Abstract
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple institutions mobilized to create recommendations that maximize indoor environmental quality to keep building occupants as safe as possible. Many of those recommendations were implemented in buildings across the world even before the presence of field data validated their effectiveness. However, as the pandemic raised awareness of the risks present in the air quality of everyday built environments, little is known about how occupants perceive these interventions or how they will perceive buildings when activities resume with an in-person requirement. This paper presents results from an online survey, conducted from April 23rd to May 8th, 2021, and offers a window into the perceptions of university students on a variety of physical intervention strategies that have been promoted for the return to classrooms. Our analysis explores differences in these perceptions between students from Colombia and the United States, where the vaccination rates of the population as of May 2021 differed substantially. An anonymous online survey was disseminated to students of higher academic institutions using images portraying 3D models of classrooms and written prompts to assess perceptions. Health risk and health promotion perceptions were evaluated using four categories: visual connection to the outdoors, occupant density, additional furnishings, ventilation system type, and number of operable windows. While the effectiveness of these strategies from an epidemiological standpoint was not considered, this survey aimed to measure the perceived effectiveness of these strategies as students prepare to return to in-person education in the classroom. Our analysis found a significant effect of different degrees of “connection to the outdoors” and “occupant density” on both perceived health risk and health promotion in both countries. Respondents ranked strategies like mask-wearing and natural ventilation as important interventions when considering a return to the classroom. Perceptions of health risk and health promotion between students taking classes in the United States and Colombia were significantly different regarding the presence of additional furnishings, and ventilation systems and number of windows in a classroom. The results presented here may shed light on how aspects of the built environment help shape perceptions of healthy environments during the pandemic.
Highlights
People living in the United States spend over 90% of their time inside buildings (Klepeis et al, 2001), which is similar to what happens in other cities around the world
For students in Colombia, significant differences occurred in all scenarios of risk perception. These results show that students in Colombia appeared to be more sensitive to occupancy changes in classrooms than students in the United States
This study presented survey results for student perceptions of environmental health in relation to a range of physical risk mitigation strategies in classrooms between students in the United States and Colombia
Summary
People living in the United States spend over 90% of their time inside buildings (Klepeis et al, 2001), which is similar to what happens in other cities around the world. While past research has explored the impact of buildings on human physiology (stress, arousal, and circadian health), the concept of health goes beyond physical wellbeing. Health has been defined by the World Health Organization as the as “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing” (World Health Organization, 2006), which includes social and psychological aspects that complete the human experience. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) describes the quality of environmental variables that can drive the health and wellbeing of building occupants (Centers for Disease Control and The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2013). IEQ includes many aspects of the indoor environment, such as light, acoustics, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, interior design, water quality, spatial configuration, and their social and psychological impacts (Awada et al, 2021). More recent approaches strive to create conditions that measure the promotion of wellbeing, considering building performance, perception, and occupant behavior to provide opportunities for positive health outcomes (Amundadottir et al, 2017; Altomonte et al, 2020; Danell et al, 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
