosenlund-
Soysal, K. Skytte, J. Katz, D. Blumberga, A review of demand side flexibility
potential in Northern Europe, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91 (2018) 654–664,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.104.
[84] J. Luoma, Liike-, Toimisto- Ja Koulurakennuksien Sähkökuormat Kysynnän
Jouston Reserveinä, Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto, 2015 https://dspace.cc.tut.
fi/dpub/handle/123456789/22880.
[85] K. Manninen, Rakennuksen Kysyntäjoustomallinnuksen Vaatimusten Määritys,
Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto, 2017.
[86] S. Laakso, Microgrid as a Power Reserve, Aalto University, 2017.
[87] K. Wohlfarth, M. Klobasa, R. Gutknecht, Demand response in the service sector –
theoretical, technical and practical potentials, Appl. Energy 258 (2020) 114089,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114089.
[88] Ympäristöministeriö, Rakennusten Sisäilmasto Ja Ilmanvaihto. Määräykset Ja
Ohjeet 2012, 2011 Suomi.
[89] A.K. Mishra, J. Jokisalo, R. Kosonen, T. Kinnunen, M. Ekkerhaugen, H. Ihasalo, K.
Martin, Demand response events in district heating: results from field tests in a
university building, Sustain. Cities Soc. 47 (2019) 101481, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scs.2019.101481.