Architectural Science Review

ISSN: 0003-8628 (Print) 1758-9622 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

Impacts of green certifications, ventilation and

office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor
environmental quality

Zhonghua Gou, Deo Prasad & Stephen Siu-Yu Lau

To cite this article: Zhonghua Gou, Deo Prasad & Stephen Siu-Yu Lau (2014) Impacts of green
certifications, ventilation and office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental
quality, Architectural Science Review, 57:3, 196-206, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2014.908113

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.908113

Published online: 22 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 833

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20
Architectural Science Review, 2014
Vol. 57, No. 3, 196–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.908113

Impacts of green certifications, ventilation and office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor
environmental quality
Zhonghua Goua∗ , Deo Prasada and Stephen Siu-Yu Laub
a Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; b Department of Architecture,
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
(Received 16 January 2013; final version received 21 March 2014 )

One of the important reasons for the interest in green buildings is that the employees can benefit from healthy and productive
work environments. This research aims to provide evidence that can affect design decisions by a literature review and an
occupant survey. Three important design decisions (green certifications, ventilation types and office types) were investigated
through a standard occupant survey in China. Highly rated green buildings could be effective to provide a comfortable, healthy
and productive work environment. Mixed-mode ventilation (a hybrid approach to space conditioning that uses a combination
of natural ventilation and mechanical systems) and high cubicles (open-plan offices with high partitions) are sensible choices
for green buildings to achieve high environmental satisfactions.
Keywords: green buildings; occupant satisfaction; green certifications; ventilation types; office types

Introduction field-based studies to define acceptable ranges for these

A green building revolution is happening in the building
sector aiming to fundamentally change the built environ-
ment by creating energy-conscious, healthy and productive
buildings that reduce or minimize the significant impacts of
buildings on urban life and global environments (Yudelson
2008). Research on green building costs (Kats et al. 2003)
highlighted that productivity and health benefits could result
in financial gains that were much more than the cost of
construction and operations. The human benefits of green
building design are likely to be a critical factor in the market
growth of green buildings (Heerwagen 2000).
Many countries and areas have launched or are launch-
ing their standards or labels to measure and certify green
buildings. Although green building standards or guide-
lines vary from country to country (Table 1), they usually
include five aspects: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency,
Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and
Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ). IEQ-related credits
that are dedicated to occupant comfort and health are cat-
egorized into the following aspects: indoor air quality,
thermal comfort, lighting and acoustics. In practice, these
credits mainly refer to engineering-based standards, such
as American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), International Stan-
dards Organization (ISO), Chartered Institute of Building
Services Engineers (CIBSE). The standards dealing with
indoor environmental quality are based on laboratory- and
parameters.
Green building post-occupancy studies (Deuble and de
Dear 2012; Hwang and Jeong Tai Kim 2011; Leaman and
Bordass 2007; Lee and Guerin 2009; Newsham et al. 2013;
Paul and Taylor 2008) showed that generally green build-
ings outperformed non-green buildings and also pointed
out some indoor environmental dissatisfaction sources that
would undermine green building performance. Few studies
have been conducted to validate green building perfor-
mance in China where a large scale of construction is
ongoing. Green building is strongly advocated by China’s
Government as an important energy policy; however, with-
out clear evidence that green buildings can improve health
and productivity, it is hard to motivate developers or clients
to pursue green certifications. This paper aims to iden-
tify key design decisions that underpin building occupants’
work performance and provide new evidence from China
for pursuing green certifications.
Design decisions
Green certifications
Green building design usually adopts certifications that
score different green tiers or classes (e.g. Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): Platinum,
Gold, Silver and Certified; Green building label (GBL):
Three Star, Two Star and One Star). The green tiers or

∗ Corresponding author. Email: gouzhonghua@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Architectural Science Review 197

Table 1. Major green building design standards.

Standards Year Country/region Evaluation contents

BREEAM 1990 UK Management; Health and comfort; Energy consumption; Traffic; Water consumption;
Materials; Land use; Ecological value of the location and Pollution
LEED 1995 USA Sustainable sites; Water efficiency; Energy and atmosphere; Material and resource;
Indoor environmental quality and Innovation and design process
HK-BEAM 1996 Hong Kong Site; Materials; Energy; Water resources; IEQ and Innovation
CASBEE 2002 Japan Q building quality(Q1 indoor quality, Q2 service facility quality, Q3 indoor
environment) and L environment load (L1 energy, L2 resources and materials,
L3 environment outside of the area)
GBL 2006 China Land saving and outdoor environment; Energy saving and energy utilization; Water
saving and water utilization; Materials saving and materials resources utilization;
IEQ and Operation management

classes reflecting how green a building is certified according
to some green building standard significantly affect the
investment cost. In the USA, the total project cost of LEED
certification premiums was identified in a report “Manag-
ing the Cost of Green Buildings” (Syphers et al. 2003). In
total, 0–2.5% additional cost was expected for a LEED Cer-
tified project, 0–3.3% for LEED Silver, 0.3–5.0% for LEED
Gold and 4.5–8.5% for LEED Platinum. Another survey of
33 LEED projects had a similar result: on average, addi-
tional fee of less than 1% for Certified, 2.1% for Silver,
1.8% for Gold and 6.5% for Platinum (Kats et al. 2003).
China Green Building Council found that additional costs
for one, two and three star buildings were 2.7%, 6.2% and
9.3%, respectively (Sun and Yuan 2011). The class of a
building could significantly affect its occupants. A survey
(Baier 1999) by Building Owners and Managers Associ-
ation found that tenants in class-A buildings were much
more satisfied overall with the environment than tenants in
class-B and class-C buildings. Class-A spaces were likely
to sell and rent faster than lower class spaces, especially
among businesses that wanted to maintain a high-quality
image. Whether a highly rated green building has a higher
overall building satisfaction should be studied for justifying
the investment.
Ventilation
The ventilation system shapes the indoor environment at
large. There are three main ventilation types for buildings:
natural ventilation, mechanical ventilation and mixed-mode
(MM) ventilation. Natural ventilation is provided by ther-
mal, wind or diffusion effects through doors, windows
or other intentional openings in the building; mechanical
ventilation is provided by mechanically powered equip-
ment and MM ventilation combines mechanical and natural
ventilation methods (ASHRAE 2007). The Center for the
Building Performance Diagnostics at the Carnegie Mellon
University performed a literature review on the relation-
ship between the environmental system and productivity
(Loftness, Ries, & Mondazzi, 2001), showing that replac-
ing or supplementing mechanical ventilation with MM
conditioning could achieve 3–18% productivity gains due
to improved thermal comfort and air quality. However, MM
ventilation was less familiar to architects who got used to
design office buildings with central air-conditioning (Drake
et al. 2010). MM strategies had the potential to add cost and
complexity to a building (Brager 2006). Evidence needs to
be collected for selecting the right ventilation investment
in green buildings that can provide occupants with higher
thermal comfort and air quality.
Open-plan offices
Open-plan offices are a contentious issue (Oommen,
Knowles, and Zhao 2008). The growth in the number of
office workers created large open floor offices with a flex-
ible, compatible office system to facilitate communication
and work flow, which was in contrast to conventional office
design where internal walls and doors provided separate
and private office spaces. The office setting research (Canter
1972; Kammerer 1985) indicated that employees disliked
deep open-plan because of unacceptable noise levels and
a lack of privacy. Physical enclosure was designed in an
open-plan environment by modular furniture and move-
able partitions that partially screened office occupants from
co-workers who occupied the same office space to reduce
distractions and to increase privacy for working. Daroff
and Rappoport recommended that visual privacy could be
achieved with 1.27–1.32 m high partitions for workstations
(Daroff and Rappoport 1992). Vischer proposed 1.52 m or
higher as the minimum height desirable for screens and
partitions for acoustic privacy (Vischer 1989). However,
green building design guidelines such as LEED proposed
an open-plan layout to provide building occupants a direct
line of sight through interior windows over low or no parti-
tions (USGBC 2007). Based on a workplace survey tool
(Zagreus et al. 2004), three office types widely used in
today’s open-plan office design could be identified: open-
plan offices with high partitions (1.5 m or above), open-plan
offices with low partitions (below 1.5 m) and open-plan
offices with no partitions (bullpen). Which open-plan office
types are better for users’ visual and acoustic comfort should
198 Z. Gou et al.

Table 2. Green and non-green buildings involved in the study.

Green Ventilation Year built

No. Location certifications types Office types or certified Participants

1 Shenzhen GBL/Three-Star Mixed-mode Open-plan without partition 2009 182

2 Shenzhen GBL/Three-Star Air-conditioned Open-plan with low partition (below 1.5 m) 2009 148
3 Shanghai GBL/Three-Star Mixed-mode Open-plan with high partition (1.5 m or above) 2010 76
4 Shanghai GBL/Three-Star Mixed-mode Open-plan with low partition (below 1.5 m) 2007 73
5 Foshan GBL/Three-Star Naturally ventilated Open-plan without partition 2009 61
6 Shenzhen LEED/Platinum Mixed-mode Open-plan with low partition (below 1.5 m) 2008 53
7 Hong Kong LEED/Gold Air-conditioned Open-plan without partition 2009 57
8 Hong Kong LEED/Gold Air-conditioned Open-plan without partition 2009 50
9 Shanghai LEED/Gold Air-conditioned Open-plan without partition 2010 74
10 Shenzhen Non-green Naturally ventilated Open-plan without partition 2009 60
11 Shenzhen Non-green Naturally ventilated Open-plan with low partition (below 1.5 m) 2010 119
12 Shenzhen Non-green Mixed-mode Open-plan with high partition (1.5 m or above) 2010 110
13 Shenzhen Non-green Air-conditioned Open-plan with high partition (1.5 m or above) 2010 71
14 Hong Kong Non-green Air-conditioned Open-plan with high partition (1.5 m or above) 2008 117

be asked and investigated for the green building design and
investment.
This research presents a large-scale occupant survey
in green and non-green office buildings in China, aim-
ing to collect evidence for the impacts of green tiers,
ventilation and office types on occupant satisfaction. Specif-
ically, there are three questions to be answered: Question 1:
whether highly rated buildings would outperform in terms
of occupants’ overall satisfaction and perception? Ques-
tion 2: which ventilation type would outperform in terms
of occupants’ satisfaction with thermal comfort and air
quality? Question 3: which office type would outperform
in terms of occupants’ satisfaction with noise and lighting
environments?
Methodology
Sampling
Through LEED and GBL databases, we contacted 15 green
office buildings in developed cities such as Shanghai, Shen-
zhen and Hong Kong where green buildings were well
developed. Nine buildings’ owners authorized this survey.
In the meantime, five non-green office buildings in the same
cities were surveyed for a comparison. Architectural draw-
ings and other construction documents were collected to
identify these buildings’ green tiers, ventilation and office
types. Table 2 summarizes information of the 14 buildings
and their 1251 occupants surveyed by this study. Only valid
responses that responded to all questions were included
in this study. Due to confidentiality issues (most building
owners authorized publishing the survey results under the
condition of anonymity) these buildings’ names were not
disclosed in this article. These buildings were comparable
in size, type, climate and years.
To study the impact of green certifications on overall
comfort and perceived health and productivity, the occu-
pants were divided into three groups, respectively, working
Table 3. Comparison of LEED and GBL.
GBL 2007 for public LEED v3 2009 for new
buildingsa constructions
Classes Points (Total 100) Classes Points (Total 100)
 37–59 Certified 40–49
Silver 50–59
 61–80 Gold 60–79
 82+ Platinum 80+
a Calculated
by converting the full score into 100 points for the
GBL system.
in highly rated green buildings that were certified at the
whole-building level and with the highest possible ratings
(GBL Three-Star and LEED Platinum), lowly rated green
buildings that had partial certifications and had medium-
class green ratings (LEED Gold) and non-green buildings.
GBL was derived from LEED; so the two systems were
comparable. LEED Platinum and GBL Three star represent
the highest green label for a building (Table 3). Recently,
the two systems were updated to share the same scoring sys-
tem (100 basic points + 10 innovation points); so the two
systems are more convergent and interchangeable.
To study the impact of the type of ventilation on
the respondents’ satisfaction with the indoor temperature
and air, the responses were categorized into three groups,
respectively, working in air-conditioned (AC) offices (cen-
trally conditioned without operable windows), MM offices
(centrally AC in summer and naturally ventilated (NV)
from operable windows in other seasons) and NV offices
(NV from operable windows and supported by split air-
conditioners in each office room). To study the impact
of office types on the respondents’ satisfaction with noise
and lighting, the responses were divided into three groups,
respectively, working in open-plan offices with high parti-
tions (1.5 m or above), open-plan offices with low partitions
(below 1.5 m) and open-plan offices without partitions.
 Architectural Science Review 199

Table 4. BUS questionnaire structure.

Item Type Grade 1 Grade 7

IEQ satisfaction Temperature in summer A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Temperature in winter A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Air in summer A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Air in winter A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Noise A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Light A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
IEQ characteristics Temperature in summer B Too cold Too hot
B Stable Varies during the day
Temperature in winter B Too cold Too hot
B Stable Varies during the day
Air in summer B Dry Humid
C Fresh Stuffy
C Odourless Smelly
B Still Draughty
Air in winter B Dry Humid
C Fresh Stuffy
C Odourless Smelly
B Still Draughty
Natural light B Too little Too much
Glare from sun and sky C None Too much
Artificial light B Too little Too much
Glare from lights C None Too much
Noise from colleagues B Too little Too much
Noise from other people B Too little Too much
Other noise from inside B Too little Too much
Noise from outside B Too little Too much
Unwanted interruption C Too little Too much
Overall self-report IEQ Overall A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Perceived healthy A Less health More healthy
Perceived productivity A Less productive More productive

Instrument from 1 to 9. These questions were measured with ordinal

The occupants of a building represent a valuable source of
information on building performance and on indoor envi-
ronmental quality (Vischer 2008). For a rigorous approach
to the assessment of occupant comfort and user satisfac-
tion, the Building Use Studies (BUS) Occupant Survey
and Reporting Method were used in this study. The BUS
Occupant Survey and Reporting Method is a questionnaire
survey and benchmarking method for the rapid and com-
prehensive study of user needs in a range of building types
(Bordass and Leaman 2005a, 2005b). The method uses a
self-completion questionnaire. The main body of the survey
is a three-page questionnaire covering topics including the
quality of the indoor environment, health and productivity,
and self-report.
Table 4 lists the structure of the BUS questionnaire. Each
factor corresponds to a specific question – these are neces-
sarily abbreviated to fit the table, but reflect the nature of
the full question posed to the building users. The questions
have been grouped into the following categories: temper-
ature and air in winter; temperature and air in summer;
lighting; noise; personal control; comfort overall; perceived
health and productivity. The scale of the answer is from 1
to 7 for all aspects except productivity perception, which is
scales representing categories with some intrinsic ranking.
The results of these responses yields a mean value which
may be simply assessed in relation to the selected scale,
or compared with the mean value from the BUS data set
benchmark. There are three types of scales in the question-
naire: Type A where better values are found towards the
“right hand” of the scale, 1 = worst option, 7 = best option
(e.g. Temperature in Summer: 1 uncomfortable, 7 comfort-
able); Type B where better values are found towards the
centre of the scale, 4 = best option (e.g. Temperature in
Summer: 1 too hot, 7 too cold); Type C where better val-
ues are found towards the “left hand” of the scale, 1 = best
option, 7 = worst option (Air in Summer: 1 fresh, 7 stuffy).
More introduction of this methodology can be found in other
studies (Baird 2010; Baird and Lechat 2009). In addition
to the responses to these core questions, information on the
demographic characteristics of the respondents and on their
workspaces was collected.
Analysis
This chapter investigates the abovementioned three ques-
tions. ANOVA and Post-hoc tests were conducted to iden-
200 Z. Gou et al.

Table 5. Overall comfort, perceived productivity and health between green classes: 1 = Highly rated Green (n = 593); 2 = Lowly
rated Green (n = 181); 3 = Non-Green (n = 477).

95% confidence ANOVA (between

interval for mean groups)
BUS Green Std. Std. Lower Upper
benchmark classes Mean deviation error bound bound F Sig.

Overall comfort (1 uncomfortable 4.80 1 5.16 1.183 .062 5.04 5.28 28.342 .000
– 7 comfortable) 2 4.49 1.252 .115 4.26 4.72
3 4.39 1.236 .101 4.19 4.59
Perceived productivity 3.18 1 6.01 1.538 .082 5.85 6.17 35.278 .000
(1 decreased 20% – 9 2 5.38 1.648 .154 5.07 5.68
increased 20%) 3 4.75 1.551 .127 4.50 5.00
Perceived health (1 unhealthy – 7 4.88 1 4.90 1.229 .064 4.77 5.03 75.916 .000
healthy) 2 3.60 1.370 .127 3.35 3.86
3 3.68 1.256 .102 3.48 3.88

Note: “F” reveals the significance of the hypothesis that Y depends on X . A large F signifies a small probability that the null hypothesis
is true. “Sig” is the probability of mistakenly rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true. A critical value P = .05 is generally taken
as marking an acceptable boundary of significance.

tify whether the differences between groups were significant
and which group was significantly different from the others.
Correlation and regression analyses were also conducted to
identify influential factors. A “p” value of less than .05
indicated statistical significance. “R square” represented
strength of the relationships. SPSS 16.0 was used to conduct
these analyses. More information about these terms can be
found in Agresti and Finlay (2009).
Green certifications
Table 5 compares the mean scores of overall comfort,
perceived productivity and health for the three groups of
occupants. The respondents in the highly rated green offices
were perceived to be more comfortable, healthy and produc-
tive than those in the other two types of offices. However,
the respondents in the lowly rated green offices were per-
ceived to be less healthy than those in the non-green offices.
ANOVA and Post-hoc analysis confirmed that the respon-
dents in the highly rated green offices were perceived
to be significantly more comfortable (p = .000), healthy
(p = .000) and productive (p = .000) than those in the other
two types of offices. The respondents in the lowly rated
green offices reported productivity significantly higher than
that reported in the non-green offices (p = .001). However,
the comfort (p = .481) and perceived health (p = .614) of
the respondents in the lowly rated green offices were per-
ceived to be comparable to those of the respondents in the
non-green offices.
in the NV offices. A major discomfort source in the NV
offices was the cold temperature as its mean score was much
higher than the BUS benchmark as well as the other two
mean scores for AC and MM. The air in the AC offices
was perceived to be stuffier as its mean score was much
higher than others and the BUS benchmark. ANOVA and
Post-hoc analysis confirmed that NV offices were perceived
to be much colder than MM (p = .000) and AC (p = .000)
offices. The air in AC offices was perceived to be more
still and stuffier than the air in MM (p = .000) and NV
(p = .000) offices.
Table 7 shows the mean satisfaction and perception
scores for the summer indoor air and temperature. Respon-
dents’ satisfaction with the summer temperature and air was
greater for MM and NV offices than for AC offices. NV
offices were rated as hotter than the other two offices, but
MM and AC offices were rated as cold for their mean scores
were higher than the BUS benchmark. The temperature in
MM and NV offices was perceived to be more varied than
in AC offices as well as the BUS mean value, whereas the
temperature in AC offices was perceived to be more sta-
ble. AC offices were perceived to be stuffier than the other
two types. ANOVA and Post-hoc analysis showed that MM
and NV offices were rated more highly than AC offices
on satisfaction with the summer indoor air (p = .000) and
temperature (p = .000). Respondents’ satisfaction with the
summer indoor air and temperature did not differ signifi-
cantly between MM and NV offices. The temperature was
perceived to be more varied (p = .003) in AC offices but
more stable (p = .038) in MM and NV offices.

Ventilation types
Table 6 shows the mean satisfaction and perception scores
for the winter indoor air and temperature. The respondents
were more satisfied with the winter temperature in the MM
and the centrally AC offices, but they were less satisfied
Office types
Table 8 shows the mean satisfaction and perception scores
for lighting environments. Compared to the BUS bench-
mark mean value (4.18) for lighting satisfaction, the lighting
 Architectural Science Review 201

Table 6. Perceived temperature and air in winter between ventilation types: 1 = Air-Conditioned (n = 240); 2 = Mixed-Mode
(n = 494); 3 = Naturally Ventilated (n = 517).

95% confidence ANOVA (between

interval for mean groups)
BUS Ventilation Std. Std. Lower Upper
benchmark types Mean deviation error bound bound F Sig.

Temperature in Winter 4.65 1 4.55 1.344 .094 4.36 4.73 4.181 .016
(1 Unsatisfactory – 7 2 4.28 1.551 .084 4.12 4.45
Satisfactory) 3 3.97 1.518 .196 3.57 4.36
Temperature in Winter 4.52 1 4.11 1.153 .082 3.94 4.27 56.776 .000
(1 Hot – 7 Cold) 2 5.08 1.132 .062 4.96 5.20
3 5.45 1.096 .141 5.17 5.73
Temperature in Winter 4.34 1 4.19 1.403 .100 3.99 4.39 0.752 .472
(1 Stable – 7 Varied) 2 4.05 1.480 .081 3.89 4.21
3 4.21 1.373 .180 3.85 4.57
Air in Winter 3.67 1 3.78 1.337 .095 3.60 3.97 11.088 .000
(1 Still – 7 Draughty) 2 4.34 1.449 .079 4.19 4.50
3 4.45 1.479 .188 4.08 4.83
Air in Winter 3.34 1 3.54 1.246 .088 3.37 3.72 6.404 .002
(1 Dry – 7 Humid) 2 3.87 1.149 .063 3.74 3.99
3 3.43 1.347 .173 3.08 3.77
Air in Winter 3.92 1 4.60 1.215 .086 4.43 4.77 21.427 .000
(1 Fresh – 7 Stuffy) 2 3.88 1.378 .075 3.74 4.03
3 3.73 1.233 .159 3.41 4.05
Air in Winter 3.28 1 3.57 1.349 .096 3.38 3.75 4.174 .016
(1 Odourless – 7 Smelly) 2 3.21 1.406 .077 3.06 3.36
3 3.37 1.193 .154 3.06 3.67
Air in Winter 4.55 1 4.15 1.253 .087 3.97 4.32 2.919 .055
(1 Unsatisfactory – 7 2 4.42 1.348 .073 4.28 4.57
Satisfactory) 3 4.34 1.196 .153 4.04 4.65

Note: “F” reveals the significance of the hypothesis that Y depends on X . A large F signifies a small probability that the null hypothesis
is true. “Sig” is the probability of mistakenly rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true. A critical value P = .05 is generally taken as
marking an acceptable boundary of significance.

environments were perceived to be satisfactory in all three
open-plan office types. The aspects of the lighting envi-
ronment included in the survey did not differ significantly
among the three office types.
Table 9 shows the mean satisfaction and perception
scores for noise environments. Open-plan offices with high
partitions were perceived to be more satisfactory than other
office types. Open-plan offices without partitions had more
noise from colleagues, more noise from other people, more
noise from outside and more unwanted interruptions than
other office types. The noise environment in open-plan
offices with high partitions was perceived to be significantly
more satisfactory than in offices with low partitions (p =
.003) or without partitions (p = .001). Open-plan offices
without partitions had more noise from different sources
than the other open-plan office types.
Relationships
Correlation analysis is a statistical technique that examines
the relationships between pairs of variables. In this study,
a correlation analysis was used to investigate possible rela-
tionships among the variables described above: satisfaction
with temperature, air, lighting and noise, overall satisfaction
with comfort, perceived health and productivity. Pearson
correlation coefficient was used in the study. The results
of the correlation analysis are summarized in Table 10. All
the variables measured were significantly correlated. More-
over, all the correlations were statistically significant at the
p = .01 level. This result implied that the green building
users who were satisfied with any one variable (such as
temperature, air, lighting and noise) were also likely to be
satisfied with the other variables (overall comfort, perceived
health and productivity).
A regression analysis was used to determine which
independent variables (satisfaction with temperature, air,
lighting and noise) were significantly related to the depen-
dent variable (satisfaction with overall comfort) and to
explore the forms of these relationships for the offices
studied. According to the regression equation, Over-
all comfort = 1.096 + 0.059 × Temperature satisfaction in
winter + 0.22 × Perceived air quality in winter + 0.167 ×
Temperature satisfaction in summer + 0.17 × Perceived
air quality in summer + 0.051 × Noise satisfaction +
0.176 × Lighting satisfaction (R = .713; R2 = .509). It is
interesting to find that air satisfaction in winter was the
most influential factor to overall comfort, followed by
satisfaction with lighting, air and temperature in summer.
202 Z. Gou et al.

Table 7. Perceived temperature and air in summer between ventilation types: 1 = Air-Conditioned (n = 240); 2 = Mixed-Mode
(n = 494); 3 = Naturally Ventilated (n = 517).

95% confidence ANOVA (between

interval for mean groups)
BUS Ventilation Std. Std. Lower Upper
benchmark types Mean deviation error bound bound F Sig.

Temperature in Summer 4.24 1 3.86 1.403 .104 3.65 4.06 18.313 .000
(1 Unsatisfactory – 7 2 4.65 1.463 .079 4.50 4.81
Satisfactory) 3 4.57 1.580 .207 4.15 4.98
Temperature in Summer 3.57 1 4.37 1.477 .109 4.16 4.59 5.772 .003
(1 Hot – 7 Cold) 2 4.34 1.218 .065 4.22 4.47
3 3.74 1.247 .165 3.41 4.07
Temperature in Summer 4.36 1 4.18 1.444 .106 3.97 4.39 4.936 .007
(1 Stable – 7 Varied) 2 3.80 1.416 .076 3.65 3.95
3 3.73 1.433 .192 3.35 4.12
Air in Summer 3.48 1 4.11 1.283 .095 3.92 4.30 0.648 .523
(1 Still – 7 Draughty) 2 4.25 1.411 .076 4.10 4.40
3 4.25 1.636 .213 3.83 4.68
Air in Summer 3.63 1 4.06 1.177 .087 3.89 4.23 0.538 .584
(1 Dry – 7 Humid) 2 4.14 1.041 .056 4.03 4.25
3 4.02 1.044 .138 3.74 4.29
Air in Summer 3.98 1 4.42 1.143 .085 4.25 4.58 19.045 .000
(1 Fresh – 7 Stuffy) 2 3.69 1.402 .075 3.54 3.84
3 3.70 1.281 .170 3.36 4.04
Air in Summer 3.37 1 3.67 1.332 .098 3.47 3.86 7.180 .001
(1 Odourless – 7 Smelly) 2 3.20 1.419 .076 3.05 3.35
3 3.47 1.231 .162 3.14 3.79
Air in Summer 4.29 1 3.78 1.243 .092 3.60 3.96 27.973 .000
(1 Unsatisfactory – 7 2 4.69 1.401 .075 4.54 4.83
Satisfactory) 3 4.57 1.244 .163 4.24 4.90

Note: “F” reveals the significance of the hypothesis that Y depends on X . A large F signifies a small probability that the null hypothesis
is true. “Sig” is the probability of mistakenly rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true. A critical value P = .05 is generally taken
as marking an acceptable boundary of significance.

Table 8. Perceived lighting between office types: 1 = high partitions (n = 347); 2 = low partitions (n = 393); 3 = no partitions
(n = 484).

95% confidence ANOVA (between

interval for mean groups)
BUS Office Std. Std. Lower Upper
benchmark types Mean deviation error bound bound F Sig.

Lighting overall 4.18 1 5.27 1.368 .095 5.09 5.46 2.786 .062
(1 unsatisfactory – 7 2 4.92 1.526 .123 4.67 5.16
satisfactory) 3 5.08 1.446 .091 4.90 5.26
Natural light 5.07 1 4.23 1.415 .098 4.03 4.42 2.516 .082
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 4.00 1.536 .125 3.75 4.25
3 4.33 1.388 .088 4.16 4.50
Glare from sun and sky 3.89 1 3.58 1.721 .120 3.35 3.82 1.692 .185
(1 none – 7 too much) 2 3.32 1.725 .141 3.04 3.60
3 3.31 1.738 .110 3.09 3.52
Artificial light 3.47 1 4.22 1.107 .077 4.07 4.37 0.387 .679
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 4.32 1.263 .103 4.12 4.53
3 4.27 1.067 .067 4.14 4.40
Glare from artificial lights 3.53 1 3.41 1.484 .103 3.20 3.61 0.027 .974
(1 none – 7 too much) 2 3.43 1.591 .130 3.17 3.69
3 3.39 1.618 .102 3.19 3.59

Note: “F” reveals the significance of the hypothesis that Y depends on X . A large F signifies a small probability that the null
hypothesis is true. “Sig” is the probability of mistakenly rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true. A critical value P = .05 is
generally taken as marking an acceptable boundary of significance.
 Architectural Science Review 203

Table 9. Perceived noise between office types: 1 = high partitions (n = 347); 2 = low partitions (n = 393); 3 = no partitions
(n = 484).

95% confidence ANOVA (between

interval for mean groups)
BUS Office Std. Std. Lower Upper
benchmark types Mean deviation error bound bound F Sig.

Noise overall 4.55 1 4.75 1.382 .096 4.56 4.93 2.995 .051
(1 unsatisfactory – 2 4.47 1.491 .121 4.23 4.71
7 satisfactory) 3 4.43 1.474 .093 4.25 4.61
Noise from colleagues 4.20 1 3.87 1.470 .102 3.67 4.07 1.585 .206
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 3.92 1.639 .133 3.66 4.18
3 4.11 1.498 .095 3.93 4.30
Noise from other people 4.18 1 3.55 1.420 .098 3.35 3.74 2.416 .090
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 3.64 1.503 .122 3.40 3.88
3 3.84 1.453 .092 3.66 4.02
Other noise from inside 3.93 1 3.41 1.501 .104 3.20 3.61 5.184 .006
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 3.54 1.664 .135 3.28 3.81
3 3.85 1.416 .090 3.68 4.03
Noise from outside 3.55 1 3.45 1.599 .111 3.23 3.67 8.986 .000
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 3.38 1.718 .139 3.10 3.65
3 4.00 1.719 .109 3.79 4.21
Interruptions 3.87 1 3.64 1.344 .093 3.46 3.82 3.296 .038
(1 too little – 7 too much) 2 3.63 1.565 .127 3.38 3.88
3 3.94 1.483 .094 3.76 4.13

Note: “F” reveals the significance of the hypothesis that Y depends on X . A large F signifies a small probability that the null
hypothesis is true. “Sig” is the probability of mistakenly rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true. A critical value P = .05 is
generally taken as marking an acceptable boundary of significance.

Table 10. Correlation analysis of the IEQ variables and overall comfort, perceived health and productivity.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Temperature in winter Pearson correlation .697∗∗ .397∗∗ .384∗∗ .218∗∗ .297∗∗ .484∗∗ .325∗∗ .331∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2. Air in winter Pearson correlation .387∗∗ .572∗∗ .253∗∗ .368∗∗ .579∗∗ .361∗∗ .434∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3. Temperature in summer Pearson correlation .738∗∗ .234∗∗ .344∗∗ .565∗∗ .376∗∗ .504∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
4. Air in summer Pearson correlation .303∗∗ .384∗∗ .615∗∗ .380∗∗ .537∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
5. Noise Pearson correlation .193∗∗ .310∗∗ .253∗∗ .360∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
6. Lighting Pearson correlation .492∗∗ .200∗∗ .370∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000 .000
7. IEQ overall Pearson correlation .486∗∗ .582∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000 .000
8. Perceived productivity Pearson correlation .482∗∗
Sig. (two-tailed) .000
∗ Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
∗∗ Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

All samples were located in the humid subtropical cli-
mate where indoor environments in summer were usually
the design emphasis, while this finding implies that winter
indoor air should not be neglected.
Summary and discussion
Figure 1 summarizes the main satisfaction scores for the
investigated groups and BUS benchmark. All are type A
questions where better values were found towards the “right
hand” of the scale, 1 = worst option, 7 = best option. The
highly rated green offices outperformed the other groups as
well as the BUS benchmark on overall comfort, and per-
ceived health and productivity; MM offices outperformed
the other groups as well as the BUS benchmark on summer
temperature and air; MM offices outperformed the other
groups but underperformed the BUS benchmark on winter
temperature and air (mainly because samples in the BUS
204
Figure 1. Summary of satisfaction scores (all are type A questions where better values were found towards the “right hand” of the scale,
1 = worst option, 7 = best option).
benchmark were from the UK where winter indoor envi-
ronments are the design focus, while samples in this study
were from subtropical humid climates where winter indoor
environments are seldom addressed in design and mainte-
nance); offices with high partitions outperformed the other
groups as well as the BUS benchmark on overall noise and
lighting satisfactions.
A highly rated green building is a more effective source
of overall comfort, health and productivity than a lowly
rated one. This is because partial certifications and medium
ratings that are confined to interior design or retrofitting
gives tenants and designers limited sustainable choices.
For example, the main green measures incorporated into
the three LEED Gold offices included lighting design,
energy-using equipment, furniture and furnishings, paint,
carpet and composite wood products; however, they did
not fundamentally improve the air-conditioning system and
building enclosure which shaped the IEQ at large (Gou,
Lau, and Shen 2012; Gou, Prasad, and Siu-Yu Lau 2013).
Green building solutions should be sufficiently effective to
differentiate green buildings from non-green buildings.
MM and natural ventilation are viewed as important sus-
tainable features for green buildings. The study showed that
Z. Gou et al.
summer environments in MM or NV offices were more
satisfactory than those in centrally AC offices. However,
in NV offices, winter environment was less satisfactory
than in centrally AC offices. NV offices were too cold
in winter because the temperature was necessarily closely
linked to those outside and the buildings were less air-tight
(Gou, Lau, and Chen 2012). Combining summer and winter
comfort, MM ventilation performed better than the others,
because it provided a natural environment with mechanical
conditioning for extreme days.
The often-adopted way to achieving good daylight
penetration in open-plan offices is lowering or moving
workstations’ partitions, which is encouraged by LEED. It
turned out that the satisfaction and perception of the natural-
lighting environments did not differ significantly among
the three open-plan office types. This is because day light-
ing could be achieved through strategies such as windows
and shallow layout design other than lowering or removing
workstation partitions. Noise environments in open-plan
offices with high partitions were significantly more satis-
factory than those in open-plan offices with low partitions
or without partitions. Offices without partitions had more
noise from colleagues and from other sources.
 Architectural Science Review
Conclusion
Office buildings are the largest group in the building sector
to seek green certification (Yudelson 2008). The primary
reason for the interest in green office buildings is that the
employees can benefit from healthy and productive work
environments (Kats et al. 2003). Developers who want to
apply the green building design criteria to their buildings
should be aware that the rating systems do not guarantee
an actual comfortable, healthy and productive space for the
occupants, especially buildings with low green tiers that are
improved only partially. High green classes are proposed
for the pursuit of green certification. Highly rated green
buildings may require early input of sustainable design.
According to the GBL and LEED database, most highly
ranked green showcases prioritized passive design like
natural ventilation and day lighting that directly affected
occupants’ impressions on a building. They also adopted
other visible energy-efficient strategies such as vertical
greenery, wetland, etc., that to some extent influenced occu-
pants’ working experience. Although it is more and more
confirmed that sustainable design could affect occupants’
comfort and work performance through improving physi-
cal environments, the psychological impacts of sustainable
design were less investigated.
MM ventilation (a hybrid approach to space condition-
ing that uses a combination of natural ventilation from
operable windows and mechanical systems) and high cubi-
cles (open-plan offices with high partitions) are sensible
choices for green buildings to achieve high satisfaction that
underpins productivity at work. One of the important fea-
tures for MM ventilation is operable windows that should be
valued in green building rating tools. Although the debate
on open-plan vs. private offices is going on, green building
assessment tools are looking for more performance-based
solutions. For instance, in recently released LEED v4, a
new credit was added in the IEQ aspect, namely ‘Acoustic
Performance’, which proposes all occupied spaces to meet
the requirements on Heating, Ventilation, and Air Condi-
tioning (HVAC) background noise, sound isolation, rever-
beration time and sound reinforcement and masking (see
more: http://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction/v4).
It is supposed that these endeavours can lead to more flexi-
ble design solutions to attenuate the criticism on open-plan
offices.
Although IEQ is addressed in today’s green or sustain-
able building assessment tools, it is hard to measure and
its impacts on occupants are complicated by human subjec-
tivity. The research identified some statistical significance;
however, the significance might be subject to specific sam-
ples and contexts. Two limitations apply to this study. First,
only 14 buildings were included in the study. The response
rate differed from building to building. This difference might
weaken the comparisons between the groups of buildings.
The ideal response rate was very similar in each of the
selected buildings. The samples covered the full classes of
205
green buildings such as certified, silver, gold and platinum.
Second, the study adopted the BUS method, which mea-
sures comfort, health and productivity using a self-report
approach. Although the self-assessed approach could be as
important as actual sensations (Oseland and Bartlett 1999),
the need for occupants to select their own reference point
when answering the questions is still debatable. For exam-
ple, questions about their previous building use experience
should be asked; and personal differences should be taken
into account.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful for the generous help from Adrian
Leaman who authorized and instructed this survey. Many thanks
are due to all anonymous reviewers and Editor for their comments
and suggestions. Last but not least, the authors heartfully thank
the Shenzhen Institute of Building Research who gave tremendous
help on the surveys, with special thanks to Hongtao Zhu, Fengna
Chen and Han Yu.
References
Agresti, Alan, and Barbara Finlay. 2009. Statistical Methods
for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
ASHRAE. 2007. ASHRAE Standard 62.1. Ventilation for Accept-
able Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta: American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers.
Baier, R. D. 1999. “Customer Service Made Easy: Deliver What
Office Tenants Want.” HPAC Engineering (September): 41–
45.
Baird, George. 2010. Sustainable Buildings in Practice: What the
Users Think? Abingdon: Routledge.
Baird, G., and S. Lechat. 2009. “Users’ Perceptions of Per-
sonal Control of Environmental Conditions in Sustainable
Buildings.” Architectural Science Review 52 (2): 108–116.
Bordass, Bill, and Adrian Leaman. 2005a. “Making Feedback and
Post-Occupancy Evaluation Routine 1: A Portifolio of Feed-
back Techniques.” Building Research & Information 33 (4):
347–352.
Bordass, Bill, and Adrian Leaman. 2005b. “Making Feedback
and Post-Occupancy Evaluation Routine 3: Case Studies of
the Use of Techniques in the Feedback Portifolio.” Building
Research & Information 33 (4): 361–375.
Brager, G. 2006. “Mixed-Mode Cooling.” ASHRAE Journal 48
(August): 30–37.
Canter, D. 1972. “Reactions to Open Plan Offices.” Built Environ-
ment 1 (October): 465–467.
Daroff, K., and J. E. Rappoport. 1992. “Elements of a Typical
Office Facility.” In Office Planning and Design Desk Refer-
ence, edited by J. E. Rappoport, R. F. Cushman, and K. Daroff,
101–166. New York: Wiley Inter-Science.
Deuble, M. P., and R. de Dear. 2012. “Green Occupants for Green
Buildings: The Missing Link?” Building and Environment
56: 21–27.
Drake, Scott, Richard de Dear, Angela Alessi, and Max Deuble.
2010. “Occupant Comfort in Naturally Ventilated and Mixed-
Mode Spaces within Air-Conditioned Offices.” Architectural
Science Review 53 (3): 297–306.
Gou, Zhonghua, Stephen Siu-Yu Lau, and Fengna Chen. 2012.
“Subjective and Objective Evaluation of the Thermal
Environment in a Three-Star Green Office Building in
206 Z. Gou et al.
China.” Indoor and Built Environment 21 (3): 412–422.
doi:10.1177/1420326x11419311
Gou, Zhonghua, Stephen Siu-Yu Lau, and Jie Shen. 2012. “Indoor
Environmental Satisfaction in Two LEED Offices and its
Implications in Green Interior Design.” Indoor and Built
Environment 21 (4): 503–514. doi:10.1177/1420326x1141
8700
Gou, Zhonghua, Deo Prasad, and Stephen Siu-Yu Lau. 2013. “Are
Green Buildings More Satisfactory and Comfortable?” Habi-
tat International 39: 156–161. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.habitatint.2012.12.007
Heerwagen, J. 2000. “Green Buildings, Organizational Success,
and Occupant Productivity.” Building Research & Informa-
tion 28 (5/6): 353–367.
Hwang, T., and J. T. Kim. 2011. “Effects of Indoor Lighting
on Occupants’ Visual Comfort and Eye Health in A Green
Building.” Indoor and Built Environment 20 (1): 75–90.
Kammerer, H. 1985. “From Open Plan to Individual Offices.”
Baumeister 82 (10): 17–27.
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman.
2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings.
Washington: Capital E.
Leaman, A., and B. Bordass. 2007. “Are Users More Tolerant
of ‘Green’ Buildings?” Building Research & Information 35
(6): 662–673.
Lee, Y. S., and D. A. Guerin. 2009. “Indoor Environmental Quality
Related to Occupant Satisfaction and Performance in LEED-
Certified Buildings.” Indoor and Built Environment 18 (4):
293–300.
Loftness, V., R. Ries, and M. Mondazzi. 2001. Building
Investment Decision Support. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon
University.
Newsham, G. R., B. J. Birt, C. Arsenault, A. J. Thompson, J.
A. Veitch, S. Mancini, A. D. Galasiu, B. N. Gover, I. A.
Macdonald, and G. J. Burns. 2013. “Do ‘Green’ Buildings
Have Btter Indoor Environments? New Evidence.” Building
Research & Information 41 (4): 415–434.
Oommen, Vinesh, Mike Knowles, and Isabella Zhao. 2008.
“Should Health Service Managers Embrace Open Plan Work
Environments? A Review.” Asia Pacific Journal of Health
Management 2 (3): 37–43.
Oseland, N., and P. Bartlett. 1999. Improving Office Productivity:
A Guide for Business and Facilities Managers. Singapore:
Longman.
Paul, W. L. and P. A. Taylor. 2008. “A Comparison of Occupant
Comfort and Satisfaction Between A Green Building and A
Conventional Building.” Building and Environment 43 (11):
1858–1870.
Sun, Daming, and Qi Yuan. 2011. “Investigation and Analysis on
Construction Cost of Green Building in China.” The seventh
international conference on green and energy-efficient build-
ing and new technologies and products expo, Beijing, March
28–30.
Syphers, Geof, Mara Baum, Darren Bouton, and Wesley Sul-
lens. 2003. Managing the Cost of Green Buildings. Belmont:
KEMA.
USGBC. 2007. LEED New Construction & Major Renovation Ref-
erence Guide. Washington, DC: US Green Building Council.
Vischer, J. C. 1989. Environmental Quality in Offices. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Vischer, J. C. 2008. “Towards An Environmental Psychology of
Workspace: How People are Affected by Environments for
Work.” Architectural Science Review 51 (2): 97–108.
Yudelson, Jerry. 2008. The Green Building Revolution. Washing-
ton, DC: Island Press.
Zagreus, L., C. Huizenga, E. Arens, and D. Lehrer. 2004. “Listen-
ing to the Occupants: A Web-based Indoor Environmental
Quality Survey.” Indoor Air 14 (Suppl. 8): 65–74.