A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building

Abstract

It has been argued that “green” buildings have a better indoor environmental quality (as measured by the comfort perceptions of occupants) than conventional buildings and that this translates into a more satisfying workplace for the building's occupants and, in turn, a more productive workforce. To test this we measured the comfort and satisfaction perceptions of the occupants of a green university building and two conventional university buildings with a questionnaire that asked occupants to rate their workplace environment in terms of aesthetics, serenity, lighting, acoustics, ventilation, temperature, humidity, and overall satisfaction. The university buildings at the centre of the study are located in Albury-Wodonga, in inland southeast Australia. The green building, which is naturally ventilated, is constructed from rammed earth and recycled materials. The conventional buildings have heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems and are of brick veneer construction. We found no evidence to believe that green buildings are more comfortable. Indeed, the only difference between the buildings was that occupants of the green building were more likely to perceive their work environment as warm, and occupants who felt warm were more likely to describe their work environment as poor. However, the hydronic cooling system of this building was malfunctioning at the time of the study and hence this result cannot be generalised as a difference between green buildings and conventional HVAC buildings. All other aspects of comfort, including aesthetics, serenity, lighting, ventilation, acoustics, and humidity, were not perceived differently by the occupants of the two types of building.