IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Contribution of Space Factors to Decisions on Comfort of Healthy

Building Design
To cite this article: Qi Zhen et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 329 012014

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 38.145.81.196 on 11/10/2019 at 18:19

Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

Contribution of Space Factors to Decisions on Comfort of

Healthy Building Design

Qi Zhen1, Qiong Huang1 and Qi Zhang1

1
Department of Architecture, Tianjin University, 92 Weijin Street, Tianjin, China

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract. Healthy buildings are closely related to human health and comfort. Based on the
literature survey, this paper explores the definition of comfort in healthy buildings. Through
literature analysis and expert interviews, 16 building space factors affecting building indoor
environment were identified. To introduce the building space factors into the research on the
comfort evaluation of healthy buildings, 152 questionnaires were sent out and the relationship
between these factors and building indoor environment comfort evaluation and their rankings
were discussed. Data analysis includes the reliability analysis, normal distribution test, Pearson
correlation coefficient and MANOVA. The results have shown that the perceived comfort is
strongly influenced by the building space factors, and the relationship is complicated. The
rankings from professionals and non-professionals were different. Several factors have been
identified as key influencing factors. Besides, the perceived comfort is also related to other
factors such as age, gender, etc. Such discovery primarily provides an ordering of building
space design factors, which will contribute to the buildings’ health, comfort and sustainable
development through architectural design from an architect’s perspective.

1. Introduction
The building design aims to provide a healthier and more comfortable environment for people. People
stay indoors for more than 90% of the time [1], so most countries believe that the indoor environment
has a major impact on human health and well-being [2][3]. Studies have shown that healthier buildings
can reduce occupants’ stress [4], increase productivity, and reduce health care costs by 1-5% [5].
Therefore, to determine the relationship between building environment and comfort is conducive to the
design and operation of healthy buildings.
In the indoor environment, the literature review examining the comfort of building occupants
mainly focuses on the impact of physical environmental conditions on overall IEQ satisfaction, such
as noise, light, and temperature [6][7][8]. The influence of architectural design on the indoor
environment is mainly reflected in the space characteristics, and the building space factors can interact
with occupants [9]. Studies have shown that the architectural decoration and light color have little
effect on thermal comfort [10][11], but the building space factors exert a significant influence on
overall IEQ satisfaction [12]. Calculating the impact of spatial factors on human comfort and their
importance index can help architects design healthier buildings.

1.1. Connotation and elements of healthy buildings

In 2000, the healthy building was explained at the Healthy Building Conference in Espoo, Finland. In
addition to temperature, humidity, ventilation and light, the healthy building is also seen as a way to
build an indoor environment, including layout, color and personal psychological needs [13]. In

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
 Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

October 2014, the International Well Building Institute (IWBI) in the United States released the
world’s first healthy building assessment standard, The Well Building Standard V1 (WELL). The
WELL is divided into seven health concepts, i.e. air, water, nutrition, light, fitness, comfort and spirit
[14]. In March 2015, the standard was officially introduced into China by the Green Business
Certification (GBCI) and IWBI. The Architectural Society of China released the Healthy Building
Evaluating Standard T/ASC02-2016 (HBES) on January 6, 2017. The evaluation index system
includes six categories: water, air, comfort, fitness, humanities and services [15]. The ASHB first
defines a healthy building as a building that provides a healthier environment, facilities and services
for building users, promotes physical and mental health, and improves health performance, based on
the realization of building functions.
The concept of a healthy building is believed to be a ‘built environment that encourages positive
well-being of human beings’ [16]. For decades, researchers have conducted studies to investigate the
relationship between human health and the built environment. Different factors in a building affect its
safety and hygiene. For example, factors such as lighting, quality of air, thermal comfort, aural comfort,
colors, and textures are known to have a positive relationship with a healthy built environment [17].
Apart from these physical dimensions, some immeasurable aspects, such as aesthetics, job satisfaction,
and social relationships, play important roles in the state of general well-being [18].

1.2. Comfort of healthy buildings

The comfort specified in the WELL focus on significantly reducing the most common causes of
physiological disturbances, distraction and irritation, and largely enhancing acoustics, ergonomics,
smell and thermal comfort to avoid stress and injury and improve individual comfort, work efficiency
and health level. HBES incorporates natural light and lighting into comfort evaluation. As shown in
Table 1, the concept of comfort in the standard includes three elements of indoor environmental
quality (sound, heat, vision) and ergonomics. However, even if the requirements of existing standards
are met, not all occupants are satisfied with the indoor environment [19].
A healthy building should provide a comfortable indoor environment for occupants, which makes
them healthy, both physically and psychologically [20].The importance of indoor environment has
reached a consensus among many researchers. Comfort perceived by human is disrupted by many
(individual, social, and architectural) factors. Jaakola believes that different determinants
simultaneously affect both human health and comfort, and sometimes the effects may be synergistic
[21]. They combine to form an overall comfort experience, which is the concept of comfort that is
discussed in this paper, that is, the occupants’ overall satisfaction with the indoor environment.


Table 1. Comfort characteristics of WELL and HBES.

Standard Comfort characteristics Comfort characteristics Standard
WELL Accessibility design standard in Indoor artificial cold/heat HBES
ADA source
Ergonomics: vision and physiology Ergonomics
Outdoor noise intrusion Acoustic environment
Indoor noise Thermal and humid environment
Reverberation time Light environment
Sound masking
Silencing surface
Sound barrier
Thermal comfort
Independent thermal control
Radiant thermal comfort
Olfactory comfort

1.3. Hypotheses

2
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

The purpose of this paper is to confirm the impact of building space factors on human comfort, to
enrich the terms of comfort characteristics in standard of healthy buildings. Obviously, it is important
for architects to make decisions to optimize building design and thus to improve space comfort. The
lack of space quality standards has led architects to rely entirely on personal experience in optimizing
space design, and unfortunately their preferences are not the same as those of occupants. After
interviews and questionnaires, this paper discussed whether all spatial factors contribute to comfort
and counted the rankings of space factors that occupants consider important. This paper also attempted
to identify several factors that unrelated to space but affect the comfort experience. These factors
include occupants’ age, gender, etc.
We attempted to make three hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There are several building space factors that are important for people to evaluate
whether a room is comfortable or not.
Hypothesis 2: When physical environmental conditions meet the standards, assessing whether the
indoor environment is comfortable mostly depends on the spatial conditions that are of high
importance to people’s comfort.
Hypothesis 3: Factors unrelated to space such as age, gender, etc., also have an impact on people’s
overall comfort evaluation.

2. Determination of building space factors

The internal space of the building is separated from the natural space for some purpose by people with
the use of a certain material and technical means. It has the closest relationship with people and has the
greatest impact on people. It should have a beautiful form under the premise of meeting functional
requirements, and thus meet people’s mental and aesthetic needs.
Table 2. Building space factors related to comfort.
 Code Item Grade 1 Grade 7
Dimension A1 Floor dimension b Too small Too large
A2 Height of ceilings b Too short Too high
A3 Shape of rooms a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Enclosure B1 Openness of spaces b Too closed Too open
B2 Size of windows b Too small Too large
B3 Orientation of windows a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
B4 Presence of natural images a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
a
B5 Indoor/outdoor sunshades Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
B6 Entrance/exit location a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Layout and C1 Separation in the room Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
separation (column, mezzanine, etc.) a
C2 Layout a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
C3 Function districts a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Color and D1 Color of ground/wall/ceiling a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
a
texture D2 Material of ground/wall/ceiling Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
D3 Texture of ground/wall/ceiling a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
D4 Other decorations a Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
a
These items have a 7-point scale: 1-being not satisfactory, 7-being satisfactory.
b
These items are two-sided, the best score is 4, both grade 1 and 7 being most negative. For analysis, we re-
encode them into a negative-positive 4-point scale (1 and 7: mark 1; 2 and 6: mark 2; 3 and 5: mark 3; 4: mark
4)

In the 21st century, study about spatial attribute perception started [22]. Most studies examined
single space attribute, such as size, window-wall ratio, and color. The perception content of these space
attributes includes space forms, such as spaciousness, closure, complexity, and organization, and
general preferences, such as like and satisfaction [23]. Other studies have examined the relationship
between certain human emotions (like pleasure, stress and anxiety) or their work efficiency and
architectural design features [24]. It is believed that architectural design factors are important for

3
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

human experience [25]. We summarized the building space factors discussed in the literature and
interviewed 50 professionals. According to their comprehensive results, we classified the building
space factors, which are divided into four categories (dimension, enclosure, layout and separation,
color and texture) and a total of 16 factors, as shown in Table 2. For the convenience of further study,
these impact factors were coded.

3. Methodology

3.1. Questionnaire development

The purpose of the questionnaire survey is to investigate different views on the importance of the
above spatial factors, and to determine people’s satisfaction with different building space factors and
overall environmental satisfaction. Besides, there are people’s social contact, performance and
emotion, and this paper also verified their relevance. Questionnaires with a 7-point semantic
differential scale were used to further analyze these identified influencing factors.
There were four main parts in the questionnaire. Section 1 was the background information of the
respondents. Five questions (Table 3) were designed to gather basic information about respondents
(gender, age, occupation, daily working hours and work experience) which was believed to affect the
overall comfort evaluation and help ensure the authenticity and validity of the data collected at the
same time. In Section 2, 16 questions corresponding to 16 spatial factors (Table 2) were designed to
determine the importance of each factor affecting healthy buildings and their rankings from its
response. Section 3 was about other factors, including related indoor environmental quality (IEQ)
factors and personal control degree, and the respondents can add other important factors that have not
been mentioned before (Table 3). Section 4 was about the space atmosphere, performance and emotion
of respondents (Table 3).
Table 3. Other aspects.
Basic information Personal control space Performance Emotions
atmosphere
Gender Flexible selection of Privacy d Work enthusiasm d Fatigue e
c
stations
Age Sunshade c Crowding e Work efficiency d Anxiety e
c
Occupation Window opening Depression e
Working hours Temperature c Laziness e
c
Work experience Light
Noise c
Air quality c
c
These items have a 7-point scale: 1-being no control at all, 7-full control.
d
These items have a 7-point scale: 1-very low, 7-very high.
e
These items have a 7-point scale: 1-being agree, 7-being disagree.

3.2. Data collection

The questionnaires were distributed to respondents by email or QR code. According to the purpose of
the questionnaire survey, the target samples from several cities in different regions such as Tianjin,
Beijing, etc. were selected, including experienced professionals such as architects and non-
professionals. Therefore, to determine the key factors that affect the comfort of the building space
environment from their response are more scientific and reasonable.
A total of 152 questionnaires were sent out from March to April 2019, and 151 valid responses
were collected with an effective response rate of 99%. The background information about the
respondents is shown in Table 4.

4
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

Table 4. Distribution of the returns from different groups.

Male/Female Age Daily working Work experience Professional /
ratio hours (year) non-professional
ratio
1:1.07 under 18 1.99% 3~5 3.31% Less than 1 22.52% 1:2.02
18~25 23.18% 5~8 27.81% 1~3 33.77%
26~30 41.72% 8~11 58.94% 3~5 14.57%
31~40 14.57% Over 11 9.93% Over 5 29.14%
41~50 11.26%
51~60 7.28%

3.3. analysis
Data analysis was divided into three steps. First, reliability analysis and normal distribution test were
carried out. Then, Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between
building space factors and the overall comfort of indoor environment. Finally, the effects of other
factors on indoor environmental comfort were analyzed. SPSS 22.0 was used to analyze the data and
research the principal components of impact factors influencing the comfort of healthy building.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Reliability analysis and normal distribution test

Table 5. Reliability Statistics of the factors.

Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items
Alpha Standardized Items
0.898 0.896 16

Table 6. Normal distribution test of the factors.

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
N Valid 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.72 3.98 4.49 3.87 3.62 4.50 4.03 4.21
Std. Deviation 1.167 1.023 1.356 1.287 1.258 1.708 1.645 1.490
Skewness -0.154 0.002 -0.101 0.162 -0.556 -0.181 -0.006 -0.150
Std. Error of Skewness 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197
Kurtosis 1.636 2.572 0.197 0.852 0.054 -0.676 -0.653 -0.226
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392
B6 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 D4
N Valid 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.32 4.05 4.12 3.88 4.17 4.20 4.11 3.99
Std. Deviation 1.378 1.496 1.469 1.553 1.375 1.361 1.329 1.369
Skewness -0.017 0.054 -0.017 0.169 0.215 0.003 0.084 -0.051
Std. Error of Skewness 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197
Kurtosis 0.039 -0.049 0.050 -0.421 0.040 0.310 0.258 0.056
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.392

Cronbach’s alpha is often used to test the internal consistency of collected data. The reliability is

5
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

acceptable if the Cronbach’s alpha value is more than 0.7 [26]. Cronbach’s alpha was used in this
study to test the internal consistency among the impact factors. The Cronbach’s coefficient was more
than 0.7, as shown in Table 5.
The normality test of space comfort evaluation was conducted by using the kurtosis and skewness
coefficients. As shown in Table 6, all the skewness and kurtosis coefficients except A1 and A2 were
less than 1, so it could be considered that the results are approximately normally distributed.

4.2. Rankings of factors and correlation analysis

With collected data, the correlation rank of factors was calculated. As shown in the Table 7, rankings
from professionals and that from non-professionals showed inconsistent performance. Layout and
separation, color and texture were regarded as important to the indoor environment comfort by all the
respondents. However, compared with non-professionals, professionals think that texture had little
impact on comfort. Professionals believed that all three sub-factors of dimension were very important,
while non-professionals believed floor dimension and height of ceilings were not so important. As far
as Enclosure was concerned, the size of the window was considered important by professionals,
followed by the openness of the space and interior and exterior shading measures, while non-
professionals considered the openness of the space to be more important, followed by shading and
window size. The reason for the difference in ranking was believed to be that professionals were more
sensitive to factors such as space scale and window-wall ratio because they were engaged in
architectural design. Of course, it was also influenced by personal preference. Based on the overall
ranking, some factors (floor dimension / orientation of windows, etc.) were considered to have a weak
relationship with the overall comfort of the room.
Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the relationship between the satisfaction degree
of 16 factors and the overall satisfaction degree of overall comfort. As shown in the Table 8, there was
a significant correlation between the evaluation of 16 factors and the overall comfort evaluation. In
general, factors with obvious correlation were also considered important except four (shape of rooms,
openness of spaces, size of windows and texture of ground/wall/ceiling). Dimension (A1-A3) was
related to crowding degree of the room, work enthusiasm and work efficiency. Enclosure (B4-B6),
layout and separation (C1-C3) and color and texture (D1-D4) were related to privacy and crowding of
the room and work enthusiasm, while only B4 was related to work efficiency. Building space factors
had little influence on the evaluation results of emotion.
Table 7. Correlation index and ranking of the factors.
Groups Code Item Correlation index and ranking
Professional non- All
professional
Dimension A1 Floor dimension 0.88 7 0.71 16 0.77 15
0.92 3 0.77 13 0.82 10 *
A2 Height of ceilings
0.86 9 0.84 4 0.85 3 *
A3 Shape of rooms
*
Enclosure B1 Openness of spaces 0.84 10 0.85 3 0.85 3
*
B2 Size of windows 0.90 5 0.80 11 0.83 9
B3 Orientation of windows 0.80 15 0.78 12 0.79 12
B4 Presence of natural images 0.82 13 0.77 13 0.79 12
*
B5 Indoor/outdoor sunshades 0.84 10 0.81 10 0.82 10
B6 Entrance/exit location 0.82 13 0.72 15 0.75 16
*
Layout and C1 Separation in the room 0.96 1 0.87 1 0.90 1
*
separation C2 Layout 0.92 3 0.82 9 0.85 3
C3 Function districts a 0.90 5 0.83 7 0.85 3 *
*
Color and D1 Color of ground/wall/ceiling 0.96 1 0.87 1 0.90 1
*
texture D2 Material of ground/wall/ceiling 0.84 10 0.84 4 0.84 8
D3 Texture of ground/wall/ceiling 0.72 16 0.83 7 0.79 12
0.88 7 0.84 4 0.85 3 *
D4 Other decorations
*
Factors with high correlation.

6
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

Table 8. Pearson correlation coefficient of the factors with the overall comfort.
 A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Overall Pearson Correlation .338** .231** .391** .180* .191* .380** .503** .451**
comfort Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .004 .000 .027 .019 .000 .000 .000
N 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
 B6 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 D4
** ** ** ** ** **
Overall Pearson Correlation .506 .614 .642 .600 .564 .536 .550** .518**
comfort Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

4.3. Evaluation of factors unrelated to space

Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to analyze the effect of factors unrelated to space (age,
gender, etc.) on the overall comfort evaluation. As shown in Table 9, all the eleven factors had little
influence on the evaluation of overall comfort in the statistical sense. However, after statistical analysis,
compared with women, men had a higher tolerance for the environment. With the increase of age,
daily working hours and work experience, the evaluation of environmental comfort decreased.
Table 9. MANOVA of the factors that affect the degree of satisfaction with the overall comfort.
Source Type III Sum Mean F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
of Squares Square
Gender 1.538 1.538 1.118 .292 .008
Age 13.511 2.702 1.965 .088 .067
Daily working hours 9.662 3.221 2.343 .076 .049
Work experience 4.711 1.570 1.142 .334 .024
Flexible selection of stations 9.579 1.368 1.317 .250 .083
Control of sunshade 6.370 1.062 1.021 .416 .057
Control of window opening 2.577 .368 .354 .926 .024
Control of temperature 7.744 1.106 1.064 .392 .068
Control of light 5.682 .812 .781 .605 .051
Control of noise 1.925 .275 .265 .966 .018
Control of air quality 9.074 1.296 1.247 .284 .079

5. Conclusion

In this study, questionnaire survey was used to check whether the building space factors had influence
on comfort evaluation, thus contributing to the comfort decision-making in healthy building design.
The results proved the three previous hypotheses. First, 11 of the 16 spatial factors selected had
significant influence on the overall comfort evaluation. Secondly, in general, when the physical
environmental conditions met the standards, the factors considered to be more important had a higher
correlation with overall comfort. Some of the anomalies were considered to come from three reasons:
professional experience, sample size, and personal preference. Finally, there were some factors
(personal characteristics, personal control) that interfere with comfort assessment, although not
obviously.
In this study, only questionnaires were used for investigation and analysis, the indoor environment
quality of the buildings was not specifically measured, which was more convenient in the laboratory.
Therefore, it is suggested that future research can quantify the impact of building space factors on
comfort evaluation based on laboratory studies.

7
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of
China (Grant No. 2016YFC0700200).

References
[1] Hidayetoglu M L, Yildirim K and Cagatay K 2010 The effects of training and spatial experience
on the perception of the interior of buildings with a high level of complexity Sci. Res. Essays
5 (5) pp 428–39
[2] CEC 2004 The European environment and health action plan 2004-2010 COM (2004) 416 final
vol I SEC (2004)729
[3] WHO 2004 Regional office for Europe Declaration EU/04/5046267/6
[4] Salleh M R 2008 Life event, stress, and illness Malays. J. Med. Sci. 15 (4) pp 9–18
[5] Morton B and Ramos J 2014 The drive toward healthier buildings 2014: the market drivers and
impact of building design and construction on occupant health, well-being and productivity
Smart Mark. Rep. Dodge Data Anal
[6] Choi J H and Aziz A 2009 Loftness V. Decision support for improving occupant environmental
satisfaction in office buildings: The relationship between subset of IEQ satisfaction and
overall environmental satisfaction Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Healthy
Buildings Syracuse NY USA paper p 747
[7] Lai A C K, Mui K W, Wong L T and Law L Y 2009 An evaluation model for indoor environm-
ental quality (IEQ) acceptance in residential buildings. Energy Build 41(9) pp 930-6
[8] Astolfi A and Pellerey F 2008 Subjective and objective assessment of acoustical and overall
environmental quality in secondary school classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 123(1) pp 163-73
[9] Van Leeuwen J P and Wagter H 1997 Architectural design-by-features in: R. Junge (Ed.)
CAAD Futures Springer Dordrecht
[10] Fanger P O, Breum NO and Jerking E 1997 Can colour and noise influence man’s thermal
comfort? Ergonomics 20(1) pp 11-8
[11] Rohles F H and Wells W V 1977 The role of environmental antecedents on subsequent thermal
comfort ASHRAE Trans 83(2) pp 21-9
[12] Xu H, Huang Q and Zhang Q 2018 A study and application of the degree of satisfaction with
indoor environmental quality involving a building space factor Building and Environment
143 pp 227–39
[13] Loftness V, Hakkinen B, Adan O and Nevalainen A 2007 Elements that contribute to healthy
building design Environmental Health Perspectives 115(6) pp 965–70
[14] The WELL building standard. v1 with Q2 2017. [EB /OL]
[15] Wang Q Q, Meng C and Li G Z 2017 Introduction to the preparation of T/ASC 02—2016
Assessment Standard for Healthy Building Building Science 33(02) pp 163-6
[16] Ho D C W, et al. 2004 Assessing the health and hygiene performance of apartment buildings
Facilities 22 (3/4) pp 58–69
[17] Rousseau D and Wasley J 1997 Healthy by design, Building and Remodeling Solutions for
Creating Healthy Homes Hartley & Marks Publishers Inc. WA
[18] Samuelsson L 2000 Quality assurance of the indoor environment in schools Offices and
dwellings
[19] Frontczak M and Wargocki P 2011 Literature survey on how different factors influence human
comfort in indoor environments Building and Environment 46(4) pp 922–37
[20] Grawitch M J and Ballard D W 2016 The Psychologically Healthy Workplace: Building a Win-
win Environment for Organizations and Employees American Psycho- logical Association
[21] Jaakola J J K 1998 The office environment model: a conceptual analysis of the sick building
syndrome Indoor Air Journal (suppl. 4) pp 7-16
[22] Stamps A E III 2010 Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness Environ.
Behav. 42 (6) pp 864–86
[23] Stamps A E III 2011 Effects of boundary height and horizontal size within boundary on

8
Towards SBE: from Policy to Practice IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019) 012014 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/329/1/012014

perceived enclosure Percept. Mot. Skills 113 (3) pp 995–8

[24] Kwallek N, Lewis C M and Robbins A S 1988 Effects of office interior color on workers’ mood
and productivity Percept. Mot. Skills 66 pp 123–8
[25] Ergan S, Shi Z and Yu X 2018 Towards quantifying human experience in the built environment:
A crowdsourcing based experiment to identify influential architectural design features
Journal of Building Engineering 20(May) pp 51–9
[26] Aigbavboa C and Thwala W 2013 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Neighbourhood Features
Amongst South African Low-income Housing Occupants American Society of Civil
Engineers pp 1107-22