The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/1463-001X.htm

Green offices in Australia: a user perception survey
Lynne Armitage, Ann Murugan and Hikari Kato
Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to deepen understanding of what is working and what is not working within green workplace environments. The paper examines management and employee perceptions of their experiences of working in green workplace environments and assesses the effectiveness of such places. Design/methodology/approach – Being the second stage of a longitudinal study, this paper relies on a data set derived from its survey of 31 management and 351 employee respondents occupying Green Building Council Australia Green Star-rated offices for more than 12 months. Findings – The green workplace is a great place to be, at least most of the time, but there is a discrepancy between the views of management who see greater benefits of the green workplace than their employees. Research limitations/implications – By focussing on green buildings, there is no control to establish a benchmark. Hence, the next stage of the research is a comparable study of a non-green data sample. Also to be tested is – whilst managers and employees overall report satisfaction with their green workplace, what is the norm? Practical implications – The findings are useful for green building industry practitioners and for building owners and managers to maximise the benefits of owning and occupying green buildings by highlighting areas that may require particular attention in order to get it right. The results are particularly useful to support targeted efforts to meet the environmental aspects of the workspace needs of employees. This study aims to assist industry practitioners, owner and managers to learn from the experience of current occupiers and thereby assist the design and space management of office space in the future where such considerations will become increasingly important given the international concerns for improved resource management. Originality/value – With international applicability, a large sample of office space users provides empirical evidence of what works/does not work within the green workplace, i.e. its strengths and weaknesses and provides a good reference point for similar studies in the future, leading to the establishment of clearer, more useful benchmarks of green building occupier satisfaction. Keywords Sustainable, Office buildings, Workplace, User satisfaction, Australia Paper type Research paper

Green offices in Australia

169

1. Introduction Buildings in Australia are becoming “Green”. The number of Green Star[1] certified buildings has been growing exponentially since the Green Building Council of Australia introduced its rating scheme in 2002 and today, 11 per cent of Australia’s Central Business District commercial office buildings are Green Star-certified (www.gbca.org. au). Whilst the shift towards Green buildings is undisputed, what is currently still not fully established – nor yet not fully acknowledged – is how these green workplaces actually are liked by the people occupying them. In this regard, the purpose of this research is to examine how occupiers (both management and employees) perceive and evaluate the role of green

Journal of Corporate Real Estate Vol. 13 No. 3, 2011 pp. 169-180 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-001X DOI 10.1108/14630011111170454

One study involving 33 green buildings (Kats. GBCA.gbca. 170 . Research methodology 3. 2. However.. one begins to understand how the quality of the indoor environment can directly impact the financial performance of an organisation (Clements-Croome. 1989). The criteria for inclusion were: located in Australia. that 100 per cent of employers and employees alike thought that the green building was “better than expected with all things considered” and the majority of occupiers signalled that they would not like to relocate to a non-green office building. salary costs comprise 70-90 per cent of a firm’s total costs (Woods. Green Star-certified. The Property Council of Australia estimates productivity benefits from green buildings to be between 4 and 10 per cent (Property Council of Australia (PCA). Expected occupier benefits of a green workplace environment Ten years ago. reduction of glare. increased thermal comfort. Rask and Kato (2008) found that 80 per cent of business managers believed staff absenteeism had decreased since they moved into the new Green Star-rated building. org. most attention in the area of green commercial office buildings was focussed on ecological benefits and.au). Workers’ increased satisfaction. 2001) and it is worth bearing in mind that. increased amounts of natural light and views. A letter inviting participation in the research was forwarded to the owners of all these Green Star-rated buildings. on average. By considering the link between the indoor environment and productivity. there were 107 Green Star-certified buildings in Australia that had been operational for 12 months or longer. two different sample groups were selected: managers and employees working in the building. 2006.. Kumar and Fisk. 2007. 2002. The majority of existing research argues that green buildings produce happier and more productive workers (Fisk.3 workplace environments and. operating as an office in either the private or public sector and operational for 12 months or longer. 2002. as the green building industry now is moving beyond its establishment stage. the cost savings associated with decreased operational cost. Palmer and Mariscal. Wilkinson et al. The aim was to obtain data from a broad range of people who interact with the buildings in various ways. 2000). b. the focus is now on the benefits to occupiers from working in a green workplace. 2003) finds that the productivity benefits are between $37 and 55 US dollars per square foot as a result of less sick time and greater worker productivity. Leaman et al. 2010).1 Sample selection This research was conducted on 31 Green Star-certified buildings in Australia. Rask and Kato (2008) found in their study based on 12 Green Star-rated buildings and their occupants. to assess the effectiveness of a green workplace environment. use of less-toxic building materials and furnishings. (2011) pinpointed that thermal comfort and lighting are the main attributes linked to workers’ increased productivity and satisfaction in green buildings. 2000a. Singh et al. health and productivity in green buildings are mainly the result of better airflow. satisfying noise levels and individual controllability of systems (www. 3. In the same study.JCRE 13. subsequently. At the commencement of this research in late 2009. To conduct the research. to some extent.

Responses were received from 31 buildings and offices agreeing to be part of the management survey sample and this accounted for 29 per cent of the total population. 17 had a 5 star rating (Australian Excellence) and three had a 6 star rating (World Leader). functionality and what they considered to be the effect on employees who have been provided with such a workplace. The employee survey. if any. Adelaide and Gold Coast. It is about 18 months between round one and two. The sample buildings were located in Sydney. The total of employee responses was 351 with each individual building having a response rate of a minimum of 30 per cent. Melbourne. satisfaction levels. satisfaction levels. Respondents from ten buildings agreed to participate in the employee online surveys.1 Management data sample. Gold Coast. Questionnaires to the management were distributed to 107 Green Star-certified buildings/offices via online surveys. Their Green Star rating was based on “Office Design”.2 Employee data sample. “Interiors” and “Education” categories with all buildings having been awarded four to six star ratings. “Interiors” and “Education” categories.2 Questionnaire design 3.2. Canberra) thus providing a good coverage of current Australian trends.2 Employee survey. which accounted for 9 per cent of the total population. One set of questions asked about how they educate employees about how to use the building’s sustainability features. motivation behind going green. The advantage Green offices in Australia 171 .1 Management survey. Online questionnaires were distributed through the organisation’s managers to their employees through the Survey Monkeyw data collection tool. 3. 3. About 11 buildings had a 4 star rating (Best Practice). asked questions about the respondent’s general profile. This time lag was given in order to allow more Green Star-rated buildings to be built and occupied. distributed online. Brisbane.1. 3. knowledge of how to use their green workplace environment. The questionnaire distributed to management asked questions about the company’s general profile. The sample buildings were located in all Australian states except for the Northern Territory[2] and represented most of the major cities (Sydney. One set of questions asked about the incidental benefits of a green workplace environment and what additional aspects. Responses to both sets of questions from both sides were compared to determine if a gap exists between the perceived value of green buildings by management and by employees. Melbourne. with all buildings having been awarded four to six Green star ratings. 3. functionality and self-assessed health and productivity impacts. (2009) during 2008-2009. another set of questions asked if the management believed working in a green building has helped to make employees more environmentally friendly.1. Perth. Adelaide. would help them to be more environmentally aware.3 First round of research The first round of this research was undertaken by Kato et al.3. “yes/no” or “not sure” for others and a few required open-ended questions to be posed. The data were analysed to identify the type of value being created by the green workplace environment and the strengths and weaknesses of green workplaces.2. The buildings are a mixture of privately and government-owned buildings. Their Green Star rating was based on “Office Design”. phone interviews and face-to-face interviews depending on what suited them best. A range of question formats was employed including a five-point (Likert) scale for the majority of questions.

A more in-depth study of this aspect would be beneficial. “Not sure” and “Agree” groups. carbon dioxide monitoring. In round one. Sydney. that occupiers of Green Star-rated buildings and offices are highly satisfied and positive about their workplace. These participating buildings were amongst Australia’s 12 first Green Star-certified buildings.3 172 of round two is that more Green Star-rated buildings exist. i. 4. When staff were asked to show how much they agree (or disagree) with the statements: “This office enhances my productivity” and “I believe this office has positive impacts on my health and well-being”. Neither of the studies fully supports the theory that a Green workplace creates healthier or more productive staff. six buildings participated in the survey of management and three buildings participated in the employee survey. reduction of glare. the validity of the otherwise accepted theory that Green buildings produce healthy and more productive employees is questioned. Given this somewhat mixed result. Canberra.1 Health and productivity The Green Star rating system emphasises the use of materials. it becomes clear that there are certain areas which regularly cause frustration and negative experiences. upon further detailed examination of the data. individual comfort controls and reduction of volatile organic compounds. Adelaide and Brisbane. which is.au). 4. Another difference between the data sample in round one and two is that there is a greater representative of 4 star-rated buildings in round two. This study shows that employers believe that the Green office has a positive impact on health and productivity but employees are not convinced. are the occupants of Green Star-rated buildings feeling healthier and more productive as a result of their move to a green workplace? The findings from the first study and from this one are closely aligned. The questionnaires had the same structure and were distributed in the same format as in the second round of the research. Research findings This second round of research arrived at the same conclusions as did the first round (Kato et al. abundance of daylight. formaldehyde and mould (www. However.7 per cent but in the second round. this study does show responses that go a bit further in that direction. 4. thus enabling a bigger data sample to be used.e. the result was somewhat unconvincing. they comprised 35 per cent. Based on such data. However. They are almost evenly divided into “Disagree”. in the forefront of the green building revolution. four star buildings only contributed 16.2 Office satisfaction When asked if the Green Star-certified office is better than expected “with all things considered”.org. staff do not believe the green office environment has a positive impact on their productivity and health as much as their employers think. 2009).. By contrast. In round one. Only a small . systems and measures which promote healthy indoor environments such as increased outside air rates.JCRE 13. About 89 per cent of the employers do believe their green office has a positive impact on both productivity and health. the majority of managers and employees agreed that it is. gbca. The sample buildings in round one were located in Melbourne. Employers were asked if the Green Star-certified building has helped to motivate their employees to be more productive or to have positive impacts on their health and well-being.

“Stability of air temperature” was another area of low satisfaction levels at 38 per cent. Most and least favourite features – staff responses 9% 8% 6% 11% 15% 8% 26% 32% 42% 47% 42% 45% 24% 19% 17% 30% 30% 24% 6% 22% 6% 8% 11% 3% 16% 4% 20% 5% Office noise 16% 4% Outside noise 25% 24% 41% 54% Stability of Humidity Air quality Air Air Levels (stuffy. temperature. For a more in-depth understanding of satisfaction levels.percentage of respondents (less than 10 per cent) said they disagreed with this statement. Occupants were asked to rate their satisfaction level with their workplace (Figures 1 and 2). Green offices in Australia 173 In your opinion. When comparing the result between management and employees. etc. The results are shown in Table I. what is the best thing about this office? Please describe your biggest complaint about your office Natural light Open plan and location View Air temperature Lack of privacy Internal noise Table I. dusty. These findings support those of the earlier study: not exactly the same but at a broadly similar scale. Air TemperatureTemperature odor. Office satisfaction: air and noise – staff responses .” scored the lowest with only 22 per cent being satisfied in this area. “natural light” (58 per cent) and “glare” (56 per cent). “artificial lighting” (66 per cent). “Level of privacy” also scored low with 43 per cent satisfied. etc) in summer in winter Tempereature Comfortable Very Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable Figure 1. airflow. Staff were asked to write down their most favourite or least favourite features of their office. noticeably management was the more satisfied. the physical green office environment was divided into 13 items based on the Green Star rating of healthy indoor environment. The items with the highest satisfaction levels were “outside noise” (80 per cent satisfied). The “ability to change lighting.

3 Incidental benefits Survey results also revealed that having a Green Star-rated building has produced complementary green incidental benefits. glass and compost material usage of worm farm plastic .3 14% 16% 14% 6% 15% 16% 8% 32% 35% 42% 42% 51% 33% 174 33% 29% 25% 14% 7% 29% 21% 21% 12% 5% 11% 4% Glare from windows 9% 4% 14% 7% 31% A view from Level of natural daylight the nearest window Function of Your ability to Level of privacy artificial light change lighting. etc. 100 per cent did this. On-site Purchase Carbon off-set Recycling of Procurement water and Green Power paper. temperature. Office satisfaction: view. the second most common sustainability program was to undertake green 100 80 (%) 60 40 20 Figure 3. Survey results (Figure 3) show that the majority of organisations use a number of sustainability measures and activities above and beyond Green Star requirements with 90 per cent of respondents identifying as adopting sustainability measures and activities that are not required by the Green Star rating system. Environmentally friendly activities – management responses 0 Green Monitor energy.JCRE 13. light and privacy – staff responses Satisfied Very satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied 4. air flow. Figure 2. In the first round of research. The most common additional sustainability program identified was providing recycling facilities with 89 per cent of organisations doing this.

etc. The only exception is that a high percentage (71 per cent) responded “No and haven’t considered” for “Switching off all the power points”. 2009) was undertaken? The first study was based on six out of Australia’s first 12 Green Star-certified buildings compared to during this study. providing recycling was also the most common thing to do (100 per cent). Another explanation could be that in round one of the research. it considered only 16. Survey results (Figure 4) show that the majority of staff also actively participate with environmentally friendly activities in their Green Star-certified offices. “Reduce paper usage” and “Recycling”. It should be recognised that it is more likely that 5 and 6 Green Star-rated buildings would have a higher commitment to be green.e. More than half of respondents replied either “Always do” or “Yes often” for the categories of “Turn off computer monitor”. offer recycling facilities. In the first round of research. i. Perhaps. Looking at this data. followed by use of Green Power (67 per cent) and the third most common was procurement practices (50 per cent). but thinking about doing Always do Green offices in Australia 175 Figure 4. “Shut down computer at the end of the day”. going green is more mainstream now compared to when the first round of the study (Kato et al. where 107 buildings have become Green Star-certified. Environmentally friendly activities – staff responses . In the study.. Does a green office mean greener staff? The previous study indicated quite strongly that Green Star-rated offices do inspire employees working in the building to act more sustainable: 67 per cent of the employers and 86 per cent of the employees believed that working in a green building has motivated them to be more environmentally friendly. water and material use age (46 per cent). The major difference now is that fewer offices use Green Power with 67 per cent doing so previously compared to only 30 per cent this time and previously 100 per cent provided recycling compared to 89 per cent this time. an increased likelihood of purchasing Green Power. employers continued to believe it does (74 per cent) whereas only 80 60 (%) 40 20 0 Walk or Separate Turn off your Shut down Switch off all Reduce your paper usage garbage from catch public the power your computer transport to a recycling computer at points linked by printing monitor meeting when you the end of the to your desk double sided day leave work No and haven't considered Sometimes Yes often No. perhaps it suggests buildings owners and managers today may not be as passionate about green as the early adopters.procurement practices (53 per cent) and third most common was to monitor energy.7 per cent of 4 Green Star-certified buildings compared to round two’s inclusion of 35 per cent 4 Green Star-certified buildings.

this means that early adopters in general had more passion and commitment towards sustainability.JCRE 13. Knowledge appears to be an important factor in achieving higher staff satisfaction rates. 2009). For example. Does this drop reflect the fact that.3 176 33 per cent of employees thought so. . convenient location and having a view. people might not find their green workspace as inspirational in this later study. 42 per cent of employees report an “extremely poor” understanding of “How to adjust the light” and 37 per cent of employees say they have an “extremely poor” understanding of how to adjust air temperature/ventilation (Figure 5). management is more satisfied than are their employees (same results in round one of the research). This might explain why. compared to the round two data sample where green has become less pioneering and more mainstream.. There is a high overall satisfaction level amongst both employees and managers. The most common ways of educating employees was via the distribution of a tenant/user guide (33 per cent).4 Communication and education strategies The findings reveal that even though most managers (74 per cent) educate their employees about how to use the office and its green features. in the first round of the research (Kato et al. Managers who relied solely on the distribution to their employees of a tenant/user guide scored less well in both general satisfaction and level of understanding of how to use the building’s green features. Abundance of natural light. According to the responses. 4. 5. For these people. However. a somewhat poor understanding exists amongst staff regarding the use of the building even after 12 months of working there. This finding suggests that interactive and direct education such as building induction programs and workshops can be a much more effective way to communicate with staff than just distributing a manual. they had received about the buildings green features it was evident that the higher the extent of their knowledge of the green building features. Employees were asked if there was anything that would encourage them to act more environmentally friendly in the office. visual signs (14 per cent) and incentives and rewards (13 per cent) would be the three most effective proposals if an employer wants to encourage staff to be more environmentally friendly in the office (Figure 6). So does a green office mean greener staff? A Green Star-certified office status itself does not necessarily encourage staff to be environmentally conscious but more research needs to be done in order to clarify this. About 86-33 per cent reduction is a big drop. being in a green work environment appears to be highly motivational for them to become more environmentally friendly.1 Strengths (1) High levels of satisfaction. the greater was their level of satisfaction. When comparing the satisfaction levels of users based on the level of education. Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of Green Star-rated building 5. understanding of green feature system (20 per cent). visual displays (29 per cent) and green inductions covering the building’s green features (22 per cent). participants and their employees were amongst the first to have a Green Star-certified building in Australia? Perhaps. a spacious often open plan layout. (2) What employees like the most about their green office.

(4) Producing green incidental benefits.6% 11% 6% 13% 20% 4% 20% Green offices in Australia 18% 25% 40% 23% 19% 31% 177 28% 30% 42% 37% 6% 4% How to adjust lights 17% How to adjust How to recycle waste Overall understanding temperature/ventilation how to use the green features Good understanding Generally OK understanding Outstanding understanding Somewhat unsatisfactory understanding Extremely poor understanding Figure 5. (5) Managers believe Green Star buildings improve green awareness amongst staff. only a third of employees agreed with this. A majority of managers use a number of sustainability measures and activities above and beyond Green Star requirements. Recycling pick-ups (89 per cent). Green procurement practices (53 per cent). comparing this data with round one of the research. In round one for example. . it seems that buildings owners and managers today are not as dedicated to green as the early adopters (round one). Employers believe that the Green office has a positive impact on health and productivity but employees are not convinced it does. water and materials usage (48 per cent). . . such as: . 67 per cent of buildings purchased Green Power compared to only 30 per cent this time. Employers continued to believe a green office mean greener staff. Level of knowledge of office’s green features – staff responses (3) Health and productivity. However. Monitoring energy. however.

many employees do not understand how to use such green features and with that comes an increased level of dissatisfaction as well as being likely to decrease the performance of the building by staff not knowing how to use it in the most efficient way. The third aspect for consideration is to make sure employees understand how to use the office’s green features.JCRE 13. the distribution of a users’ guide. Dissatisfaction in specific areas was evident. first.2 Weaknesses . However. experiencing a lack of privacy and internal noise issues. second. Conclusion From the above findings. . by paying more attention to the improvement of thermal comfort amongst staff. “What programs would make you more environmentally friendly?” – staff responses 5. Interactive educational programs have proved to be much more effective than. This is an important issue to address. Employees would benefit by receiving a more interactive education such as Green building induction programs and workshops on how to use the office’s green features. The biggest areas of complaint from staff were lack of thermal comfort (the temperature). This study shows that employees really appreciate the sense of space and roominess of an open plan layout but at the same time complain strongly about lack of privacy and noise issues. Currently. by making sure the open plan office allows for privacy and low internal noise levels. for example.3 25 20 15 178 (%) 10 5 0 Incorporate sustainability into the staff induction Incentives and rewards More sustainble-concious colleagues Visual signs Company wide sustinability events and activities Acknowledgement and feedback Betterunderstanding on office's green features Better environmentally designed office space Other Figure 6. 6. one can assume that Green Star-certified buildings and workplaces have got the basics right. there are specific areas which need fine tuning in order for green workplace environments to operate at their fullest potential. at the same time. Lack of education. . This could be achieved.

Creating the Productive Workplace. Green Building Council Industry Publication. 183-95. Vol. 2nd ed. Too. When this research was conducted. Green Star is a comprehensive. (2009). 11 No. The better these differences are understood. W. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. Thomas. The Costs and Benefits of Green: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force. In addition. Furthermore. and Fisk. References Clements-Croome. 2. Berkeley. S.J. 537-66. Notes 1. SIY Indoor Air Information. Sydney. 23-34. and Vandenberg. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. L. there is a clear gap between the organisations’ and the workers’ perception of the advantages and disadvantages of the green workplace. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. (2000). August 6-10. D. PCA (2001). voluntary environmental rating system that evaluates the environmental design and construction of buildings in Australia. it is also important that these differences are understood by green building industry practitioners who then are more likely to be able to create a green building or office which will work well from both the management’s perspective as well as the workers plus. A. San Francisco Environment. Kumar. W. Promoting Workplace Productivity and Health: Final Report. 25 No. be highly environmentally friendly – a mutually beneficial outcome for the business. Palmer. “Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency”. Fisk. Washington. Vol. the sooner more research is undertaken in this area. Fisk. H. pp. (2000a). and Rask.. 11. G. Leaman. A Roadmap for the Commercial Property Industry. it is that a company will realise the maximum benefits of having a green workplace environment. 22-30. Property Council of Australia. the sooner the key areas which today are generating mixed results will be clarified and the next stage of this longitudinal research is currently aiming to provide this clarification. Oy.J. pp. A. (2000b). CA. Vol. pp. (2003). San Francisco. The Journal of Airah. Ecolibrium. L. “‘Green’ buildings: what Australian building users are saying”. As indicated in this study.. Green offices in Australia 179 . Kato. organisations may achieve higher levels of staff satisfaction if they make themselves aware of the pros and cons of the workplace environment from the worker’s perspective as well as from their own. 3. The Dollars and Sense of Green Buildings: Building the Business Case for Green Commercial Buildings in Australia. Capital E Analytics. “Review of health and productivity gains from better IEQ”. the more likely. London.As consequence.. (2007). Kats.J. Sustainable Development. E & FN Spon. “Occupier perception of green workplace environment: the Australian experience”. L. Sydney. (2002). Proceedings of Healthy Buildings. pp. Helsinki (invited paper). CA. DC. there was one Green Star-rated building in Northern Territory which had not yet reached its 12 months operation mark. and Mariscal. Green Building Council Australia (2006). 1. of course. M. the people who work there and for the environment. Helsinki. A. W. Green Buildings and Worker Productivity: Review of the Literature. national. (2002).

Woods.JCRE 13. “Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity”. (2010). Syal. 9. Vol. She has held academic positions in property. Hikari earned a Master degree in Real Estate (MRE) from the University of New South Wales. and Jailani. SE Asia and Namibia. Reed. 100 No. the UK. Australia. land management.bond. She has been an Accredited Professional of Green Building Council of Australia since 2007.au About the authors Lynne Armitage qualified initially as a Chartered Surveyor in general practice in the UK. Occupiers of Green Star Rated Building Experience on How to Make the Best Use of It. Ann Murugan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: amurugan@bond. J. and Kato. S. 4. “Cost avoidance and productivity in owning and operating buildings”. Her research interests include interior design and its impacts on humans in sustainable buildings.au Hikari Kato is a Postgraduate Fellow at the Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture at Bond University.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. (2008). as a Research Assistant investigating sustainable commercial office building. Bond University’s Mirvac School of Sustainable Development in collaboration with the Green Building Council Australia. S. commercial property valuation. (2011). Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews.emeraldinsight. Gold Coast. Proceedings of the 17th PRRES Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference. A. 1665-8. She currently works at Bond University.edu. Australia. Before going to Bond.au/prod_ext/ groups/public/@pub-burcs-gen/documents/genericwebcontent/bd3_015058.gbca. Her main research interest lies in the inter-relationship of human factors and the built environment. Ann Murugan has a background in management of a not-for-profit organisation working in the area of nature protection. 753-70. J. 4 No. pp. Australia.org. A. valuation and urban development at five universities in three countries and was a member of the Surveyors’ Board of Queensland. Gold Coast.3 180 Rask. H. S.. Her research interests fall into three main areas – the value of built heritage.com/reprints .. Enhancing Performance of Green Buildings: Report 2008. Internet sources www. American Journal of Public Health.pdf Singh. and Korkmaz. as well as an undergraduate degree (BA) from the University of Sydney and a diploma from Parsons The New School for Design in New York. commercial property market process – linked by people’s relationship to place. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. Wilkinson. available at: www. “User satisfaction in sustainable office buildings: a preliminary study”.edu.. R. M. pp. Vol. (1989). sustainable land management practice. international development (World Bank/AusAID) and land management in Australia. Since then she has worked in both the public and private sectors in the areas of corporate property advisory. Grady.G.