06 Productivity 2ed Protected

Indoor Climate
and Productivity
in Offices
How to integrate productivity
in life-cycle cost analysis
of building services
Pawel Wargocki, Olli Seppänen (editors)

Johnny Andersson
Atze Boerstra
Derek Clements-Croome
Klaus Fitzner
Sten Olaf Hanssen
rehva
Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations
GUIDEBOOK NO 6
Single user license only, copying and networking prohibited. All rights reserved by REHVA.
Indoor climate and productivity
in
offices
How to integrate productivity

in life–cycle cost analysis
of building services
Pawel Wargocki, Olli Seppänen (editors)

Johnny Andersson
Atze Boerstra
Derek Clements–Croome
Klaus Fitzner
Sten Olaf Hanssen
DISCLAIMER
This Guidebook is the result of the efforts of REHVA volunteers. It has been written with
care, using the best available information and the soundest judgment possible. REHVA
and the REHVA volunteers, who contributed to this Guidebook, make no representation
or warranty, express or implied, concerning the completeness, accuracy, or applicability
of the information contained in the Guidebook. No liability of any kind shall be assumed
by REHVA or the authors of this Guidebook as a result of reliance on any information
contained in this document. The user shall assume the entire risk of the use of any and all
information in this Guidebook.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2006 by Rehva,

Federation of European Heating and Air–conditioning Associations
Second revised edition 2007
All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronically or mechanical, including photocopy recording, or any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Requests for permission to make copies of any part of the work should be addressed to
Rehva, P.O. Box 82, 1200 Brussels
e–mail: info@rehva.eu
ISBN 2–9600468–5–4
Printed in Finland, Forssan Kirjapaino Oy
LIST OF CONTENTS
TERMINOLOGY..............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................3
Assumptions and limitations of present work ................................................................4
THE ROLE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT FOR PERFORMANCE.......................5
TYPICAL ANNUAL COSTS IN AN OFFICE BUILDING..........................................7
Introduction ....................................................................................................................7
Operating and maintenance costs ...................................................................................7
The costs in Finnish buildings........................................................................................8
Factors affecting costs in Swedish buildings................................................................10
THE ROLE OF PRODUCTIVITY................................................................................12
Productivity ..................................................................................................................12
Financial benefits .........................................................................................................13
Life–cycle costing ........................................................................................................13
Relation between productivity and building costs........................................................14
EFFECTS OF IEQ ON PERFORMANCE OF OFFICE WORK ..............................17
Linkage between building and human responses .........................................................17
The effects of temperature on performance..................................................................18
The effects of ventilation on performance....................................................................18
The effects of indoor air quality on performance .........................................................19
The effects of SBS symptoms on performance ............................................................20
The effects of noise on performance ............................................................................22
The effects of lighting on performance ........................................................................22
The effects of individual control on performance ........................................................23
Interactions ...................................................................................................................23
Other factors .................................................................................................................24
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, PERFORMANCE AND SICK LEAVE....................................................25
The relationship between ventilation rate and short–term sick leave...........................25
The relationship between ventilation rate and performance of office work.................26
The relationship between perceived air quality and performance of office work ........27
The relationship between temperature and performance of office work.....................29
iii
CALCULATION PROCEDURE ...................................................................................31
Principles of life cycle cost analysis.............................................................................31
Annuity cost model ......................................................................................................32
Investment cost.............................................................................................................32
Operating cost...............................................................................................................32
Productivity loss ...........................................................................................................33
Total annual effect........................................................................................................34
CASE STUDIES ..............................................................................................................37
Case 1: The effect of improving indoor air quality on office productivity in an office
building ..........................................................................................................38
Case 2: The effect of cooling with night–time ventilation on productivity ................41
Case 3: The effects of alternative temperature control strategies on productivity......44
Case 4: The effect of using an economizer cycle on short–term sick leave ...............49
Case 5: Cost–effectiveness of increased ventilation rates in an office building .........52
WHO BENEFITS FROM IMPROVED INDOOR ENVIRONMENT.......................55
How to share the benefits .............................................................................................55
How to convince the client ...........................................................................................57
Case study in the Netherlands ......................................................................................58
FINAL REMARKS .........................................................................................................60
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................61
ANNEX 1 FLOOR PLANS OF OFFICES FOR THE COST CASES .......................68
ANNEX 2 ANNUITY FACTORS ..................................................................................69
ANNEX 3 LIFE SPANS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS...........................................70
iv
REHVA –
Federation of European Heating and Air–Conditioning Associations
REHVA, now almost 50 years old, is an conventional economic calculations per-

organisation of European professionals in taining to building design and operation.
the field of building services (heating, ven- Only initial cost, and energy and mainte-
tilating and air–conditioning). REHVA nance costs are typically considered. Cal-
represents more than 100 000 experts from culations have also shown that many
31 European countries. measures to improve indoor air environ-
ment are cost–effective when the health
REHVA’s main activity is to develop and and productivity benefits resulting from an
disseminate economical, energy efficient improved indoor climate are included in
and healthy technology for mechanical the calculations. There has been an obvi-
services of buildings. The work is super- ous need to develop tools and models so
vised by the board of directors. REHVA that economic outcomes of health and
Guidebook projects are coordinated by the productivity can be integrated in cost
Technical Committee of REHVA. benefit calculations along with initial, en-
ergy and maintenance costs. This Guide-
The objectives of this work are: book presents such tools and models for
• to initiate work for technical Guide- the use of professionals.
books in the area of building services
• to establish task forces for such Guide- The Guidebook is intended for designers,
books installers, architects, employers and build-
• to develop distribution of REHVA ing owners. With its illustrations and ex-
Guidebooks to members and other pro- amples it is also an excellent text book for
fessionals the vocational training of various building
• to supervise the quality of REHVA professionals.
Guidebooks
This Guidebook on indoor environment
Several task forces are currently working and productivity is written by a working
on REHVA Guidebooks such as: commis- group of highly qualified international ex-
sioning of HVAC–systems for good en- perts representing research, consulting and
ergy efficiency and indoor climate, criteria design. The work is done on voluntary
of clean ventilation systems, low tem- basis without any commercial interest. The
perature heating systems, and CFD calcu- REHVA board would like to express its
lations in ventilation design. sincere gratitude to the working group for
this invaluable work. REHVA would also
Increased evidence shows that indoor en- like to express its gratitude to the associa-
vironmental conditions substantially influ- tions and companies that financially sup-
ence health and productivity. Building ported the work.
professionals are interested in improving
indoor environments and quantifying the Olli Seppänen
effects. Potential health and productivity REHVA president and Chairman of the
benefits are not yet generally considered in REHVA Technical Committee
v
Member countries of Rehva
Belgium Hungary Russia

Bosnia and Herzegovina Ireland Serbia and Montenegro
Bulgaria Italy Slovakia
Croatia Latvia Slovenia
Czech Republic Lithuania Spain
Denmark The Netherlands Sweden
Estonia Norway Switzerland
Finland Poland Turkey
France Portugal United Kingdom
Germany Romania
REHVA Task Force on Productivity
The present work has been carried out by the REHVA task force on productivity in close
co–operation with the Dutch working group on Indoor environment and productivity.
The Task Force organized a workshop at the Clima 2005 conference in Lausanne in Oc-
tober 2005 where the results of the work of the Task Force were presented and discussed.
The work of the Task Force was also reported to the REHVA General Assemblies in La
Rochelle 2003, Vilnius 2004 and Lausanne 2005.
The members of the Task Force are:
Andersson Johnny Sweden

Boerstra Atze Netherlands
Clements–Croome Derek United Kingdom
Fitzner Klaus Germany
Hanssen Sten Olaf Norway
Seppänen Olli Finland
Wargocki Pawel Denmark
The members of the Dutch group are:
Boerstra Atze
Cox Chrit
Halle Roland
Leijten Joe
Roelofsen Paul
vi
Reviewers
The following persons have reviewed the book and made valuable suggestions for im-
provements.
Braham Derrick United Kingdom

Rasmussen Per Denmark
Robertson Göran Sweden
Schmidt Michael Germany
Virta Maija Finland
Acknowledgments
The following associations and companies have financially supported this work. Without
this support the work would have not been possible.
Exhausto Denmark
Finnish Association of Mechanical Building Services Industries (FAMBSI) Finland
Halton Group Finland
Svensk Ventilation Sweden
Systemair Denmark
The task force members would also like to express gratitude to Verity and Derrick
Braham who corrected the language. This was especially welcome as most of the mem-
bers of the Task Force are not native English speakers. The authors thank also Mr Jarkko
Narvanne for the final layout and typesetting of the Guidebook, as well as Halton and
Climaconsult Finland Ltd who provided the most of the photographs for the Guidebook.
SUMMARY
This Guidebook shows for the first time this topic. This information has been re-
how to quantify the effects of indoor envi- viewed during the present work to find out
ronment on office work, and also how to whether there is solid scientific evidence
include these effects in the calculation of that the indoor environmental quality af-
building costs. This is a concerted effort of fects office work.
researchers, engineers and practitioners.
Such calculations have not been performed Although the literature shows that the
previously, as very little data was available temperature, indoor air quality and venti-
on this issue. In recent years more and lation, noise and light, and the possibility
more information has become available on to control them individually does affect
vii
human performance, only for the tem- vince the client in practice are given. The
perature and indoor air quality and venti- Guidebook provides many arguments for
lation was it possible in the present work the need for creating indoor environments
to develop the quantitative relationships of high quality. Some of them are named
describing their effects on office work or in the following.
sick leave. These quantitative relationships
create the core of the present Guidebook. • A minor 1% increase in office work can
The literature provides much data by off–set the annual costs of ventilating
which qualitative relationships can also be the building.
established, but the Authors of the present • The full costs of installation and run-
Guidebook decided not to use them due to ning the buildings can be off–set by
a very high level of uncertainty. The same productivity gains of just under 10%.
applies to the data indicating that the in- • Doubling the outdoor air supply rate can
door environmental quality affects office reduce illness and sick leave prevalence
work as assessed by employees, so called roughly by 10%, and increase office
self–estimated performance. work by roughly 1.5%.
• Every 10% reduction in the percentage
The quantitative relationships presented in dissatisfied with air quality can increase
this Guidebook can be used to calculate the performance of office work by
the costs and benefits of running and oper- roughly 1%.
ating the building, as illustrated by several • Reduction of temperatures above 24 by
examples. One of the aims of these exam- 1°C can roughly increase the perform-
ples is to emphasize that the costs of run- ance of office work by 1.5%, and in-
ning the building are much lower than the crease of too low temperatures up to
benefits from improved office work ob- 20°C can roughly increase the perform-
tained by reducing temperatures or im- ance of office work by 2%.
proving indoor air quality. This is further • The pay–back time for investments to
presented in the Guidebook by comparing improve indoor environmental quality is
the typical costs of wages, and typical en- generally below 2 years.
ergy and operation costs in Scandinavian
and UK office buildings. This work has not been undertaken to pro-
vide the ultimate solutions. The Authors
The main purpose of the Guidebook is to acknowledge that the data presented in this
increase the awareness of building owners Guidebook require further validation, and
and practitioners to indoor environmental the Guidebook is a first step in a continu-
quality and its importance for office work. ous process of developing the indoor envi-
This is attempted by showing how large ronment to promote improved health,
profits can be obtained from fairly small comfort and the performance of the indi-
investments. Examples on how to con- viduals living and working indoors.
viii
TERMINOLOGY
Annuity factor District heating

The annual cost of investment is obtained District heating refers to the heat from the
by multiplying the present value of the power plant with cogeneration (electricity
investment with the annuity factor. Its and heat) distributed by hot water.
magnitude depends on the interest rate and
life time of the investment. Economizer
An economizer is an energy efficient way
Confidence interval to control ventilation rates to reduce the
The confidence interval of an estimate need for mechanical cooling. More out-
gives a range of values around the estimate door air is used when the temperature or
where the "true" estimate can be expected enthalpy of the outdoor air is lower than
to be located with a given level of cer- the temperature or enthalpy of return air.
tainty, usually 95%.
Facilities management (FM)
Coefficient of performance (COP ) All services required for the management
Coefficient of performance (COP) is the of buildings and real estate to maintain and
ratio between the output of the inverse re- increase their value.
frigeration cycle and the energy required
to get it. Heating of supply air
Heating of supply air is the heat used for
Cost–benefit analysis supply air which is ventilation air (without
A process in which a measure’s benefits recirculation). It is included in the space
are weighted against its costs. The term is heating if building does not have mechani-
often used when a measure is analysed cal supply and expressed separately from
from a socio–economic perspective but space heating in the buildings with me-
also in engineering analysis while com- chanical supply.
paring the alternatives.
Indoor air quality (IAQ)
Cost–effectiveness analysis Indoor air quality (IAQ) is a general term
An analysis in which the most cost–effec- relating to the presence of chemical,
tive method of reaching a specific objec- physical and biological contaminants in
tive is calculated. the air within a building (indoor atmos-
pheric environment).
Decipol
One decipol (dp) is the perceived air qual- Indoor climate
ity (PAQ) in a space with a sensory load of Indoor climate is the state and develop-
one olf (one standard person) ventilated by ment of the atmospheric environment in a
10 L/s. It was developed to quantify how building including the gaseous composi-
the strength of indoor pollution sources tion, temperature, relative humidity, and
indoors influence air quality as it is per- airborne contaminant levels, light and
ceived by humans. noise.
1
REHVA Indoor Climate and Productivity Guidebook
Indoor environment Performance

Indoor environment is an environment Performance is the measure of the quantity
within a building or an enclosed space. and/or quality of the product or service of
a worker.
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ)
The quality of parameters describing in- Productivity
door environment such as temperature, Productivity is the amount of output cre-
noise, light, air quality, etc. ated (in terms of goods produced or ser-
vices rendered) per unit input used. It can
Lessor be improved by increasing output (per-
Building owner who leases a space. formance etc.) or decreasing input (cost
and other resources).
Lessee
A company or person leasing or using a Space heating
leased space. Space heating is the heat output of radia-
tors or convectors.
Mechanical cooling
Mechanical cooling is cooling with com- Sensitivity analysis
pressor cycle including both chillers and This is a process that tests the extent to which
package units, but only compressor not a model’s results and predictions change
fans; absorption chillers or gas engine when one or more assumptions change.
driven chillers are not used.
Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms
Olf Non–specific symptoms experienced by
One olf is the sensory pollution strength building occupants which may include
from a standard person defined as an aver- irritation of eyes, nose, and skin, head-
age adult working in an office or similar ache, fatigue, and difficulty in breathing
non–industrial workplace, sedentary and in and are related to the characteristics of
thermal comfort, with a hygienic standard buildings and indoor environments. The
equivalent of 0.7 bath/day. It was defined symptoms improve when the occupant is
to quantify the strength of pollution away from the building and are not related
sources which can be perceived by hu- to any known disease or exposure.
mans.
Speech Transmission Index (STI)
Operation and maintenance A measure of intelligibility of speech, di-
Actions taken after construction to ensure rectly dependent of the background noise
that facilities constructed will be properly level, of the reverberation time, and of the
operated and maintained to achieve condi- size of the room. STI value varies from
tions and efficiency levels specified at the 0 = completely unintelligible to 1 = perfect
design level. intelligibility.
Perceived air quality (PAQ) Tap water heating

Perceived air quality is an indoor air qual- Tap water heating is the heating for do-
ity as it is perceived by humans. mestic hot water.
2
INTRODUCTION
A deteriorated indoor climate is commonly productivity. The principle for the moti-
related to increases in sick building syn- vation of investment for better indoor cli-
drome symptoms, respiratory illnesses, sick mate is illustrated in Figure 1. The return
leave, reduced comfort and losses in proof the investment is gained through im-
ductivity. The cost of deteriorated indoor proved work performance and better
climate for the society is high. The evi- health which reduces the number of sick
dence that indoor environmental quality leave days. The Guidebook illustrates,
(IEQ) substantially influences health and with practical examples, how to calculate
productivity is becoming strong. Some cal- the cost effectiveness of improvements or
culations show that the cost of deteriorated better target level of the indoor environ-
indoor environments is higher than building ment when the calculations include per-
heating costs (Seppänen 1999). Macro– formance, sick leave days, operational cost
economic estimates indicate that large eco- and investment cost of a building.
nomic benefits are possible from improved
IEQ (Fisk 2000, Mendell et al. 2002). Owner occupied
building
A few sample calculations have shown that
measures to improve IEQ are very cost–
Investment
effective when the financial value of health
Economic
and productivity benefits are considered benefits
(Wargocki and Djukanovic 2005, Fisk 2000, Better IEQ
Fisk et al. 2003, Hansen 1997, von Kempski
2003, Seppänen and Vuolle 2000, Smo-
Better productivity
lander at al. 2003, Tuomainen et al. 2003). Less sick leave
Thus, there has been an obvious need for Less complaints
tools and models that enable economic out-
comes of health and productivity to be inte-
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of how the
grated with initial, energy and maintenance building owner as an employer benefits from
costs in cost benefit calculations. Building the improved indoor environment.
professionals should quantify the costs and
benefits of measures that improve IEQ; The Guidebook is based on the scientific
however, as suitable models have not been quantitative data describing the effects of
available, only initial costs and energy and indoor environment on office work avail-
maintenance costs are typically considered able at the time of compilation (i.e. the end
in economic calculations. of 2005). It has been decided to use only
scientific data that report objectively
This Guidebook presents currently avail- measured performance. There are numer-
able models and methods which can be ous studies in which the effects on self–
used to approximate how indoor environ- estimated performance were measured, i.e.
ment quantitatively affects sick leave and office employees reporting whether they
work performance, the components of felt that their work was affected by indoor
3
environmental quality. As there is no rela- being that increased profitability is due to

tionship between self–estimated perform- improved productivity as a result of better
ance and the performance of office work, work performance and reduced sick leave.
using self–estimates is somewhat problem- The other factors influencing the profit-
atic and therefore it has been decided not ability such as e.g. market situation etc.,
to present these relationships in this are constant. It is also assumed that at the
Guidebook. end of the lifetime the value of the invest-
ment is negligible.
It is the purpose of the Guidebook to at-
tract the attention of building owners, em- The present Guidebook should be used
ployers and employees to the effects of taking into account the following.
indoor environment on office work. These
effects have actually been frequently ne- • the focus is on indoor climate, and the
glected by building owners who, in order investments affecting it
to generate profits, have often reduced the • the main focus is on the effects of in-
costs of construction, operation and main- door air quality and thermal effects on
tenance of buildings, which consequently performance for which the most data is
has led to aggravated indoor environment. available at present
This Guidebook provides models relating • only those IEQ factors were identified
indoor environment and office work and from which quantitative information is
gives several examples of how calcula- available in relation to work perform-
tions including the effects of indoor envi- ance and sick leave, and which can be
ronment on office work can be performed. modified in the design and construction
The Authors of the Guidebook hope that process of buildings
such calculations will in future become a • the focus is on office type environment
standard routine during the design of the but the results can be extrapolated to
buildings, as this will benefit the building other environments as well on the con-
owners who can claim a higher rent for dition that the specific information for
providing excellent indoor environment these environments has been collected
quality, employers who can increase their • in contrast to standard procedures which
profits and employees who can work in include typically only the investment
conditions promoting health, comfort and cost and operating costs, this Guidebook
high performance. includes also the costs of work force in
the over all analysis of building costs
Assumptions and limitations of • the benefits are estimated using sick
present work leave days and performance at the work,
the estimate being conservative
A number of assumptions have been made • annuity cost method was selected for
in this Guidebook. The main assumption calculations.
4
THE ROLE OF
INDOOR ENVIRONMENT FOR PERFORMANCE
The individual performance is affected by affect human well–being, employee per-

the working environment, personal moti- formance and productivity at work. This is
vation and the ability to perform a job because a number of factors affect humans
(Figure 2). The working environment separately and together at the same time
comprises indoor climate, such as tem- (Hanssen 1997).
perature, ventilation, noise, lightning, etc.,
the facility services, like cafeteria, and → Relationships → Leadership
between → Organisational
mail service, and finally infrastructure like people structure
workstation lay–out, landscaping etc.
Social Organi-
(Brothers, 1997). The psycho–social as- environment sation
pects and the occupant’s perceptions of the
workplace environment are equally im-
PERFORMANCE
portant. The effects of indoor environment
on performance can be studied only if Personal Environ-
other factors influencing performance are characteristics ment
unchanged. → Work
→ Career
While several attempts have been made to → Home/work relationship → Indoor
→ Commitment to work environment
determine the correlation between indoor
environment and health, relatively little is Figure 2 Some of the factors affecting per-
yet known about how the various factors formance of an individual worker (Clements –
describing indoor environment (Figure 3) Croome 2002).
5
Adverse health effects or general dis- important in this respect and it is impor-
comfort due to unsatisfactory indoor en- tant to establish the links between build-
vironmental quality (IEQ) can result in ing and operational variables and cost,
reduced performance and lost productiv- including building design, operational
ity in a variety of ways. First there is the choices and their consequences. In addi-
loss of productive years owing to prema- tion, attention should be given to opera-
ture disability or death, and then losses tional constraints that may influence
due to increased absenteeism of varying cost, such as: availability and cost of
duration and less than optimal job per- energy, outdoor conditions of tem-
formance. IEQ effects on well being, perature, humidity, pollution, and cur-
ability and productivity are especially rent occupancy (Hanssen, 2002).
Indoor environment
Indoor air quality

Building Acoustics Lighting
and climate
Space Interior Work- Indoor Thermal Clean- Sound Speech Quality Quan-
design station air environ- liness level Intelli- tity
design ment gibility
Air STI-index * Luminance

VOC Ventilation
temperature
Frequency Glare
Air Air handling distribution
Particles Daylight
movement equipment
Sound Reflections
Surface Space insulation
Microbes
temperature cleaning Spectrum
Reverber-
ation time
Odours Distribution
Moisture * STI= speech transmission index
Figure 3 The parameters included in the definition of indoor environmental quality (IEQ).
6
TYPICAL ANNUAL COSTS IN AN OFFICE BUILDING
Summary
This chapter briefly summarizes
typical costs of an office building
and provides the relative proportion
between different costs. As a refer-
ence the costs of typical Scandina-
vian buildings are shown and com-
pared with the costs in UK build-
ings. An example is given showing
typical operating costs for different
types and sizes of offices and office
buildings of different age and stan-
dard in Sweden.
Introduction ing hour saved, the national cost levels

will influence both scales of the balance.
The costs in an office building include
typically the investment cost and the oper- Operating and maintenance costs
ating costs. These costs vary for different
types of buildings, their location and many The operating cost level of an office is
other factors. They are presented in the influenced by the age and size of the
following and are expressed in €/m²-floor. building, the quality level of the premises,
The costs are presented separately for se- and above all, the location of the building,
lected European countries. The reason for whether it is located in an attractive down-
this is that on a European level there are town area or in a less central location. The
large differences making a comparison total annual operating cost per square me-
between countries difficult and perhaps ter of office space – whether leased (and
meaningless. There are e.g., different cli- thus eventually included in the rent) or
mates; different building types and materi- owned – cover several different items:
als used; different energy costs for elec-
tricity, heating and cooling; different • Consumptions – heating, cooling, and
wages for maintenance and cleaning per- electricity – depending mostly on the
sonnel, and different ways of calculating location, the size and age of the build-
workplace areas. In order to make com- ing, the ambient climatic conditions and
parisons possible, the costs, areas and rates the required indoor thermal climate and
of consumption, etc. must be well defined. air quality. Leaking supply and extract
On the other hand, when weighting these air ducts will increase the energy use
costs against the benefits of increased pro- and endanger the IEQ (Malmström et
ductivity expressed as wage cost per work- al., 2002, Carrié et al., 1999).
7
• Cleaning costs – cleaning of the prem- The costs in Finnish buildings

ises is – and should be – a substantial
part of the total cost for the office space. The annual building cost includes annual
A reduced level of cleaning standard cost of the construction, and the operation
will most probably result in reduced and maintenance cost. The annual cost of
well–being and could eventually lead to construction depends on the life cycle time
the risk of SBS. used in the calculations and on the interest
• Maintenance – both running and pre- rate. Operation and maintenance costs are
ventive – of the building and its instal- roughly one third of the total annual costs,
lations is necessary to keep the thermal the share decreasing with increasing inter-
climate and the air quality at an accept- est rate. This is illustrated in Figure 4 us-
able level. ing costs of a modern air–conditioned of-
fice building in Finland. Figure 5 shows
The energy cost is based on the price of the breakdown of the total construction
energy and energy use, and it is especially cost, and Figure 6 the breakdown of the
important to be aware of the fact that annual operation and maintenance cost for
every kind of energy has its own price and a modern Finnish air–conditioned office
real price change rate. It means that differ- building. The greatest cost items are clean-
ent sources of energy (fuel from waste, bio ing and taxes. The energy cost is 15–20 %
fuel, oil, gas, hydropower from different of the total annual cost. Figure 7 shows the
sources etc.) may have their own price breakdown of the energy used for heating
trend or price movements. Thus different and electricity in a simple, non–air–
real rate of interest for the different conditioned office building, and Figure 8
sources of energy should be used when shows the same for a complex air–
calculating the energy expenditure. In ad- conditioned building. Statistics of the en-
dition to that, decisions that are not gov- ergy consumption of Finnish office build-
erned by market mechanisms may influ- ings are presented in Table 1.
ence the price, for example electrical en-
ergy may be rated more valuable than fos- Operation and Operation and
maintenance maintenance
sil fuels per kWh. 28 % 37 %
Maintenance costs usually have a different

extent and different years. Furthermore,
repair costs may occur, but they are not
Construction Construction
planned and, in an ideal situation they may cost 72 % cost 63 %
never arise. Occasionally refurbishment
costs occur. This expenditure looks like
the investment cost but must include time Figure 4 Break down of total annual cost of
and may also include an interruption cost an air–conditioned office building, life time
30 years, the interest rate 8% (left) and
for the inconvenience caused by changing 4% (right). The floor plan of the building
the system. is shown in Annex 1 (Seppänen 2004).
8
Design 9% VAT 18% Property tax 14% VAT 15%

Insurance FM 4%
Construction
1%
16% Building
Annual
Security 2% Property repairs 11% mainten-
4% ance 9%
ITC-system Water and
2% sewage 3% Mainten-
Structural ance of lot
Electrical Electricity
work 21% 4%
works 5% 6%
Air conditioning Rooms 12% Heating 3% Space Waste

4% cleaning manage-
Piping 7% 26% ment 4%
Figure 5 Breakdown of the total construction Figure 6 Breakdown of the annual operation
cost of a modern air–conditioned office building. and maintenance cost of a modern air–condi-
Floor plan of the building is shown in Annex 1 tioned office building. Floor plan of the building
(Seppänen 2004). is shown in Annex 1 (Seppänen 2004).
Tap water
heating 8% Office Fans 23%
equipment
34%
Pumps
Space 3%
heating
52%
Heating of
supply air Lighting 40%
40%
Figure 7 Breakdown of the energy used for heating and electricity in a simple non–air–conditioned
Finnish office building. Floor plan is shown in Annex 1. The total energy used for heating is
83.1 kWh/m² and for electricity is 57.6 kWh/m² (Seppänen 2004).
Heating of tap Office equipment Fans 22%

water 16% 27%
Mechanical
Space cooling 8%
heating
59% Pumps for
Heating of
supply air cooling 3%
25%
Lighting 39% Pumps for
heating 1%
Figure 8 Breakdown of the energy used for heating and electricity in a complex air–conditioned
Finnish office building. Floor plan is shown in Annex 1. The total energy used for heating is
44.1 kWh/m² and for electricity is 75.1 kWh/m² (Seppänen 2004).
9
Table 1. Statistics of the annual energy use and cost of Finnish office buildings. Volume is the
heated volume of the building; floor area is the usable floor area (KTI 2004, Motiva 2004).
Energy use Unit Min Lower Median Aver- Upper Max
25% age 25%
Heating
Specific consumption kWh/m³,a 5.0 25.1 34.0 37.8 44.4 158.8
Annual cost €/m²,a 4.1 5.3 5.8 6.7
Electricity*
Specific consumption kWh/m³,a 0.5 12.4 18.3 28.5 29.8 200.1
Annual cost €/m²,a 3.8 5.8 6.5 8.2
*outlets not included
In comparison the estimated annualized single offices and 50% with landscape.
UK building cost including capital cost is Area per worker is 18 m².
about €290/m² per year of which energy • Office type 3: Total rented area: 4900 m².
and HVAC costs are about €15/m² per Number of office workers: 350. This office
year (Hodgett, 1993). type comprises 15% traditional area with
single offices and 85% with landscape.
Factors affecting costs in Swedish High area efficiency: 14 m² per worker.
buildings
The following different building types are
An influence of different types and sizes considered:
of offices and office buildings of different • Building type 1: Modern building, built
age and standard on typical operating costs or renovated in 1990 or later. 80% land-
is exemplified in the following using the scape offices resulting in high space ef-
costs for Swedish buildings (FM Fakta ficiency. High demands on energy effi-
kontor 2004) for which the values are ciency and environment. Thermal cli-
based on statistics and could be regarded mate: TQ1 – highest requirements.
as benchmark values. A further step would Comfort cooling in all rooms. High
be to add annual capital costs for properly quality maintenance.
chosen air handling installations etc. at • Building type 2: Office building, from
different quality levels regarding indoor the 1980’s. 50% landscape offices re-
air quality and thermal climate. sulting in high space efficiency. Normal
demands from the 1980’s on energy ef-
The following different types of offices ficiency and environment. Thermal cli-
are considered: mate: TQ2 – medium requirements.
• Office type 1: Total rented area: 500 m² Comfort cooling via supply air. Normal
in a larger building. Number of office quality maintenance.
workers: 20. Traditional area with sin- • Building type 3: Older office building
gle offices, i.e. the area per worker is from the 1980’s or earlier. 100% single
high: 25 m² per worker. offices resulting in low space efficiency.
• Office type 2: Total rented area: 1350 m². No expressed demands on energy effi-
Number of office workers: 75. This office ciency and environment. No comfort
type comprises 50% traditional area with cooling. Normal quality maintenance.
10
Typical Swedish annual costs for heating annual operating costs for different build-
(0.0676 €/kWh) and electricity (0.1 €/kWh) ing and office types. They show that the
for these building types were used. energy, building and operation costs are
the highest for an older office (building
Table 2 shows the summary of annual en- type 3), while the operating costs are the
ergy use and annual costs for different highest for building with single offices
building types while Table 3 shows total (office type 1).
Table 2. Annual use of energy and building costs.

Energy use Building type 1 Building type 2 Building type 3
Annual cost 1990/2000 1980/1990 before 1980
Heating [kWh/m²] 45 – 55 100 – 120 150 – 170
Annual cost [€/m²] 3.0 – 3.7 6.8 – 8.1 10.1 – 11.5
Cooling [kWh/m²] 15 – 25 12 – 20 –
Annual cost [€/m²] 1.5 – 2.5 1.2 – 2.0 –
Electricity [kWh/m²] 30 – 40 25 – 35 15 – 25
Annual cost [€/m²] 3.0 – 4.0 2.5 – 3.5 1.5 – 2.5
Table 3. Total annual operating costs for the different buildings.

Total operat- Building type 1 Building type 2 Building type 3
ing cost §)
€/workplace €/m² €/workplace €/m² €/workplace €/m²
Office type 1 2400 100 4800 200 7500 300
Office type 2 1700 100 3400 200 5400 300
Office type 3 1300 100 2700 200 4200 300
§):
the cost includes electricity, cleaning and maintenance.
11
THE ROLE OF PRODUCTIVITY
Summary
This chapter summarizes briefly
the general concept of productivity.
Through simple examples it com-
pares different costs of running the
building and wage costs with the
potential revenues.
Productivity tablish the links between building and op-

erational variables and cost, including
Productivity is a complex concept which is building design, operational choices and
defined in different ways in various disci- consequences. In addition, attention
plines but should not be confused with should be given to operational constraints
individual performance (Pritchard, 1992). that may influence cost, such as: availabil-
In principle, productivity is an index ratio ity and cost of energy, outdoor conditions
of output relative to input. It can thus be of temperature, humidity, pollution etc.,
improved by reducing input (costs) and/or and current occupancy (Hanssen, 2002).
improving output. Productivity is often Productivity is an important, but not the
understood as the ability of people to en- only factor affecting the profitability of a
hance their work output through increase company which is affected also by market
in the quantity and/or quality of the prod- situation as illustrated in Figure 9.
uct or service they deliver (Leaman and
Bordass 2000). Any environmental condi-
Output
tion that decreases individual performance Quantity and quality
Income Sales prices
(either quantity or quality), increases ab-
senteeism, or reduces turnover, is more
expensive (or costly) for organisations Productivity Profitability Ratio
than the capital and operating costs of bet-
ter indoor environments (Woods, 1989). Input Purchase
Cost
Consequently, a poor indoor environment Quantity and quality prices
decreases organisational productivity both
by reducing revenue and by increasing Figure 9 Factors affecting the profitability of a
costs. In this context, it is important to es- company (Seppänen 2004).
12
Deteriorated IEQ may reduce performance financial benefits of reduced sick leave are
at work in a substantial way, in extreme it fairly obvious. Performance at work is
may cause 100% loss of productivity when more complicated to quantify. Its three
employee is absent from work. distinct aspects include quantity, i.e.
speed, quality, e.g. number of mistakes,
A variety of measures should be considered and group effect, e.g. how well a group
to assess the effects of IEQ on employee works together, the quantity and quality
performance and productivity. For exam- being much easily measured for repetitive
ple, the following measures were recom- work, e.g. processing of forms, claims or
mended at an ASHRAE Workshop in Bal- taking calls from the customers. IEQ con-
timore in September 1992 (Wyon, 1993): ditions may through complaints and com-
munication between employees, change
• absence from work, from workstation, attitudes about the employer, and, in turn,
unavailable on telephone affect work performance. Sometimes it is
• health costs, including sick leave, acci- also necessary to include the economic
dents, injuries consequences of loosing floor space that
• observed downtime, interruptions cannot be rented because of the space
• controlled independent judgments of needed due to installation of the indoor
work quality, mood, etc. climate system.
• self–assessments of productivity
• component skills, task measures, speed, If IEQ problems are not dealt with properly,
slips, accuracy employee–management conflicts may de-
• output form pre–existing work–groups velop and complicate the problem solving
• total unit cost per product or service process (Lahtinen et al. 2002) leading to
• output change in response to graded reduction of productivity. The magnitude of
reward this effect is however unknown. A reduced
• voluntary overtime or extra work job turnover may significantly reduce costs
• cycle time from initiation to completion to employers. Reduced number of com-
of discrete process plaints may also result in reduced work
• multiple measures at all organizational load of facilities management personnel.
levels
• individual measures of performance, Since there are different ways to estimate
health and well being at work the financial benefits, as a first approxi-
• time course of measures and rates of mation, they can be based on employee’s
change. salary and related benefits and overhead.
Financial benefits Life–cycle costing
The financial benefits include reduced When comparing the costs and the benefits
medical care costs, working days gained the same models and calculation proce-
due to reduced sick leave, better perform- dures as used in LCC–analysis (Life Cycle
ance at work, lower turnover of employ- Costing) can principally be applied. The
ees, and lower cost of building mainte- investment costs per square meter floor
nance due to fewer IEQ complaints. The area for a particular building and its indoor
13
climate system can be expressed as the Equation (1) can be rewritten to assess the
sum of the labour cost, material cost, sub- relationship between costs and benefits by
contractor cost and taxes. Investment costs introducing the alteration quantity (Δ) in
only occur at the beginning of the life span relation to the reference situation and as-
(Johanson 2002). As a guide to the whole suming no increase in salaries (ΔS = 0) and
life cost of operation of office buildings, profits (ΔG = 0) and that each employee
the following ratios are suggested (Evan et uses y m² of the building area and that the
al., 1998; Oseland and Willis, 2000; Wu total building costs per m² are set at
and Clements–Croome, 2005): construc- x (€/m²). Thus for the break–even situation:
tion cost −1; maintenance and building
operating costs –5 to 9; and business oper- Δx · a + ΔE + ΔM + ΔC < (ΔP/y) (2)
ating costs –200.
[Δx · a + ΔE + ΔM + ΔC < (ΔP/y)] ·1/(x · a)
Relation between productivity and (3)
building costs
Δx/x + (E/a · x) · (ΔE/E) +
To visualise the relative correlation between (M/a · x) · (ΔM/M) + (C/a · x) · (ΔC/C)
various factors influencing costs and profits, < (P/a · x · y) · (ΔP/P) (4)
a simple equation can be established that
includes the most significant costs and bene-
fits related to building operation and man-
agement. In this connection, it is crucial to Equation (4) can be used in sensitivity
apply annual costs and not narrowly con- analysis to demonstrate the relative im-
sider initial outlays. For example, the simpli- portance of each parameter. For example,
fied correlation of annual expenses and assuming the following input values:
revenues can be expressed as follows (Skåret
1992, Hanssen 1997): a = 0.11 (r = 7 % interest rate,
n = 15 year)
B·a+E+M+C+S=P–G (1) x = 1 500 (€/m²)
y = 20 (m² /employee)
where: M = 37.5 (€/m²)
B = investment capital costs related to E = 12.5 (€/m²)
building, furnishings, equipment and C = 18.75 (€ / m²)
installations P = 50 000 (€ /employee)
a = annuity factor (amortisation factor)
E = annual energy costs
M = annual operating and maintenance Equation (4) can be re–written as follows
costs (note that the assumed costs and benefits
C = annual cleaning costs can be different for different parts of
S = annual salaries including all related Europe but the calculation procedure re-
costs mains in principle the same):
P = annual production revenue (prod-
ucts/fees, etc.) Δx/x + 0.076⋅(ΔE/E) + 0.227⋅(ΔM/M)
G = annual profit. + 0.114⋅(ΔC/C) ≤ 15.152⋅(ΔP/P) (5)
14
Equation (5) can be used to assess the im-

portance of each factor, as illustrated below:
Parameter Equation factor Necessary productivity gain

Investments Δx/x ≤ 15.152⋅(ΔP/P) (ΔP/P) ≥ 0.0660⋅(Δx/x)
Energy cost 0.076⋅(ΔE/E) ≤ 15.152⋅(ΔP/P) (ΔP/P) ≥ 0.0050⋅(ΔE/E)
Operation and maintenance 0.227⋅(ΔM/M) ≤ 15.152⋅(ΔP/P) (ΔP/P) ≥ 0.0150⋅(ΔM/M)
Cleaning 0.114⋅(ΔC/C) ≤ 15.152⋅(ΔP/P) (ΔP/P) ≥ 0.0075⋅(ΔC/C)
These results imply that e.g. 20 % increase equipment costs are comparatively small
in energy costs can be paid for by a mod- when compared with the enormous cost of
est 0.1 % increase in productivity, i.e. a salaries and staff benefits (Figure 10). Re-
gain of 1.75 hour per year or 0.5 minutes view by CIBSE (1999) show that staff
per day of work assuming 1750 working costs are 100 to 200 times the cost of en-
hours per year. An increase of the invest- ergy and these costs can be off–set by a
ments by 10 % can be paid by 0.66 % in- 0.5 to 1% reduction in staff costs (Table
crease in productivity, i.e. a gain of 11.6 4). Staff costs are 20 to 44 times the
hour per year or 3.2 minutes per day. The HVAC running cost which indicate that an
same procedure can be applied for opera- increase in productivity is required to off–
tion and maintenance costs, and the clean- set these costs by 2% to 5%. The costs are
ing costs. some 30 times the HVAC installation
costs and any change in these costs are
The simplified but very illustrative calcu- justified if the changes produce an in-
lations presented above show how even crease in productivity of some 3%. Pro-
the smallest change in productivity is im- ductivity gain of just under 10% should
portant for profit. They also demonstrate off–set the full running and installation
that even a small change in one of the pa- cost. The cost of ownership and mainte-
rameters that may reduce IEQ can result in nance of the building is typically about 3%
a comprehensive productivity loss. The of the overall cost of people working there
reason is that that the office building and (Evans et al., 1998).
Table 4. Comparison of energy and staff costs for North American Offices (CIBSE, 1999).
Costs Rosenfeld Abdou & EPA Woods BOMA
Lorsch
Staff costs ($/m²/year) 3000 2180 2000 2370 1300
HVAC running costs ($/m²/year) − 20…100 60 120 29
Energy costs ($/m²/year) 15 10…20 20 20 15
Ratio of staff to energy costs 200 114…218 100 118 87
Productivity offset of energy (%) 0.5 0.5…0.9 1.0 0.9 1.2
Productivity offset (min/day per person) 2¼ 2…3¾ 4⅓ − 5
15
Total Building related Construction

cost cost without taxes cost
100%
Electricity
90
Heating Construction
+
80 Structural work
70
Space cleaning
60 Wages
Interior
50
Heating + piping
Vent. + A/C
40
Electrical works
Construction Security + TC-syst.
30
cost
Design
20
Building related
cost without taxes VAT
10
Misc. Misc.
Property
0
Figure 10 Example of the relative significance of wage costs in relation to annual costs for an of-
fice building (modified from Hanssen, 2000).
16
EFFECTS OF IEQ
ON PERFORMANCE OF OFFICE WORK
Summary
This chapter summarizes
briefly the effects of tem-
perature, indoor air qual-
ity, light and noise, as
well as individual control
and SBS symptoms on
performance of office
work reported in the lit-
erature. If possible the
size of the effect is given.
The data presented in
this chapter have been
used to develop the
quantitative relationships
between indoor environ-
mental quality, perform-
ance of office work and
sick leave presented in
the next chapter.
Linkage between building and

Building design and
human responses
operation
Building design and operation influence

IEQ and human responses and thus indi- Indoor Human Value
rectly affect the benefits of improved pro- environmental Benefits of the
responses
quality benefit
ductivity (Figure 11). However the data on
the effects of IEQ on performance of office
work is quite limited at present as indicated Figure 11 Simplified linkage between building,
human responses and benefit.
by the extensive literature reviews (Wyon,
1996; Fisk and Rosenfeld, 1997; Seppänen
1999; Wyon and Wargocki, 2006a,b). This The effects of air temperature, ventilation
is in spite of the potential enormous bene- rate, indoor air quality, light, noise and in-
fits of improved IEQ in relation to the individual control on performance and ab-
vestments required to improve IEQ. senteeism are summarized in the following.
17
As temperature, air quality and ventilation comparing to the sunny side of the call–
rate have been shown to affect SBS symp- centre in a study in a telecommunication
toms, the information is also given trying to call–centre (Niemelä et al., 2002)
link SBS symptoms and performance. Fur- • qualified nurses providing medical ad-
thermore the potential impact of other fac- vice in a call–centre worked 16% more
tors related to indoor environment and the slowly when writing up their reports af-
interactions between factors on the per- ter the call was over (i.e. wrap–up time
formance of office work is also discussed. increased) when temperatures were
above 25.4°C (Federspiel et al., 2002)
The effects of temperature on • call–centre operator performance, as
performance indicated by average talk–time, im-
proved by 4.9% when the air tempera-
Room temperature affects the performance ture was decreased by 2°C from 24.5°C
by several mechanisms (Wyon and War- at the normal outdoor air supply rate of
gocki, 2006a): 10 L/s per person in an office building
in the tropics (Tham et al., 2003).
• thermal discomfort distracts attention
and generates complaints that increase The effects of ventilation on
maintenance costs performance
• warmth lowers arousal, exacerbates
SBS symptoms and has a negative ef- The mechanisms by which ventilation af-
fect on mental work fects the performance are not known, but it
• cold conditions lower finger tempera- is likely that increasing ventilation rate
tures and so have a negative effect on reduces the concentration of pollutants
manual dexterity indoors and by improving indoor air qual-
• rapid temperature swings have the same ity reduces the prevalence of SBS symp-
effects on office work as slightly raised toms such as e.g. headaches and difficulty
room temperatures, while slow tem- to concentrate and think clearly, which
perature swings just cause discomfort. directly affect the performance. There are
also limited data on the effects of ventila-
Thermal conditions within the thermal tion on performance. The available evi-
comfort zone can reduce performance by dence stems from laboratory experiments
5% to 15%. Most of the work has been and field studies and comprises the meas-
done in laboratory experiments [Wyon urements of the effects by quantifying the
(1996) and Wyon and Wargocki (2006a) performance of simulated office work, the
for further reading], however recently three performance of call–centre operators and
studies have been carried out in buildings sick leave (Wyon and Wargocki, 2006b):
with normal office employees providing
quantitative estimates similar to the magni- • performance of text typing improved by
tude of effects observed in the laboratory: about 1% for every two–fold increase in
outdoor air supply rate in the range be-
• operator performance was better, i.e. av- tween 3 and 30 L/s per person in labora-
erage talk–time was 5–7% lower when tory study in which recruited subjects
temperatures remained below 25°C performed simulated office work includ-
18
EFFECTS OF IEQ ON PERFORMANCE OF OFFICE WORK
ing text typing, arithmetical calculation air supply rate at 24 L/s per person
and proof–reading; the performance of comparing with buildings ventilated at
addition and proof–reading improved 12 L/s per person (Milton et al., 2000).
also when the ventilation rate was in-
creased but the effect was not statisti- The effects of indoor air quality on
cally significant (Wargocki et al., 2000a) performance
• providing a personalized ventilation
system increasing the amount of un- The mechanisms by which indoor air qual-
polluted air supplied to the breathing ity affects performance are not thoroughly
zone of people did not improve the per- examined yet, but it seems reasonable to
formance of the simulated office work assume that people who do not feel very
by recruited subjects in the laboratory well when the air quality is poor will not
experiment but their self–estimated per- work very well as well. Other possible
formance was improved significantly mechanisms for an effect of poor air qual-
(Kaczmarczyk et al., 2004) ity on performance include distraction by
• performance of call centre operators im- odour, sensory irritation, allergic reactions,
proved by 6% as indicated by reduced or direct toxicological effects. Recently a
talk time when outdoor air supply rate few studies were published showing the
was increased from 2.5 to 25 L/s per per- effects of indoor air quality on the per-
son in a study in an office building lo- formance of simulated office work in labo-
cated in a moderate climate, but only ratory experiments with recruited subjects
when new ventilation bag filters were in- (Wyon and Wargocki, 2006b):
stalled; with used bag filters the increase
of ventilation rate reduced the perform- • performance of text typing improved as
ance by 8% (Wargocki et al., 2004) typing speed improved by 6.5% and er-
• performance of operators defined as ror rate reduced by 18% when the air
average handling time including talking quality was improved in the office by
to the customer and writing the report removing 20–year–old carpet in a quan-
afterwards improved by 2% when ven- tity corresponding to the floor area of
tilation rate was increased from 8 to 94 the office; the intervention reduced the
L/s per person, but increase to 20 and proportion of dissatisfied with air qual-
53 L/s per person reduced the perform- ity upon entering the office from 70% to
ance probably because used bag filters 25% (Wargocki et al., 1999)
were installed, similar to what was ob- • performance of text typing improved
served by Wargocki et al. (2004) and by 1.5% and number of errors in addi-
Federspiel et al. (2004) tion reduced by 15% in a repetition of
• performance of call–centre operators im- the study by Wargocki et al (1999) car-
proved by 9% when the ventilation rate ried out in another country with other
was increased from 10 to 23 L/s per per- subjects (Lagercrantz et al., 2000); re-
son in office building with no bag filters moving the carpet from the office re-
(electrostatic filters were used instead) lo- duced the proportion of dissatisfied
cated in the tropics (Tham et al., 2003) with air quality in this case from 60%
• short–term sick leave was 35% lower in to 40% dissatisfied (Wargocki et al.,
office buildings ventilated with outdoor 2002a)
19
• performance of text processing (writing, tion in the laboratory studies described

proof–reading and correcting errors) im- above. The results showed that this interven-
proved by 9% when personal computers tion improved the performance by 10%
(PCs) with cathode–ray–tube (CRT) (Wargocki et al., 2004). This effect is actu-
monitors in a quantity corresponding to ally larger than would be predicted from the
number of workstations in the office laboratory experiments.
were removed causing the proportion of
dissatisfied with air quality upon enter-
ing the office to reduce from 40 to 10%
dissatisfied (Bako–Biro et al., 2004)
• performance of text typing improved when
outdoor air supply rate was increased and
at the same time the proportion of dissatis-
fied with air quality upon entering the of-
fice reduced from 60% to 30% dissatisfied
(Wargocki et al., 2000).
The laboratory experiments described above

were summarized by Wargocki et al. Sensory assessments of emissions from build-
(2000b,c) who showed that the performance ing materials.
of office tasks improves linearly following
the improvement of indoor air quality as The effects of SBS symptoms on
indicated by reduced proportion of dissatis- performance
fied with air quality upon entering a space.
Many studies show that increased tem-
No field measurements were carried out in peratures, reduced ventilation and poor air
which the performance of office work was quality are linked to the prevalence of
quantified and at the same time the air qual- building–related SBS–symptoms experi-
ity was measured by quantifying the propor- enced by the occupants of the building
tion of dissatisfied. Nevertheless, the litera- (e.g., Mendell 1993; Mendell et al. 2002;
ture reviews show that increasing ventilation Seppänen et al., 1999; Seppänen and Fisk,
rate improves the perceived air quality (Sep- 2002; Wargocki et al. 2002b; Wyon and
pänen and Fisk, 1999; Wargocki et al., Wargocki, 2006a,b). SBS symptoms cause
2002b), thus it is reasonable to assume that distraction from work and include such
the effects on performance observed in the symptoms as headaches, difficulty to con-
field experiments described above examin- centrate or think clearly. It is reasonable to
ing the effects of increased ventilation are expect that they also affect performance.
due to improved indoor air quality. In one of
them (Wargocki et al., 2004), the effect of To quantitatively relate the prevalence or
replacing the used bag ventilation filter with intensity of SBS symptoms and perform-
new one on the performance of call–centre ance and/or short-term sick leave, 24 stud-
operators was studied. This reduced the pol- ies have been identified (Table 5). How-
lution load in a space and is a similar in- ever, a formal meta–analysis of the above
tervention to removing the sources of pollu- data is problematic because the symptom
20
data are collected with different question- Among studies presented in Table 5, two
naires which may have used different studies measured office work performed
symptoms and different recall periods. by call–centre operators and simultane-
Some studies used symptom prevalence as ously registered SBS symptoms. The data
an outcome, while other studies used from these two studies suggest the fol-
symptom intensity. The criteria used to lowing relationship between SBS symp-
indicate that a person experiences a symptoms and performance:
tom has also varied among studies. For
example, a criterion in one study might be • an average reduction of the prevalence
that the subject experienced the symptom of weekly central nervous symptoms
at least weekly, while another study might (e.g. headaches) by 7.4% would corre-
require that the subject experienced the spond to a 1.1% increase in perform-
symptom most days during last week. In ance (Niemelä et al., 2004)
addition, some but not all studies consid- • an average reduction of the intensity of
ered only symptoms that improved when neurobehavioral symptoms (e.g. head-
the subject was away from the building. aches, difficulty to think clearly) by 10
points on the scale from 0 to 100 would
corresponds to 5% increase in perform-
ance (Tham and Willem; 2004).
Due to diversity of reported symptoms and

a relative limited number of studies on this
issue the above qualitative relationships
Headaches due to poor IEQ can affect office work. should be used with great care.
Table 5. Summary of studies assessing simultaneously the prevalence or intensity of SBS

symptoms and subjectively or objectively measured performance.
Study type Measures of performance
Self–reported and Self– Objectively
objectively measured reported measured
Cross sectional Chao et al. (2003), Hall et Myhrvold et al. (1996)
field study al. (1991), Heslop (2002),
Heslop (2003), Raw et al.
(1990), Rohr and Brightman
(2003), Whitley et al. (1995),
Woods and Morey (1987)
Experimental Tham and Willem Hedge et al. (1993), Myhrvold and Olesen
field study (2004) Menzies et al. (1997), Wyon (1997), Niemelä et al.
et al. (2000) (2002), Niemelä et al.
(2004), Tham (2004)
Laboratory Bako–Biro (2004) Fang et al. (2004), Nunes et al. (1993),
experiment Kaczmarczyk et al. (2002) Lagencrantz et al. (2000)
Wargocki et al. (1999),
Wargocki et al. (2000a)
21
The effects of noise on performance The effects of lighting on

performance
Auditory information can be stimulus or a
distraction. It is often the case in office Theoretically it is likely that illuminance,
buildings that noise from the conversations amount of glare, contrast, size of a visual
of others is a major irritant for workers, subject and light spectrum influence the per-
especially in open–plan offices. Complex formance. However there is unclear relation-
cognitive tasks are affected by noise at 70– ship between performance of visually de-
80 dB(A). Subjects read fewer words and manding tasks affected by conditions re-
made more errors in proof–reading tasks quired for good vision and performance of
while exposed to office noise at 80 dB(A) office work (NEMA, 1989). Several studies
compared with 55 dB(A) (Jones and have examined the influence of illuminance
Broadbent, 1979). Similar effects were seen on reading both failing to identify effects
in another experiment in which the inter- (Veitch, 1990; Smith and Rea, 1982), and
mittent noise during proof–reading lowered showing the effect but primarily with unusu-
the error detection rate (Weinstein, 1974; ally low light levels (Smith and Rea, 1979;
1977). It was also shown that the perform- Tinker, 1952). Few studies examined the
ance of proof–reading was dependent on influence of different lighting systems on
whether background speech was meaning- self–reported performance, e.g., the type of
ful independent of the intensity in the range luminaire influenced the performance of
of 50–70 dB(A). Open–plan office noise at computer–based work. Especially flicker
55 dB(A) reduced by 3% the rate at which from fluorescent lights with magnetic bal-
subjects performed simulated office work lasts has been shown to reduce satisfaction
compared with quiet condition at 35 dB(A); and cause negative health effects (Veitch
noise increased also fatigue and difficulty and Newsham, 1998). Proximity to a win-
to think clearly (Witterseh et al., 2004). dow is also an important factor with overall
satisfaction of lighting (Newsham, 2003).
The above research does not provide suffi-
cient data to develop quantitative relation- In spite of the research above, there seems
ships. An attempt to do so has recently been to be too little data in the literature to de-
made by Hongisto (2005), who developed a velop the quantitative relationships be-
mathematical model predicting how much tween light intensity and the performance
the performance is reduced due to speech of of office work.
varying intelligibility, physically deter-
mined by measuring the Speech Transmis-
sion Index (SIT). Based on the data re-
ported from the literature suggesting the
performance decrement between 4 to 45%
depending on the task the model was cre-
ated which implies that the performance
starts to decrease at STI=0.2, and the high-
est performance decrement is already
reached at STI=0.6 (at STI=1 the speech is
perfectly heard, while at STI=0 it is absent).
22
The effects of individual control on showed that providing task/ambient condi-

performance tioning (TAC) system providing control of
ventilation and temperature, task light and
Individual control of the indoor environ- white noise generator increased overall
ment has been shown to reduce sick leave occupant satisfaction for thermal quality,
due to SBS and to improve the self–esti- acoustical quality and air quality (Bauman
mated performance. Studies of large num- et al., 1998). As the preferences of light
bers of people working in Dutch office levels differ between individuals, the indi-
buildings show that the total amount of vidual control of light level by e.g. pro-
sick leave due to SBS is likely to be 34% viding task light seems a viable approach
lower when office employees can control to improve performance (Newsham and
their thermal environment (Preller et al., Veitch, 2001).
1990). The studies in U.K. indicate that
the self–estimated performance is signifi- The data presented above suggest that
cantly higher when office employees can provision of individual control of different
control their own thermal environment, parameters of indoor climate may have a
ventilation or the lighting levels where large impact on performance, however, at
they work (Raw et al., 1990). These two present there are too few data to develop
studies agree well with the experiment in quantitative relationships.
an insurance company which showed that
provision of individual control of tempera- Interactions
ture reduced the claim processing time, i.e.
increased performance, by about 4% Many studies described above investigated
(Kroner and Stark–Martin, 1994). It has the effects of individual parameters on the
been estimated that provision of individual performance of office work, but very little
control of temperature equivalent to ±3°C is known on the combined effects of these
about the group optimum temperature factors. In normal working conditions
would lead to about 7% increase of per- these factors do not occur individually and
formance of office work (Wyon, 1996). In thus a combined effect seems to be highly
an experiment with human subjects per- relevant.
forming simulated office work (e.g. text
typing, addition) self–estimated perform- Previous studies have generally investi-
ance improved when the outdoor air was gated combined effect of two or three fac-
provided by the personal ventilation sys- tors. In the study with combinations of
tem (PVS) and even more when this air temperatures from 22.8°C to 30.6°C and
had the temperature lower than the room fan noise at levels 72–90 dB(A), only the
temperature; at this condition subjects highest temperature had an effect, the
made 15% less errors when typing text change in noise showed only tendency to-
compared with traditional mixing ventila- wards higher performance (Viteles and
tion without individual control Smith, 1946). In experiments by Grether et
(Kaczmarczyk et al., 2004). They also real. (1971, 1972) whole–body vibration at
ported that the intensity of headache was 5 Hz was also added as the third factor. He
lower and that the ability to think clearly observed that the effect on performance of
increased. Studies in the US. offices combined factors was not more pronounced
23
than by single factors. In experiments by concentration of VOCs and other chemical

Löfberg et al. (1975) the combined effect of compounds in indoor air including ozone,
temperature and luminance levels were ob- access to windows and the distance from
served only for difficult tasks. The same the workstation to window, concentration
results were observed by Sandover et al. of particles, allergens and pollens, mois-
(1990) who exposed subjects to noise, vi- ture, etc. The examples of some effects are
bration and heat. In the experiment with given in the following.
human subjects performing simulated of-
fice work the cumulative effect of improv- Laboratory exposures to toluene (an abun-
ing 6 different environmental conditions: dant indoor air pollutant) at 100 ppm
temperature, air quality, traffic noise, open– (380 mg/m³) (Bælum et al., 1985) and to a
plan office noise, illuminance and access to mixture of 22 common indoor air pollut-
daylight, none of them any worse than ants at concentrations up to 25 mg/m³
commonly experienced in offices, produced (Mølhave et al., 1986) were shown to re-
a 7% increase in performance (Clausen and duce the performance of diagnostic psy-
Wyon, 2005). chological tests. These two experiments
were however carried out on selected in-
The combined effects of environmental door air pollutants and at concentrations
factors are often explained by the arousal considerably higher than those which typi-
theory, in which the performance is linked cally occur in office buildings (Brown et
to arousal: the performance of simple tasks al., 1994; Wargocki, 1998).
is highest at high arousal while the per-
formance of difficult tasks is optimum at Laboratory experiments with human sub-
lower level of arousal (Hygge, 1992). The jects performing simulated office work at
arousal theory is well suited to explain relative humidity of 5%, 15%, 25% and
interactions where the performance effect 35% in otherwise clean air in the climate
of one environmental parameter is coun- chamber showed that lowering humidity
teracted by the other. For example, moder- reduced the rate of performance typing,
ate heat is known to reduce arousal, while proof–reading and addition, the effects
loud noise is known to increase the being probably due to dry air affecting the
arousal. Thus adding mild heat to loud eyes (Wyon et al., 2003).
noise will reduce the arousal and be bene-
ficial for difficult tasks, while negative for A significant negative impact of allergies
simple tasks. Studies with human subjects on worker productivity was shown by Bur-
have confirmed these theoretical mecha- ton et al. (2001) in a study carried out with
nisms (Wyon, 1969; Poulton and Edwards, call–centre operators.
1974; Witterseh et al., 2004).
There are other examples in the scientific
Other factors literature on the effects of indoor envi-
ronmental quality on performance. They
Number of other factors related to indoor cannot, however, be used for developing
environment can affect the performance of quantitative relationships, which are the
office work. They include among others main focus of the present Guidebook.
24
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDOOR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PERFORMANCE
AND SICK LEAVE
Summary
This chapter describes the quantitative rela-
tionships between indoor climate, performance
of office work and sick leave.
For the engineering analysis and cost benefit
calculations it is necessary to know the quan-
titative relationships between indoor environ-
mental factors and productivity. Based on the
research performed so far, the following quan-
titative relationships are suggested:
¾ the relationship between ventilation rate
and short–term sick leave
¾ the relationship between tempera-
¾ the relationship between ventilation rate ture and work performance.
and work performance
¾ the relationship between perceived air They are described in details in the fol-
quality and work performance lowing.
The relationship between The relationship accounts for the effects of

ventilation rate and short–term sick ventilation, filtration, and particle deposition
leave on airborne concentrations of infectious par-
ticles and for the feedback process by which
A quantitative relationship between venti- more disease transmission in a building
lation rate and short–term sick leave was leads to more sick occupants who are the
estimated combining published field data source of infectious particles. The relation-
and a theoretical model of airborne trans- ship is calibrated, i.e., it is fitted to several
mission of respiratory infections, and us- sets of empirical data, resulting in different
ing studies in which sick leave or short– curves relating ventilation rates with illness
term illness were the outcomes (Fisk et al. prevalence. The relationship has many
2003). The relationship is presented in sources of uncertainty and is applicable only
Figure 12. Figure 13 provides a re–plot of in open plan offices or when the air is recir-
the two of the curves shown in Figure 12, culated within the office building. A rough
assuming an occupant density of 83 m³ per estimate using the presented relationship
person to illustrate how the illness or ab- suggests a 10% reduction in illness for dou-
sence rate can vary with ventilation rate bling of outdoor air supply rate. Thus the
per person in an office building. effect is quite large and may cause poten-
tially large economic effects.
25
Figures 12 and 13 can be used to estimate 1,0
Illness or sick leave prevalence

with no ventilation
relative to prevalence
the effect of changing ventilation rate on 0,8
sick leave. This is illustrated in the fol-
lowing example. 0,6
0,4
Example 1 Consider that short–term sick 0,2

leave is 2% in an office building with a ven-
0
tilation rate of 0.45 h–1 (as reported by study 0 1 2 3 4
of Milton et al., 2000). Using the mid–range -1
Ventilation rate, h
curve in Figure 12 (i.e. based on the data
from Brundage et al. (1988), data form all Drinka (1996), illness in nursing home
years), increasing the average ventilation Brundage (1988), illness in barracks, all years
rate from 0.45 h–1 to 1 h–1 would decrease
Particle concentration model
the relative prevalence of sick leave from 0.8
Brundage (1988), illness in barracks, 1983 data
to 0.6. This corresponds to a reduction of
Milton (2000), sick leave in offices
5 days per year (2% sick leave rate) to
3.75 days per year (0.6/0.8 x 2% =1.5% sick
leave rate). Figure 12 Predicted trends in illness or sick
leave versus air change rate (Fisk et al. 2003).
The relationship between

ventilation rate and performance of
office work
The relationship between ventilation rate 1,0

relative to prevalence
Illness or sick leave prevalence
with no ventilation
and performance is based on five studies

0,8
in offices and two studies that collected
data in a controlled laboratory experiment 0,6
(Seppänen et al., 2006a). These studies
quantified office work performance by 0,4
measuring the reaction time, performance 0,2
of simulated office work (typing, addition,
proof–reading) and performance of actual 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
work in offices (talk–time in call–centre).
Each data point was weighted by the num- Ventilation rate, L/s per person
ber of subjects. The different performance
Particle concentration model
metrics were assigned weighting factors
according to the relevance of the metric Milton (2000), sick leave in offices
for overall office work performance. The
data were normalized by calculating the
change in performance per increase of Figure 13 Predicted trends in illness or sick
ventilation rate by 10 L/s per person. The leave versus ventilation rate per person
resulting normalized adjusted change in (Fisk et al. 2003).
26
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN IEQ, PERFORMANCE AND SICK LEAVE
productivity (%) vs. ventilation rate is plot- The relationship presented in Figure 14
ted in Figure 14 with 90% and 95% confi- shows the change in performance per
dence limits. Figure 14 shows the relation- 10 L/s per person change of ventilation
ships for different steps in the analysis: rate. The following equation can be used
when the initial data were unweighted, to evaluate the ratio of performance under
weighted by sample size, and weighted by any two ventilation rates (Seppänen et al.,
both sample size and by a factor that ac- 2005a) assuming that the ventilation rate
counts for the relevance of the performance increases from V0 to V1. The ratio of per-
outcome for total work performance. The formance at V1 (P(V1)) to performance ra-
relationship suggests that doubling the out- tio at V0 (P(V0)) is then:
door air supply would improve the work
performance on average by ca. 1.5%. The P (V1 ) ⎡ V1
⎤
curves indicate that performance would = exp ⎢0.1 ⋅ ∫ λˆ (v) dv ⎥
P(V0 ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
improve up to approximately 40 L/s per Vo
person, but the model is statistically signifi-

cant for ventilation rates up to about 15 L/s where λˆ (v) is the fitted fractional change
per person (95% CI). The relationship illus- in performance per 10 L/s per person at
trated in Figure 14 shows that as the venti- ventilation v. The use of this equation is
lation rate becomes high, a relative im- illustrated in Figure 15 in which the refer-
provement of performance is lower. In ence ventilation rates (Vo) were set to 6.5
other words, the positive effect of increased and 10 L/s per person.
ventilation rate is stronger when the initial
ventilation rates are low, and weaker when The relationship between perceived
the initial ventilation rates are high. air quality and performance of
office work
Change in performance per
10 L/s per person, %
8
6 The relationship between perceived air
4 quality and performance of office work is
2 presented in Figure 16. It is based on three
0 experiments with subjects performing
-2 simulated office work (Wargocki et al.,
-4
2000b,c). Figure 17 shows the experimental
0 10 20 30 40 50 set–up of these experiments. The air quality
Ventilation rate, L/s per person was modified by changing the outdoor air
Reported in each study supply rate in an office polluted by a 20–
Unweighted year–old carpet, or by reducing the pollu-
Weighted by sample size tion load on the air by removing this carpet
Weighted by sample size and outcome relevance from the office. The quantitative relation-
90% CI of composite weighted ships indicates a 1.1% increase in perform-
95% CI of composite weighted ance for every 10% reduction in the propor-
tion of dissatisfied with the air quality, in
Figure 14 Increase in performance (Delta P% the range 25–70% dissatisfied. This corre-
per 10 L/s per person increase in ventilation
rate) as a function of ventilation rate (Seppänen
sponds to a 0.50% increase in performance
et al. 2006a). for every decrease of 1 decipol, in the range
27
Performance, %
2–13 decipol, where decipol is a quantita- 100
tive measure of perceived air quality based 1.1% per 10% in PAQ
on sensory assessments made by human 98
subjects (Fanger, 1988).
96
94
1.05
Relative Performance
92
1.04
1.03 90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.02
Dissatisfied with air quality, %
1.01
1.00 Figure 16 Performance of simulated office
0 10 20 30 40 50 work as a function of proportion of dissatisfied
Ventilation rate, L/s per person with air quality (R² = 0.784; P=0.008),
(Wargocki et al., 2000b,c).
Weighted by sample size

Weighted by sample size and
outcome relevance
Unweighted
1.05
1.04
1.03 Figure 17 Subjects in an office performing

simulated office work.
1.02
1.01
The relationship presented in Figure 16
1.00 was later verified by Bako–Biro (2004)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ventilation rate, L/s per person
who combined the data reported by War-
gocki et al. (2000b,c) with the data ob-
tained in his own studies in which the
Weighted by sample size sources of pollution comprised 3–month
Weighted by sample size and
outcome relevance
old PCs with CRT monitors (Bako–Biro et
Unweighted
al., 2004) and linoleum, sealant and
shelves with books and paper (Bako–Biro,
2004). The combined data were used to
Figure 15 Effect of increasing ventilation rate create the relationship between perform-
on performance relative to the reference venti- ance and air quality which is presented in
lation rate set at 6.5 L/s per person (above) and
10 L/s per person (below) (Seppänen et al. Figure 18. The relationship shows similar
2006a). effect to that observed by Wargocki et al.
28
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN IEQ, PERFORMANCE AND SICK LEAVE
(2000b,c), i.e. about 0.8% change in per- The relationship between

formance for every 10% change in pro- temperature and performance
portion of dissatisfied with air quality. But of office work
the performance includes only the effect
on text typing while in the case of War- The relationship between indoor air tem-
gocki et al. (2000b,c) the performance perature and performance is shown in Fig-
combines the effect on text typing, addi- ure 19. It is based on 148 assessments of
tion and proof–reading. performance from 24 studies (Seppänen et
al. 2006b). These studies quantified per-
formance by measuring objectively re-
Relative performance
0.8% per 10% in PAQ

1.00 ported work performance (e.g. talk time in
Wall-to-wall carpet call–centre), performance of complex
(poor quality)
0.98 tasks, performance of simple visual tasks,
performance of vigilance tasks or manual
0.96 tasks related to office work and by meas-
Display uring the effects on learning. The different
Building
terminal
0.94 materials performance metrics were assigned
weighting factors according to the rele-
0 20 40 60 80 vance of the metric for overall office work
Perceived air quality. % dissatisfied
performance. The data were then normal-
Figure 18 Performance of text–typing as a
ized to show the percentage of change of
function of the proportion of dissatisfied with performance for a temperature change of
the air quality (R² = 0.6012), (Bako–Biro, 2004). 1°C. Figure 19 shows the relationship be-
tween the temperature and the change in
Based on the relationships shown in Fig- performance per 1°C increase of tempera-
ures 16 and 18 one may predict the effect ture with 90% confidence limits. Positive
of improving indoor air quality in office values indicate that performance is im-
buildings on the performance of office proved when temperature is increased and
work. the negative values show that performance
is reduced when the temperature is in-
creased. Consequently, the performance
Example 2 In the European Audit project increases when temperature is below 23–
carried out in 56 European office buildings in 24°C and decreases when it is above these
9 countries it was found that the proportion levels. The slope of the curve is zero at a
of persons dissatisfied with air quality varied temperature of about 22°C.
between 25 and 60% dissatisfied (Bluyssen
at al. 1996). Thus improving air quality in the The relationship presented in Figure 19 is
buildings with highest proportion of dissatis- re–plotted in Figure 20 using temperature
fied to the levels observed in the buildings of 22°C as a reference point. It suggests a
with the lowest proportion of dissatisfied can reduction of performance by about 1% for
be expected to improve the performance of every 1°C change (reduction/increase) of
office work by about 3–4%. temperature from the reference tempera-
ture of 22°C.
29
20
1°C increase in temperature, %
Reported in each study

Change of performance per
Unweighted
10

and outcome relevance
0
90% CI of composite
-10
weighted
15 20 25 30 35
Temperature, °C
Figure 19 Change of performance (ΔP% per °C increase in temperature ) as a function of tem-

perature. Positive values indicate that performance is improved when temperature is increased and
the negative values show that performance is reduced when the temperature is increased
(Seppänen et al. 2006b).
1.00 Unweighted
0.95
and outcome relevance
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
15 20 25 30 35
Temperature, °C
Figure 20 Relative performance as a function of temperature; the curves are derived from the curves
presented in Figure 19 assuming that maximum performance is 1 at a temperature of ca. 22°C, which
is the temperature at which slope of the curve presented in Figure 19 equals zero. The relationship is
statistically significant with temperatures below 20°C or above 24°C (Seppänen et al. 2006b).
30
CALCULATION PROCEDURE
Summary
This chapter describes the principles of
how two productivity indicators, sick leave
and performance, can be included in the
engineering analysis comparing the in-
vestment or the alternatives of building op-
eration with potential benefits. The princi-
ples of how to convert investment cost to
annual cost and how to calculate the effect
of indoor climate on work performance and
sick leave are presented. The chapter also
presents a method of how to estimate up-
per and lower limits of the combined effects
on productivity. The criteria for cost effec-
tive investment are presented in an easy to
use format.
Principles of life cycle cost analysis sumed that in the end of the lifetime the
value of the investment is negligible.
The life–cycle cost analysis of building
services should include all relevant costs To be able to compare investment cost and
expected during the life time of a building. annual cost three main methods are possible:
They include in general the costs of de-
sign, construction, installation, commis- 1. Annuity cost model
sioning, facilities management, post–occu- 2. Net present value cost model
pancy evaluation, operation and re–use, 3. Internal rate of return method.
recycle or demolition or refurbishment and
are referred to as whole–life costs. In this Guidebook annuity cost method
was selected. In annuity model, the initial
This Guidebook is focusing on indoor cli- investment is equally distributed annually
mate and the investments affecting it. In the over the lifetime of the investment. This
calculation procedure presented here the annuity of the investment can then be
total costs and benefits of building services compared with the annual operation costs
include investment costs (first costs), opera- and changes in the productivity. For mean-
tion costs (energy and maintenance), and ingful comparison the cost should also be
the effects of the indoor environment on the calculated for the same area of the build-
work performed in the building (work per- ing. All costs and benefits (investment
formance and sick leave). In economical cost, operation cost and productivity) have
analysis all those three elements have to be to be calculated in same units, e.g. €/m²-
included in the calculations. It is also as- floor per year.
31
Annuity cost model Annuity factors are given in Appendix 2.
The principle of the calculation of annual The most economical alternative is the one
cost is illustrated in the Figure 21. The with lowest sum of the three cost items:
following cost items are included in the investment cost, operating cost and pro-
calculations: ductivity loss. These are described in the
following.
1. Incremental investment cost
(compared to the basic case) Investment cost
2. Change in operating and maintenance
cost (including energy cost) The estimation of the investment cost is a
3. Productivity loss due to indoor well–developed practice, and is not dis-
environment. cussed in detail in this Guidebook. However,
it is important that all cost items related to
the improvement of the IEQ are included in
investment cost
Present value of
the calculations, and not only the cost of new

equipment or material. The total cost of an
investment includes among others:
• design
• construction and installation
• electrical works
ANN ANN …
• piping
Annual cost of investment • mechanical works
All costs are converted to annual costs • construction management
• supporting work
Figure 21 Investment cost is converted to an-
nual cost. The annual cost depends on interest • change of the capacity of the
rate and life time of the investment. equipment, etc.
The investment cost is converted to annual The total construction cost is divided by
cost with the following formula: usable floor area to get cost per floor area
unit. The area should reflect the area ser-
r ⎛ r ⎞
n viced by an air handling unit.
⋅ ⎜1 + ⎟
100 ⎝ 100 ⎠
Ca = B ⋅ a = B ⋅ n The selected interest rate and life time of
⎛ r ⎞ the investment depend on the case. Typical
⎜1 + ⎟ −1
⎝ 100 ⎠ life times are shown in Appendix 3.
where:
Ca = annual cost of the investment Operating cost
B = present value of the investment
a = annuity factor for the n years The investment or refurbishment may
r = annual interest rate, % change several items of the operating and
n = calculation period = life time of maintenance (O&M) costs of the building,
the investment, years. but indoor environmental changes are
32
most commonly related to energy cost. Effects of ventilation rate and perceived
The rest of the O&M cost is assumed to be air quality on performance are not inde-
unchanged. The energy use of the building pendent and only the effect of one of those
has to be usually calculated with an ac- can be included in the calculations. Thus
cepted building simulation programme, the effect of ventilation on performance
such as, e.g. IDA/ICE. Manual calcula- can be calculated directly or via perceived
tions are possible only in very simple air quality. But the effect of ventilation on
cases. The unit cost of the energy depends sick leave is independent of the effect on
on the case. Actual cost of electricity and performance, the effects being additive.
heat used in building in €/kWh is needed. Effect of air change rate on sick leave can
Indoor environmental measure may have be used only when the occupants are in the
an effect on peak power or heat demand same air space, or in a building with sig-
which also has to be included in the cal- nificant air recirculation. The effect of
culations. temperature is independent of ventilation
but often the control of temperature also
Change in operating cost is expressed as affects ventilation rates. As the combined
investment cost, € per usable m². Refer- effect of ventilation and temperature is not
ence values of annual maintenance cost for known the following is proposed: The
some mechanical components are given in magnitude of the combined effect is at
Appendix 3. least the effect of the greater of the single
parameters, and not more than the sum
Productivity loss of the independent parameters.
The principle to calculate the productivity In the following few examples are given to
loss is that a deviation of the indoor envi- illustrate how the productivity loss can be
ronment from optimum will decrease the estimated.
productivity (either work performance or
number of sick leave days). The loss of
productivity is calculated in % based on Example 3 The air–conditioning of an office
the indoor conditions according to rela- building is improved. The thermal conditions,
tionships presented in previous chapter. The ventilation and perceived air quality are im-
following factors can be evaluated in %: proved. Calculated effect on work perform-
ance due to better temperature control is
1. Effect of room temperature 3%, and due to better ventilation 2%. The
on performance effect of improvement of perceived air qual-
2. Effect of air change rate ity is 1%. In this case the combined effect is
on sick leave at minimum 3% and at maximum 5%. The
3. Effect of ventilation rate effect of perceived air quality is not added as
on performance the effect of improved ventilation was al-
4. Effect of perceived air quality ready used in the estimation.
on performance.
33
Total annual effect

Example 4 The air–conditioning system of
an open plan office is renovated. Tempera- The effect on the total cost is calculated as
ture control is improved and air change rate the sum of:
increased. Calculated effect on work per-
formance due to better temperature control • annual investment cost relative to the
is 4%, and due to better ventilation 2%. In- basic alternative
creased ventilation rate also decreases sick • change in O&M cost relative to the ba-
days leave by 1%. As the effect of ventilation sic alternative
on sick leave and performance are in- • change in productivity loss relative to
dependent the minimum effect on perform- the basic alternative.
ance is 4% and the maximum 7%. As the
room temperature may vary hourly and daily The economy of the investment for indoor
depending on the loads, and use of the sys- environmental improvement depends on
tem and its controls the effect of temperature the following factors:
has to be calculated on hourly basis. This
can only be done using simulation tools or • value of the work (including gross sal-
hourly measurements. ary, overhead cost, and profit)
• floor area per employee
• interest rate
To convert the productivity loss to similar • life time of the investment
units as the other cost items the value of • net cost of the investment (including the
the work has to be estimated, as well as changes in O&M cost).
the floor area used by the employees. An
estimate for the value of the work can be Table 6 shows the relation of these pa-
obtained by dividing the turnover of the rameters. The last columns of the table
company or its part by the number of em- show the maximum values of the invest-
ployees, using the average gross salary ment which still gives the requested rate of
added with overhead costs and the profit return with different levels of productivity
of the company. This is illustrated in the increases. The use of the Table 6 is illus-
following example. trated in the following example.
Example 5 The company has 50 employ- Example 6 If the life time of the investment
ees in a 1000 m² office space. An average is 10 years, and the requested return of the
gross salary of the company is €2000 per investment is 10%, the investment criteria is
month, the overhead costs are 120% and met with the cost of investment of 272 €/m² if
the profit 5%. the productivity improvement is 2% in a
The average value of the annual work is workplace where occupant density is
thus [(€2000/mo x 12 mo/a) x 2.2] x 1.05= 25 m²/person, and the value of the work is
55,400 €/person. As the average space 30 €/h (see marked cells in Table 6).
used per employee is 1000 m²/50 = 20 m²,
the average value of the work is
In an owner occupied building the owner
55,400 €/person/20 m² = 2,772 €/m².
gets all benefits from improved productiv-
ity. In a leased building the situation is
34
different as the building owner does not The use of Table 7 is illustrated in the fol-
get any benefits from the improved pro- lowing example.
ductivity. The investment has then to be-
come economical by increase in rent. Ta- Example 7 If the life time of the investment
ble 7 shows the relation of increase of rent is 10 years, and the building owner requests
and still profitable investment if the in- 10% return of the investment, the investment
crease in rent corresponds to 25% of the criteria is met with an investment cost of 68
value of the increase in productivity. The €/m² if the productivity improvement is 2% in
last columns in the table show the maxi- a workplace where the occupant density is
mum value of the investment which still 25 m²/person, and the value of the work is
gives the requested rate of return with dif- 30 €/h (see marked cells in Table 7).
ferent levels of productivity increases.
Table 6. The effects of productivity increase (1,2 or 4% increase) on productivity in €/m².

The table also shows the magnitude of the investment in various cases when the invest-
ment is still cost–effective from the employer’s point of view.
Value of the Office Value of increased Magnitude of cost effective investment for productivity improvements
work floor area productivity in €/m²/a depending on the productivity improvements in %, €/m²
per depending on product-
employee ivity increase in %
Interest rate 5 % Interest rate 10 % Interest rate 5 %
€/m²/a Lifetime of Lifetime of Life time of
€/h €/a m² investment 10 a investment 10 a investment 20 a
1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4%
30 55440 15 37 74 148 284 569 1137 227 453 907 462 924 1848
30 55440 25 22 44 89 171 341 682 136 272 544 277 554 1109
60 110880 15 74 148 296 569 1137 2274 453 907 1814 924 1848 3696
60 110880 25 44 89 177 341 682 1365 272 544 1088 554 1109 2218
90 166320 15 111 222 444 853 1706 3412 680 1360 2721 1386 2772 5544
90 166320 25 67 133 266 512 1024 2047 408 816 1633 832 1663 3326
Table 7. The effects of productivity increase (1,2 or 4% increase) and its potential effect
on the rent when 25% of the productivity increase is transferred into the rent. The table
also shows the magnitude of the investment in various cases when the investment is still
cost–effective from the lessor’s point of view.
Value of the Office Value of increased Increase of rent when Magnitude of cost effective investment for productivity
work floor area productivity in 25 % of the value of improvements depending on the productivity improvements
per €/m²/a depending increase is transferred in %, €/m²
employee on productivity into the rent
increase in %
Interest rate 5 % Interest rate 10 % Interest rate 5 %
€/m²/a €/m², a Life time of Life time of Life time of
€/h €/a m² investment 10 a investment 10 a investment 20 a
1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4%
30 55440 15 37 74 148 9.24 18.48 36.96 71 143 285 57 114 227 115 230 461
30 55440 25 22 44 89 5.54 11.09 22.18 43 86 171 34 68 136 69 138 276
60 110880 15 74 148 296 18.48 36.96 73.92 143 285 571 114 227 454 230 461 921
60 110880 25 44 89 177 11.09 22.18 44.35 86 171 342 68 136 273 138 276 553
90 166320 15 111 222 444 27.72 55.44 110.88 214 428 856 170 341 681 345 691 1 382
90 166320 25 67 133 266 16.63 33.28 66.53 128 257 514 102 204 409 207 415 829
35
The information in the tables 6 and 7 are fice with 15 m² per employee, and in-
also presented graphically in the figures crease in productivity by 2%, the invest-
22 and 23. Following the arrows in fig- ment of 272 €/m² is still profitable with
ures, the maximum investment for im- interest rate of 10% and life time of the
provement of productivity can be esti- 10 years in owner occupied buildings,
mated. The examples show that with the and 68 €/m² in leased offices from the
value of labour of 30 € per hour, in an of- standpoint of building owner.
)
8%
8%
Increase in productivity Increase in productivity
3a
3a
/m²/a /m²/a
Incr
Incr
,
,
(5%
(5%
e
e
as e
as e
67
67
6% 200 6% 200
0,3
0,3
in p
in p
a=
a=
rod
rod
a)
a)
u
u
,5
,5
ctiv
ctiv
(5%
(5%
ity
ity
31
31
4% 4%
0,2
0,2
0 a) 0a
)
a=
a=
%,1 %,
1
100 100
(10 0 a) (10 0 a)
63 1 63 1
, 1 %, , 1 %,
= 0 3 (5 = 0 3 (5
2% a 0,1 ) 2% a 0,1 )
20 a 20 a
a = (15%, a = (15%,
08 08
1% a = 0, 1% a = 0,
3000 2000 1000 200 400 600 3000 2000 1000 50 100 150
Value of Maximum Value of Maximum
the work investment the work investment
/m²/a 10 /m² /m²/a 10 /m²
n n
rso rso
² /pe ² /pe
m m
10 10
n
20 20
rso
rso
/pe
/pe
m²
m²
15
15
n
30 30
rso
rso
/pe
/pe
m²
m²
20
20
n
40 40
so
so
per
per
m²/
m²/
25
25
50 50
rson
rson
Hourly value of the work Hourly value of the work

²/pe
²/pe
/h /h
35 m
35 m
Figure 22 Break–even investment cost (€/m²– Figure 23 Break–even investment cost (€/m²–
office floor area) to improve indoor environ- office floor area) to improve indoor environ-
ment with different value of work (€/m²–office ment with different value of work (€/m²–office
floor area) depending on gained productivity floor area) depending on gained productivity
(1, 2 ,4, 6, or 8%), annuity factor of the invest- (1, 2, 4, 6 or 8%), annuity factor of the invest-
ment (from appendix 2 based on life time and ment (from appendix 2 based on life time and
interest rate) in owner occupied buildings interest rate) in leased buildings where the
where the building owner gets as an employer building owner gets rent increase equivalent to
all benefits from improved productivity (devel- 25% of the productivity increase (developed
oped from Table 6). from Table 7).
36
CASE STUDIES
Summary
This chapter shows five case studies illustrating the effects of different measures to im-
prove indoor air quality and climate on productivity of office work and sick leave, and how
these benefits can be included in the life cycle cost analysis of the selected measure.
Presented cases deal with costs of implementation of different measures of improving air
quality and reducing temperature in the buildings. They include:
Case 1. Improvement of air quality by increased ventilation or by selecting low

polluting materials for building.
Case 2. Cooling with night-time ventilation.
Case 3. Cooling with different alternatives including night–time ventilation, in-

creased operation time, increased supply air flow rate, central mechani-
cal cooling or their combination.
Case 4. Use of the economizer cycle with varying outdoor air flow rate.
Case 5. Increased ventilation rate.
The costs of implementing these measures are compared with the potential benefits of
improved office work. The common result in all cases is that the improvement of indoor
environment is very cost effective when the effects of improved office work is taken into
account. For example, the pay–back time for improving air quality is about one year, the
benefit–to–cost ratio for night–time cooling can range up to about 80; and the annual sav-
ings due to improved temperature control are greater than the annual investment cost
and the increase of annual energy cost for cooling.
37
Case 1: The effect of improving indoor air quality on office

productivity in an office building
Summary
This case study illustrates how improving
indoor air quality by source control and in-
creased ventilation affects the costs com-
pared to the benefits of improved produc-
tivity. It is based on simulations reported
by Wargocki and Djukanovic (2005).
The annual costs of energy and mainte-
nance in running HVAC system and life–
cycle costs (LCC) of investments for im-
proving air quality in an office building by
increasing outdoor air supply rates and se-
lecting low–polluting building materials
were compared with the resulting reve- recovery. The annual benefit due to im-
nues from increased office productivity as proved air quality was up to 115 times
a consequence of improved worker per- higher than the increase in annual energy
formance. The additional costs for imple- and maintenance costs. LCC analysis
mentation of measures to improve indoor showed that productivity benefits resulting
air quality involved increased energy and from a better indoor air quality were up to
HVAC maintenance costs, first costs of a 60 times higher than the increased costs;
HVAC system and building construction the simple and discounted pay–back time
costs. The building was simulated in a were below 2.1 years; and the annual rate
moderate climate and was ventilated by a of return was 4–7 times higher than the
constant air volume (CAV) system with heat minimum rate set at 3.2%.
Case the only parameter that influenced work

The costs of improving air quality were performance. Other factors such as noise
simulated in an 11 581 m² non–low–pol- and thermal conditions were supposed to
luting office building (CEN CR 1752, be constant and were not considered in the
1998) with 864 employees, ventilated by a simulation. The upgrading of the indoor
constant air volume system with heat re- air quality involved increased energy and
covery, and located in a moderate climate. maintenance costs, first costs of a HVAC
It was assumed that the air quality in the system and building construction costs.
building caused 50% dissatisfied. The air These costs were compared with the in-
quality was improved by increasing the crease in office productivity.
outdoor air supply rate, from 6 to 60 L/s
per person and by reducing the pollution Method
load from 0.2 to 0.1 olf/m² floor area to Annual energy and maintenance costs and
reduce the percentage of dissatisfied with the HVAC first costs were estimated by
air quality down to 10% (Table 8). The performing a series of parametric building
change in air quality was assumed to be energy simulations using the DOE–2.1E
38
CASE STUDIES
building energy analysis program devel- from improved productivity was used. The
oped for the U.S. Department of Energy life–time of the building was set at 25
(DOE) (Curtis et al. 1984). These costs years and the real discount rate at 3.2%.
and the estimated building construction
costs were used to perform a life–cycle Results and discussion
cost (LCC) analysis with modified The results of the life–cycle cost analysis
DOE/NIST LCC–2002 software. The fol- are shown in Table 8. The analysis showed
lowing costs were estimated: (1) annual that improving air quality is highly effi-
costs for energy, based on ASHRAE 90.1 cient: the benefits from improved air qual-
(1999) for Chicago and a series of para- ity can be up to 60 times higher than in-
metric building energy simulations per- vestments; the investments can generally
formed using the DOE–2.1E; (2) first costs be recovered in no more than 2 years; and
of HVAC, based on outdoor air supply the rate of return can be up to 7 times
rate and the resulting heating/cooling ca- higher than the minimum acceptable inter-
pacities and air–handling unit capacity est rate. The estimates do not include
(Saylor 2002b); (3) annual maintenance benefits resulting from reduced health
costs, assumed to be 5% of the HVAC first costs and reduced absenteeism; lower ab-
cost; and (4) the building construction cost senteeism from an increased outdoor air
without HVAC (Saylor 2002a). The build- supply rate can result in additional annual
ing construction costs for a low–polluting savings of $400 per employee (see Figures
building were assumed to be 5% higher 12 and 13 in earlier chapter). The above
than for a non–low–polluting building. estimates imply that improving air quality
The increase in office productivity with from the “mediocre” level (50% dissatis-
improved air quality was predicted using fied) to the “excellent” level (10% dissat-
the experimental relationship showing a isfied) will, e.g., in a small–size office
1.1% increase in performance of office building with 100 employees, result in an
work for each 10% decrease in the per- annual revenue of approx. $100,000 over a
centage of persons dissatisfied with the air period of 25 years. It is expected that these
quality upon entering a space (Figure 16). results can be applied generally to most
Benefits from increased productivity were countries of the developed world even
converted into annual revenues, assuming though they were obtained by carrying out
an annual salary of €26,818 per person the simulations and depend upon the set of
(€16/hour per person), a 1.1% increase in assumptions used in the simulations. Other
productivity resulted thus in an annual simulations, not presented here, showed
economic benefit of €268.2 per person. that similar economic benefits were also
The calculated costs and revenues were obtained in cold and hot climate. This is
used to perform LCC analysis. The Na- because the benefits from improved pro-
tional Institute of Standards and Tech- ductivity become a dominating factor in
nology (NIST) DOE/NIST LCC–2002 the life–cycle cost analysis and considera-
software modified to include the benefits bly exceed the increased investment costs.
39
Table 8. Results of LCC analysis for a building located in a moderate climate when the
air quality is improved either by increasing ventilation or combining low-polluting mate-
rials and increased ventilation (last section of Table).
Building Air Discounted increase from the reference condition. €/m² Net Simple Adjusted
quality, Costs Benefits savings, pay–back internal
% diss. €/m² time, a rate of
Energy Main- HVAC Building Productivity return, %
tenance first
Non– 50 Reference condition
low– 40 –0.2 6.2 7.4 0.0 389.5 376.0 0.3 20.9
polluting
30 2.1 19.0 22.4 0.0 779.0 735.4 0.5 18.8
20 7.6 45.1 53.0 0.0 1 168.5 1 062.9 0.8 16.6
15 10.2 68.9 80.9 0.0 1 363.2 1 203.4 1.1 15.3
10 15.6 104.6 122.8 0.0 1 558.0 1 315.0 1.5 13.9
Low– 40 0 –0.6 –0.6 0.0 389.5 343.9 2.0 12.4
polluting 30 –0.2 6.5 7.6 46.7 779.0 718.3 1.2 14.8
20 3.4 23.2 27.3 46.7 1 168.5 1 067.9 1.1 15.1
15 7.0 39.7 46.6 46.7 1 363.2 1 223.1 1.2 14.7
10 10.2 69.2 81.3 46.7 1 558.0 1 334.6 1.5 13.8
40
CASE STUDIES
Case 2: The effect of cooling with night–time ventilation on

productivity
Summary
High temperatures during the
working hours will decrease work
performance. This example
shows how the daytime high
temperatures can be reduced by
using ventilation during the night
when the outdoor temperature is
significantly lower than in day-
time. The daytime temperature
will be reduced and the work per-
formance improved. The penalty
of using mechanical ventilation is
increased energy consumption
by running the fans at night. The
calculations in this example show
that value of the benefits from The other input values represent typical North Euro-
improved work performance are pean values. The effects of higher average ventila-
much higher (19–79 times) than tion rates on indoor air quality are not included in the
the cost of the electricity used to calculations. The results of this example show that
run the fans. The calculations are night–time ventilation is a very cost effective method
done for a typical summer day – of improving indoor climate, and it does not require
the temperature values used in any investments. It can also be achieved by natural
the example are measured in a ventilation, and if the security of building allows, by
case study. opening the windows at night–time.
Background with clear skies and a continental climate.

Night–time cooling with ventilation is a The cool night–time air can be used to cool
cooling strategy that has been used the building during night. This cools the
throughout the centuries especially in cli- structure and furnishings, which become a
mate regions with hot summers. Recently, heat sink during the day, thus, reducing the
there is a renewed interest in night–time daytime temperatures. The benefit of night–
ventilative cooling in both hot and moder- time ventilative cooling is the reduced day–
ate climates due to its potential benefits for time temperature which further improves
indoor temperature control with low energy the productivity. Night–time ventilative
use and, hence, with low environmental cooling can be accomplished either by
impact. Its principle is based on the daily opening the windows or by running the me-
temperature swings during hot periods. A chanical ventilation during the night. In the
typical daily temperature swing is around former case the costs comprise the labour
12°C; however, it can be considerably or other system to operate the windows,
smaller (e.g., on cloudy days) or higher and security risks, in the latter case the
41
costs include increased of operation hours productivity and temperature shown in

of fans (Zimmermann 1998). Figure 20 the loss of performance is calcu-
lated in minutes for each hour (Table 9).
Case The air handling system was used for night
This case study is based on measured ventilation with a running time of 8 hours
room temperature data with and without a night. The night–time ventilation rate is
night–time ventilative cooling (Figure 24) 4 air changes per hour – a typical capacity
provided by Kolokotroni et al. (2001). Ta- of many HVAC systems.
ble 9 (from Seppänen et al. 2003) provides
temperatures based on the data. The data Results and discussion
in Figure 24 are used together with the The difference between lost time per day
relationship between the performance and between cases with and without cooling
temperature (Figure 20) and with an esti- with night–time ventilation is 17.2 min per
mate of the cost of fan energy to perform a day (23.4–6.2). The productivity benefit is
cost–benefit analysis of providing night– thus 7.15 € per day per person. The re-
time ventilative cooling in an non–air– sulting costs of fan energy with electricity
conditioned office building. The night– prices from 0.05 € to 0.20 € per kWh are
time ventilative cooling was accomplished shown in Table 10, which shows that the
with mechanical ventilation. The total fan corresponding benefit–to–cost ratios,
power (exhaust and supply fans) was 2.5 which range from 19 to 79. It should be
kW per m³/s of air which is a common remembered that these benefits can only
Scandinavian building code value. The be obtained during periods of hot outdoor
average value (gross salary, benefits and daytime temperatures, and the magnitude
overhead) of an hour of work used in the of the benefit will depend on both the day-
calculations is 25 €/h (50 000 €/year, 250 time temperatures and the daily tem-
work days, 8 hours per day). The room perature swings. This measure does not
volume was estimated to be 83 m³ per oc- involve any investment cost. The only cost
cupant. included in the calculation was an increase
in the energy cost, however, the life–time
Method of the fans may be shortened due to longer
The operative temperature is estimated as operation hours. Still, the benefits are so
an average of air and surface temperatures high that even the shorter life–time of fans
for the room with and without night–time would not have a large influence on the
ventilation. Using the relationship between results.
42
CASE STUDIES
30
Temperature, °C
28
26
24
Room surfaces
22 – No night time ventilation
Room air
20 – No night time ventilation
Room surfaces
18 – With night time ventilation
Room air
16 – With night time ventilation
Outdoor air
14
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Time
Figure 24 Daily temperature variations (air and surfaces) in a room with and without night–time
ventilative cooling. The corresponding outdoor temperature is also shown, (Kolokotroni et al. 2001).
Table 9. Hourly temperatures with and without night–time cooling with ventilation.
Hour 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 Lost working
time, min/d
Without night–time cooling with ventilation
Toutdoor 19 21.5 24.5 26.5 26.8 27.0 27.1 27.3
Tair, indoor 26.3 26.6 27.3 27.5 27.6 27.6 27.7 27.7
Tsurfaces 27.8 27.8 27.9 28 28 28.1 28.1 28
Toperative 27.0 27.2 27.6 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.9 27.8
Lost working time, min/h 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 23.4
With night–time cooling with ventilation
Tair, indoor 23.5 23.6 24 24.5 25.9 26.1 26.1 26
Tsurfaces 23.2 23.4 23.8 24 24.6 24.7 24.8 24.8
Toperative 23.4 23.5 23.9 24.2 25.2 25.4 25.4 25.4
Lost working time, min/h 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 6.2
Table 10. Cost of electricity and value of improved productivity due to night–time cooling with
ventilation. All values per occupant per day. Productivity benefits are calculated using the value
of work at 25 €/h based on the increase of performance at 17.2 min/day from Table 9.
Price of Use of electricity by fans for 8 Cost of fan Productivity Benefit
electricity hours of cooling with electricity benefits to cost
€/kWh ventilation, kWh € € ratio
0.05 1.84 0.09 7.15 79
0.10 1.84 0.18 7.15 40
0.15 1.84 0.28 7.15 26
0.20 1.84 0.37 7.15 19
43
Case 3: The effects of alternative temperature control

strategies on productivity
Summary
The summertime temperatures are often
high in office buildings without air–condi-
tioning. This example compares the effect
of various possibilities to reduce the sum-
mertime indoor temperatures. The meth-
ods in this case study are: increase of op-
eration time of mechanical ventilation, in-
crease of supply air flow rate, central me-
chanical cooling of the supply air, and
combination of these. A floor with 50
rooms in a typical existing office building is
selected for the study. Investment options
are compared with the existing base case
building with simple mechanical ventilation
system. Additional investment costs, en-
ergy costs and changes in productivity are
calculated with comparison to base case.
Hourly simulation (IDA/ICE) is performed
to calculate the indoor temperature of the
rooms for all selected alternatives. Typical
values for the investment are used to es-
timate the first cost of central mechanical
cooling and increased supply air flow.
Typical North European values for energy
are used in the case–study. Only the effect The results show that the lost productivity
of temperature on work performance is in- cost in the base case can be significantly
cluded in calculation of productivity. The decreased with all improvements, and that
effect of increased in ventilation is in- the total annual cost is lowest when all
cluded only in energy and investment three measures are used (increase in op-
costs, not in the productivity improve- eration time and supply air flow, and central
ments. mechanical cooling).
Background natives for the improvements are: install-

The summer time temperatures are often ing central mechanical cooling, increase of
high in office buildings without air–condi- operation hours, and increase of supply air
tioning. The following example (updated flow.
from Seppänen and Vuolle 2000) illus-
trates how the effect of room temperature Case
on work performance is integrated in A typical small office building is used in
evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the analysis. The building is a concrete
various alternatives of cooling. The alter- structure with narrow bays and private
44
CASE STUDIES
offices located in the exterior zone of the Table 11. Main features of the office room
building (no open plan offices). A single used in the analysis.
office room was selected for the detailed Floor area 9.7 m²
analysis. The main features of the room
Room volume 28.2 m³
are described in Table 11. The basic case
used as a reference has a moderate solar Air leakage 0.1 h–1
protection of windows (light blinds be- Outdoor wall area 5.3 m²
tween the panes), and heavy construction (excl. windows)
to decrease the daily high temperatures Lighting load: 15 W/m²
with the thermal capacity. The options to Heat load from of- 100 W
reduce high temperatures in the room are: fice equipment
to increase the outdoor air flow rate, to Set point of room 21°C
temperature
increase the operation time of ventilation Room occupied on 6.6 h/day
(typically the ventilation is running only average
during the office hours plus a couple of Construction Heavy (concrete)
additional hours), and mechanical cooling.
The base case 1, and the cases (2–5) de- Windows 3 panes, clear glass
scribing in detail the remedial measures Shading Light Venetian blinds
are summarized in the Table 12. The en- between middle and
ergy costs used in the calculations reflect outer pane
the average energy cost in Helsinki, for Glass area of the 2.5 m²
windows
heating 0.04 €/kWh and for electricity
Lights on 8 am to 4 pm
0.1 €/kWh. The value of the annual work
of each employee was assumed to be Loads on 8 am to 4 pm
€50 000. With the average number of Min supply air 14°C
working hours 1 550 per year (holidays temperature
and vacations excluded) the value of the Total working 1 550 h/year
work is 32.26 €/h. hours per year
Table 12. Description of the base case (case #1) and remedial measures used in calculations.
Case Description
1(base) Solar protection with light Venetian blinds between the outer and middle panes. Supply
air flow rate 2 L/s per m², operation of ventilation 10 h/d.
2 Mechanical cooling with cooling capacity of 20 W/m² of floor area in the air handling
unit
3 Increased operation time of the ventilation from 10 to 24 h/d in summer
4 Increased flow rate of supply air from 2 to 4 L/s per m² , and increased operation time
from 10 to 24 h/d in summer
5 Increased flow rate of supply air from 2 to 4 L/s per m², increased operation time from
10 to 24 h/d in summer and mechanical cooling of 20 W/m²
45
Method working location in the room was calcu-

The analysis included annual cost of in- lated for each work hour and the loss of
vestment, increase in operation cost (only productivity was summarized over the
energy), and improved work performance whole year due to inadequate temperature
due to better room temperature control. control. In the total cost calculations, case
The investment costs are evaluated based #1 is taken as a reference case, and the
on a large database on refurbishment costs. other cases are compared with this case.
The first costs have been calculated as- Three cost items were included: investment
suming 50 similar rooms to be refurbished cost, operation cost (only energy), and the
under the same contract. In order to get the changes in productivity, where investment
cost per room the total cost has thus been cost is the total investment of the remedial
divided by 50. The first cost has been con- measure per room (see Table 13).
verted to annual cost using the annuity
factor of 0.1098, which corresponds a life Table 13. First cost of some remedial
cycle of 15 years and an interest rate of 7 measures to control high room tempera-
% (Annex 2). The effect of the remedial tures
measures on room temperature, productiv- Remedial Description Total Cost
ity and energy consumption was calculated measure cost per
with a modular computer program IDA room
€ €
Indoor Climate and Energy (Vuolle and
Salin 2000). The energy consumption was Increase of Air handling
ventilation unit and ducts,
calculated using reference year weather by 2 L/s 1 m³/s
data, as follows: per m² 25 000 500
Mechanical Compressor,
Annual average cooling condenser,
4.2°C
temperature added in cooling coil
Maximum outdoor central air and controls,
28.5°C handling unit 1 m³/s air flow,
temperature
Minimum outdoor 12 kW cooling
−30.0°C capacity 23 719 474
temperature
Heating degree days,
5693°C–day
base 20 °C Results and discussion
Total annual solar radiation
936 kWh/m²
The results of the calculations are shown
on horizontal surface in Table 14. It should be noted that all im-
provements of temperature control are
The calculated electrical energy in Table cost–effective and result in annual savings
14 includes all electricity used per room: in total cost when the increased productiv-
lighting, office equipment, fans, and me- ity is included in the calculations (last row
chanical cooling (COP=3). Heating energy in Table 14). The total use of electricity
includes only the energy used for heating and heat are presented for all 50 rooms
of the supply air. Heat recovery from ven- and per room or person (single person of-
tilation air with a temperature efficiency of fices). The cost of heat and electricity in-
50% is used in calculations. The estimated creases considerably with the increase of
loss of productivity is based on Figure 20. outdoor airflow rate but not as much with
The operative temperature at the assumed increased operation time as this is only
46
CASE STUDIES
extended in summer time. It is interesting are implemented (mechanical cooling,

to notice that the increase in electricity use higher supply air low, and longer opera-
is higher if the operation time is increased tion hours in summer, case #5) but the ex-
than if the mechanical cooling is used tended operation hours in summer alone
(case #3 vs. #2). The best results in tem- result in considerable savings (two thirds
perature control and productivity (lowest of the highest savings), without any in-
number of lost working hours due to high vestments needed.
room temperature) is when all measures
Table 14. The basic data of and the results of calculations illustrating the effects of dif-
ferent remedial measures used to reduce high indoor air temperatures. Case #1 is used as
a reference. The numbers apply for a set of 50 offices.
Factor Case
Base Mechanical Increased Incr- All
cooling operation eased (#2)+
time outdoor (#3)+
air flow (#4)=
(#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Supply air flow, L/sm² (no recirculation) 2 2 2 4 4
Operation time, h/day 10 10 24 24 24
Mechanical cooling, W/m² 0 20 0 0 20
HVAC–electricity, kWh/a 5 029 5 829 7 403 14 790 15 295
Total heat, kWh/a 47 156 47 219 49 103 72 765 71 434
Electricity, kWh/,m²a 10.4 12.0 15.3 30.5 31.5
Heat, kWh/,m²a 97.2 97.4 101.2 150.0 147.3
Cost of electricity, €/a–person 10.6 11.7 14.8 29.6 30.6
Cost of heat, €/a–person 37.7 37.7 39.3 58.2 57.1
Annual energy cost per person, €/a–person 47.8 49.4 54.1 87.8 87.7
Annual additional energy cost per person,
0 1.6 6.3 40.0 39.9
€/a–person (a)
First cost of remedial measure, € 0 474 0 500 974
Annual cost of investment per person
0 52.0 0 54.9 106.9
(15 years, 7%), €/a–person (b)
Effective lost working hours due to poor
1 063 777 632 327 218
control of temperature, h/a
Value of lost working hours,€/a–person (c) 686 501 408 211 141
Gained working hours due to improved
0 6 9 15 17
temperature control, h/a per person
Value of improved productivity, €/a–person (d) 0 184 278 475 545
Total annual cost, €/a–person (a+b+c) 686 555 414 306 288
Total annual savings per room or per person,
0 131 272 380 398
€/a (d–a–b)
47
The share of the energy and first cost is nomic benefits of cases #4 or #5 with only
small compared to productivity benefits in 16% as much incremental energy use.
all cases. The first cost of mechanical cool-
ing and increased supply airflow are ap- Present calculations comprise only the ef-
proximately equal but the longer operation fect of improved temperature control on
hours are slightly more effective in control- productivity, but additional improvement
ling the room temperatures than mechanical in performance is also gained due to
cooling with supply airflow at 2 L/s per higher ventilation rates in cases #4 and #5.
person and operation hours at 10 h/d. Me- Ventilation rate is increased from ca. 20
chanical cooling is the most effective L/s per person to 40 L/s per person which
measure in controlling temperature when is equivalent to ca. 1% increase in per-
the supply air flow and operation hours are formance (Figure 14). However, it should
increased. The total cost and its break down also be noted that air–conditioning may
for each case are illustrated in Figure 25. create a risk of increasing SBS symptoms
The cost items include the value of lost (Seppänen and Fisk, 2002). But at the
working hours, increase in energy cost, and same time it can increase productivity by
annual cost of the remedial measure. reducing the indoor temperature. At pre-
sent, a cost of increased risk of SBS symp-
The results show how it is important to toms can not be assigned.
control the room temperature in summer-
time in office buildings. The investment Energy Investment Lost productivity Total
cost depends on the specific case, and may

Annual cost, euros / person
80
vary considerably depending on the diffi- 70 Cost of office environment
(additional energy, investment,
culties of changing the existing system and 60 productivity loss)
installation. This is especially the case if 50
the increase of ventilation also requires 40
new ductwork. Mechanical or desiccant 30
cooling is then normally easier to install in 20
an existing system (Zimmermann 1998). 10
In this case also the existing air handling 0 (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
unit may restrict the total cooling capacity. Basic 20 W/m², 2 L/sm², 4 L/sm², 4 L/sm²,
case: 10 h/d 24 h/d 24 h/d 24 h/d,
However, even doubling the first cost will 2 L/sm², 10 h/d 20 W/m²
not make the annual savings negative. The Compared cases
interest rate of 7% may be considered as
high but has only a minor effect on the Figure 25 The effect of mechanical cooling
annual cost of the investment. The ex- (#2), increased operation time (#3), increased
outdoor air flow (#4) and all of them (#5) on the
pected life cycle of the air handling system cost items related to room temperature control
and air–conditioning system is 15 years. in a typical Finnish office building (€ per person
Note that case #3 has 70% of the net eco- per year).
48
CASE STUDIES
Case 4: The effect of using an economizer cycle on short–

term sick leave
Summary
This case–study is applicable to the North
American conditions, where air–condi-
tioning is used often with constant mini-
mum outdoor air flow rate, and the outdoor
air is not used for cooling at all. By in-
creasing the use of the outdoor air flow the
indoor air quality is improved and energy
use reduced. This method is called
economizer cycle.
In this case an open plan office building
located in Washington DC is used as an
example.
Hourly simulation (DOE–2) of building ven- The results show significant reduction in
tilation is done with and without econo- sick leave days and also in energy con-
mizer cycle with three minimum flow rates sumption. The value of reduced sick leave
10, 15 and 20 L/s per person. The energy days is 2–3 times higher than the value of
use is calculated for all cases. The prices reduced energy consumption. The effect of
of energy in this case are taken from the ventilation on work performance is not in-
US statistics for Washington DC. The ef- cluded, neither is the additional first cost of
fect of indoor climate improvements is lim- the economizer (dampers and the controls).
ited to the reduced sick leave days due to This is a good example of how the energy
higher ventilation rates in the open plan of- performance and indoor climate can be im-
fice. proved with the same measure.
Background respiratory illnesses and sick leave and

An economizer is an energy efficient way thus increase productivity. The economic
to control ventilation rates to reduce the benefits of the decreases in sick leave have
need for mechanical cooling. The term not normally been recognized; therefore,
economizer is specifically used in the economizers may be underutilized, spe-
USA, in Europe the term free cooling is cifically in the USA. This example (up-
more commonly used. Economizers are dated from Fisk et al. 2003) uses the rela-
used in air–conditioning systems with re- tionship presented in Figures 12 and 13 to
circulation of return air. More outdoor air estimate how ventilation rates influence
is used when the temperature or enthalpy illness and sick leave, and uses an energy
of the outdoor air is lower than the tem- simulation model to estimate how an
perature or enthalpy of return air (Figure economizer affects building energy use.
26). Because economizers increase aver- The total financial benefits of the econo-
age ventilation rates, they should decrease mizer are then calculated.
49
Case of respiratory illness. With hourly predic-

Two–story office building is located in tions of ventilation rates from the DOE–2
Washington, DC, USA. Key building char- model, a seasonal average value of pre-
acteristics include: 2000 m² floor area; dicted sick leave was calculated using the
5670 m³ conditioned volume; 72 occupants; upper and lower curves in Figure 12 based
an internal heat generation of 20 W/m² on Milton et al. (2000) and Drinka et al.
from lights and equipment; and an air infil- (1996), respectively. Finally, a day of sick
tration rate of 0.3 h–1. The building has a leave was valued at €200, based on annual
variable air volume HVAC system; thus, total salary plus benefits of 50,000 euros
the supply flow rate is modulated to control and 250 work days per year.
indoor temperature, with a design maxi-
mum flow rate of 4.1 L/s per m² of floor
area. Simulations were performed assuming
Outdoor air ratio, %

minimum outside air supply rates by the 100% Outdoor air
HVAC system during occupancy of 10, 15,
and 20 L/s per person. Simulations were
Min
performed with and without a temperature–
outdoor
based economizer control system that in- air
creased the ventilation rate above the
minimum whenever providing increased
outside air was more energy efficient than
mechanical cooling. The HVAC system 25°C
operated between 06:00 and 21:00. The Outdoor temperature, °C
assumed percent of total occupancy versus
time of day was as follows: 25% at 08:00; Figure 26 Control principle of outdoor flow rate
75% at 09:00; 95% at 11:00 – 12:00; 75% in an economizer system.
at 13:00; 95% at 14:00 – 16:00; 75% at
17:00; 50% at 18:00; 35% at 19:00, 10% at Results and discussion
20:00, and 5% at 21:00. Annual energy The predicted HVAC energy use, ventila-
costs were calculated using prices during tion rate, days of sick leave for the work-
2001 in Washington, D.C. for electricity force, and the associated costs of energy
and natural gas of $0.0796 per kWh and sick leave are provided in Table 15.
(€0.0637 per kWh) and $1.172 per therm = The economizer system reduces annual
$11.09 per GJ = $ 0.04 per kWh (€0.032 HVAC energy costs by 1564 to 1878 € per
per kWh), respectively. year. The estimated savings due to reduced
sick leave with the economizer ranges
Method from 6,000 to 16,000 € per year. This ex-
The ventilation rate predictions and asso- ample demonstrates how the indoor envi-
ciated HVAC energy use predictions were ronment and energy efficiency can be im-
made with a building energy simulation proved simultaneously with a single meas-
program (DOE–2). To estimate the eco- ure. Use of recirculated air is much more
nomic costs of different disease preva- common in the USA than in Europe where
lence, the short term sick leave was esti- heat recovery often is used to improve the
mated to be proportional to the prevalence energy efficiency of ventilation.
50
CASE STUDIES
Table 15. Predicted annual HVAC energy use, ventilation rates, and sick leave.
Annual HVAC Energy Lower and Upper Estimate of Annual
Min. Vent–
Economizer Sick Leave
vent* Rate#
On/Off Elec. Gas Total € Lower Lower € Upper Upper €
L/s h–1
MWh MWh days days
10 0.74 Off 298 187 24 974 264 53 000 340 68 000
10 1.46 On 269 196 23 410 186 37 000 274 55 000
Savings From Economizer: 1 564 78 16 000 66 13 000
15 0.96 Off 303 194 25 514 216 43 000 321 64 000
15 1.56 On 272 201 23 753 162 32 000 267 53 000
20 1.18 Off 308 203 26 144 180 36 000 298 60 000
20 1.67 On 276 201 24 266 150 30 000 259 52 000
*per person, #yearly average. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.
51
Case 5: Cost–effectiveness of increased ventilation rates in

an office building
Summary
This example estimates the effect of in-
crease of ventilation on work performance,
investment cost and operation cost in an
office building with a typical floor plan. The
investment cost is estimated by an experi-
enced consultant, energy cost is calculated
with IDA/ICE simulation programme, the
increase in maintenance cost is estimated
as a percentage from the first cost. Effect
of increased ventilation is estimated as an
increase in work performance. Other ef-
fects of improved indoor climate are not in-
cluded. The base cases with ventilation
rate of 6,5 or 10 L/s per person have been
used in comparisons with increase of ven-
tilation to 10 or 20 L/s per person. All costs
are calculated in relation to the base
cases. The results show that the benefits
from increased ventilation is 6–9 time
higher than the sum of increased invest-
ment and operating cost.
Background supply and exhaust with air–to–air heat re-

Ventilation in office building may be too covery (temperature efficiency 75%). The
small due to various reasons. The design air supply and exhaust system was operating
flow may be too low or the installation of on weekdays from 06.00 to 20.00 hours.
the systems is undersized or the balancing Additionally, there is also mechanical ex-
of the air flows may be incomplete. If ven- haust from toilets running 24 hours a day
tilation is too low the work performance is and 7 days a week. The total gross floor
deteriorated. This case study illustrates how area of the building is 4580 m² and the floor
cost effective the increase of ventilation area per employee is 14.7 m². The value of
rates could be in an office building. the annual work used in the example is
30 000 €/employee. The energy cost is
Case 0.04 €/kWh for heat and 0.1 €/kWh for
A typical modern five–story office building electricity. The energy consumption is cal-
(Figure 27) is used in this case. Ventilation culated using reference year weather data,
system of the office building is mechanical which is summarized in Case 3.
52
CASE STUDIES
N used per room: lighting, office equipment,

fans, and mechanical cooling (COP = 2.5).
Heating energy includes all energy used
Office rooms Meet. room for heating. The increase of ventilation
rate from 6.5 to 10 or 20 L/s per person
increases total energy consumption by 6.6
Toilets
Open plan office
Open plan office or 31.7 kWh/a,m² respectively or 4.4 or
22.5 €/a per person (Table 17). The corre-
Meet. room Office rooms
sponding increase of performance is 300
or 690 €/a, person. Taking also into ac-
Figure 27 Floor plan of third floor in simulated count the increase of investment cost the
office building. example shows the benefit to cost ratio of
9.4 with increase of ventilation airflow
Method from 6.5 to 10 L/s per person and 7.0 with
Investment cost and energy costs are cal- 6.5 to 20 L/s per person.
culated with the design ventilation rates of
6.5; 10 and 20 L/s per person. The energy Ventilation rates vary considerably within
consumption was calculated with the and between commercial buildings.
building simulation programme IDA/ICE HVAC design, installation, operation,
(Vuolle and Salin 2000). The curves in maintenance, balancing, occupant density,
Figure 15 represented with a solid line and air infiltration in building envelopes
were used to estimate the effect of increase are some of the factors that cause variation
in ventilation on performance. in ventilation rates. Ventilation rates are
not well controlled in individual buildings
Results and discussion due to lack of effective measurement and
The first cots of air–conditioning system control systems and to infiltration. Vari-
including the ventilation was estimated to ability in time average of ventilation rates
be 125; 141 and 170 €/m² with ventilation between buildings is due primarily to dif-
rates of 6.5; 10 and 20 L/s per person re- ferent HVAC operational practices and de-
spectively. The calculated electrical en- signs, including the presence or absence of
ergy use in Table 16 includes all electricity economizers.
Table 16. Annual energy consumption in the simulated office building with three ventila-
tion rates 6.5; 10 and 20 L/s per person
Vent rate, Electricity Heat Total
L/s-person kWh kWh/m² €/m² kWh kWh/m² €/m² kWh/m² €/m² €/person
20 304 788 66.5 6.65 354 791 77.5 3.1 144.0 9.75 143.2
10 287 454 62.8 6.28 257 101 56.1 2.25 118.9 8.53 125.1
6.5 284 819 62.2 6.22 229 424 50.1 2.0 112.3 8.22 120.7
53
Table 17. Annual increase of energy use, first cost and benefits of increased productivity
in the simulated office building with three ventilation rates 6.5, 10 and 20 L/s per person.
Annual value of the work is 30 000 €/person.
Change of Increase of Increase Increase of Increase in Benefit to cost
ventilation energy con- of the mainten- performance ratio (produc-
rate sumption first cost* ance (2%)** tivity/energy
consumption, first
€/a– cost and
L/s–person €/a–person person % €/a–person maintenance)
6.5 to 10 4.4 22.5 4.7 1.0 300 9.4
6.5 to 20 22.5 63 13.3 2.3 690 7.0
10 to 20 18.1 41 8.5 1.4 420 6.2
*Reference is the system with the ventilation rate of 6.5 L/s,person. Annual cost of increase in investment cost
is calculated using estimated investment cost, interest rate of 5%, and life time of 15 years for the air–
conditioning system. This gives an annuity factor of 0.096.
**Annex 3 Maintenance cost of duct systems 2% from the difference of the first cost
54
WHO BENEFITS FROM
IMPROVED INDOOR ENVIRONMENT
Summary
It is important that building own-
ers, employers and employees
are aware of the potential bene-
fits of improvement of indoor
environmental quality. The pre-
sent chapter provides examples
on how building owners and
employers can benefit if IEQ im-
provements are implemented. It
also provides arguments and
tools for the successful IEQ
consultancy.
How to share the benefits In owner occupied buildings the owner

benefits directly from the improved indoor
The cost effectiveness of measures that environment (Figure 28, left) while in
improve IEQ conditions varies depending leased buildings the benefits of IEQ im-
on the different perspectives of e.g., build- provements will not be generally experi-
ing owner (lessor), employer (lessee), or enced by the lessee, the lessor benefiting
society. It will also depend on whether the from improved IEQ by e.g., transferring the
building is leased or owned. costs into increased lease (Figure 28, right).
Owner occupied Higher Building owner

building market
value of
building Investment
Investment
Economic
benefits Higher Better IEQ
Better IEQ user
satis- Higher
faction Better productivity rent
Better productivity Less sick leave

Less sick leave Less complaints
Less complaints
Benefits to
employer
Figure 28 Benefits of improved IEQ are transferred directly to building owner in owner occupied build-
ings ( left) and in leased buildings to building owner via rent and long term value of the building (right).
55
An employer (lessee) always receives the Example 8

benefits of improved productivity. He may
further benefit from lease terms that re- Case: A company leases an office space
quire IEQ maintenance measures. from a building owner. The floor area for each
employee is 20 m², the average value of the
Lessor can benefit from increased rent and work in the company is 60,000 € per year per
the increased market value of a building. employee (including gross salary, overhead
Having a reputation of providing high IEQ and profit). The rent for the office space is
he can easily renew leases or attract new 15 €/m², mo. Owner of the building improves
lessees. This is in spite of minimal infor- the air–conditioning of the building resulting in
mation available on how IEQ affects rent. better temperature control and better ventila-
But practical experience shows that if a tion. The investment cost is 350 €/m².
tenant files more than three complaints Effects of improvements: Due to this in-
concerning the indoor climate it is more vestment the indoor environment is im-
than a 50% probability that he does not re- proved and the performance of the company
new the lease agreement. Hanssen (1997) employees is improved by 4%. Due to the
refers to an American study which con- indoor environmental improvements tenants
cluded that when a tenant does not renew stay longer in the building and the lease
the lease agreement (e.g., due to frequent agreements are longer. Due to new equip-
IEQ complaints) the costs of lost rental in- ment the maintenance cost will be de-
come, remodelling, etc. to the owner will be creased, the decrease is equivalent to the
equivalent to the rent of one and half years. small increase in energy use due to higher
The lessor can additionally benefit from ventilation rates and mechanical cooling.
reduced operation and management costs The total operation and maintenance cost
resulting from fewer IEQ complaints. will be the same as before improvement
In general, neither the owner (lessor) nor the Share of the benefits: The owner of the
employer (lessee) benefit from reduced med- building and lessee agree that the benefits
ical care costs which are usually covered of calculated productivity improvements will
nationally or by insurance. The society bene- be shared so that the owner gets 25% of the
fits from the reduced medical care costs. gained productivity improvement as an in-
crease of rent.
Above all it is important to emphasize that Benefits of the employer (lessee): The value
implementation of IEQ improvement that of the improvement of the performance is
promote health and well–being will be
beneficial for all building occupants. 0.04 x 60 000 €/person,a = 2400 €/person,a
= 120 €/m², a = 10 €/m²,mo. After sharing
In a leased building it is important to show this benefit with the owner as an increase in
that both building owner and employer get rent (25% from the benefit) the net benefit of
benefits from the indoor climate improve- the employer still is 1800 €/person per year,
ments. The following example (Figure 29) equivalent to a net increase of the output of
shows the principle how the benefits can be the company €150/person, mo. As costs
shared so that the building owner and em- other than the rent are not increased, this
ployer can increase their income and profit. also means that the net profit will increase
by the same amount.
56
WHO BENEFITS FROM IMPROVED INDOOR ENVIRONMENT
How to convince the client

Benefits of the building owner (lessor):
It was agreed between lessor and lessee
It is important to persuade clients that sus-
that the estimated gross benefit is distributed
tainable building design, construction and
so that employer gets 75% and the owner of
operation save money in terms of energy
the building 25%. Thus the owner of the
and water consumptions that can also result
building can justify 0.25 x 10 €/m²,month =
in healthier buildings with a consequent rise
2.5 €/m²,month higher rent. The investment
in productivity. The problem is that the cli-
is very profitable for the building owner. The
ents view the value of their buildings in
increase of rental income is 30 €/a,m². Due
different ways, which according to Wilson
to longer lease agreements the annual in-
(1987) can be categorized as follows: (i)
crease in the rent is 1 week which is equiva-
Containers built for a cheap price with no
lent to ¼ x (15+2.5) = 4.4 €/m²,a. The total
respect for the impact of the built environ-
net income increase is thus 30+4.4 =
ment on performance; (ii) Prestige Symbols
34.4 €/m²,a. The return of the investment is
in which the exterior is the key status factor
(34.4/350)x100= 10%.
rather than internal working conditions; (iii)
Vehicles for Industrial Relations in which a
Additional Building healthy work environment is viewed as im-
owner
rental portant for the workforce; (iv) Instruments
income
of Efficiency in which work investment ex-
4.4 €/m² a + penditure is related to the rate of return of
saved tenant Investment
improvements for better IEQ
money, not staff welfare; and (v) Opera-
tional Force for which the function and the
350 €/m²
symbolic roles are reflected in the man-
Better satis- agement and design. It is only the last three
faction of
Higher rent categories which recognise the importance
tenants
Better IEQ
2,5 €/m²,mo
of good working conditions and only in the
1 week/ year last category do companies realise that
less
unoccupied good environmental conditions can enhance
Value of the productivity. The facilities manager plays a
work critical role in maintaining productivity
5000 €/mo,
person levels and being responsible for operating a
Productivity feedback and maintenance of the system.
increase This requires good quality information and
4%
200 €/ a data flow system often referred to as
mo,person Post–Occupancy Evaluation (Evans, 1998).
Facilities Management is of vital impor-
Net benefits tance and should be effective in order to
75% Benefits to 25%
to employer employer provide a good working environment for
150 €/
mo,person 10 €/m², mo the office personnel. It may include a large
number of different needs to be satisfied.
The needs vary between different stake-
Figure 29 An example of profit sharing of the
improved productivity between the building holders: business managers who want to
owner (lessor) and lessee (employer). gain higher efficiency and productivity
57
from the facility; employees who want to Case study in the Netherlands
have functional and appealing workplaces;
building owners who want a better return To illustrate the above alternative ap-
on their real estate investment; and service proaches, a case study has recently been
suppliers – either in–house or outsourced, carried out in a Dutch office building
e.g. maintenance and cleaning personnel – where people complained of IEQ related
who want to have easily maintainable symptoms. The work in the building in-
spaces with good accessibility. volved not only regular office work but
also laboratory tests and technical work
Facilities managers often are reluctant to comprising adjustments on machinery.
invest in their building. The reason is that Investigation included collection of symp-
a thorough indoor climate investigation toms and perceptions of employees using
often ends with the conclusion that seri- questionnaires, measurements of numer-
ous and expensive improvements are ous IEQ parameters, as well as building
needed to improve the situation and di- and HVAC system inspections. The con-
minish the amount of indoor climate clusion was that the quality of indoor air,
complaints. Let’s imagine that a facilities thermal climate and acoustic and visual
manager is confronted with the following work environment in the building was ‘be-
statement: ‘We investigated your building low average’ and significantly worse than
and our conclusion is that you have a se- in a normal Dutch (office) building. Based
rious IEQ problem. Do you want to spend on an analysis of the questionnaire out-
300 € /m² to improve the IEQ?’. The first comes and the measurements, as well as
reaction will probably be negative if the the quantitative relationships between IEQ
cost is only taken into account. This is and performance an estimate was made of
especially the case when the facilities the yearly productivity loss in the building
manager has expected rather cheap solu- assuming additive effects on productivity
tions. The alternative is to describe to him of different IEQ factors although the com-
the value of the investments using another bined effect of IEQ parameters on per-
type of statement: ‘You have a serious formance is still unknown. The estimate
IEQ problem. Do you want to improve was based on IEQ score of the building
employee productivity by more than 10%, and compared with the building with good
decrease sickness leave by a few % and IEQ (IEQ score of 7) and the average
achieve a return on investment of more Dutch building (IEQ score of 6). It was
than 10%?’. The experience suggests that also assumed that the average net salary
this approach is much more effective and cost per person (after tax) was €40,000
more often results in real IEQ improve- and the gross output per person (contribu-
ments in the building. Thus in practice a tion per person to the company’s turn–
successful IEQ consultancy project in- over) was €100,000. Thus a productivity
volves not just a technical discussion but effect of 1% for one person would results
also lots of motivational input from the in an annual benefit of €1,000. The results
investigator. of the estimations are shown in Table 18.
58
WHO BENEFITS FROM IMPROVED INDOOR ENVIRONMENT
Table 18. Estimated annual benefit of improved productivity in the Dutch case building
Building with good Average Dutch office Building in which the
indoor air quality building case study was car-
ried out
(IEQ score = 7) (IEQ score = 6) (IEQ score = 5.4)
Estimated increase in 2.5% to 7.5% (average 4% to 12% (average
0%
productivity 5%) 8%)
Number of employees 350 350 350
Annual benefit of
€ 0 mil. € 0.9 to €2.6 mil. € 1.4 to €4.3 mil.
improved productivity
The results presented in the table suggest • Intensive upgrade of central HVAC
that postponing improvements of IEQ in units, the introduction of new supply
the case building can cost annually up to grilles and cleaning of ducts.
€4.3 million a year. The following renova- • Introduction of new lighting fixtures.
tion plan was suggested: • Improvement of cleaning procedures and
introduction of a clean desk discipline.
• Introduction of a new ‘functional con-
cept’ that would further separate (physi- The overall cost for the renovation of the
cally but also in terms of air pressure case building resulting in an IEQ score of
differences) the office, laboratory and 7 was estimated to be €5 million (€ 600–
technical activities. 700/m²). Thus the pay back time was esti-
• Moderate renovation of the facade (im- mated to 2 years and the return on invest-
provement of air tightness, replacement ment (assuming a life span of 15 years in
of glazing, extra sun shielding). the improved situation) to around 7.
59
FINAL REMARKS
For cost–benefit analyses it is not sufficient geted at buildings with poorer IEQ or more
to have information demonstrating a stat- IEQ complaints but this does not preclude
istically–significant effect of IEQ on health benefits in buildings with fairly good IEQ
or work performance, the size of that effect conditions. Also in these buildings the in-
must be quantified. In this Guidebook we vestments will be profitable although the
have shown that some quantitative relation- payback times will be longer.
ships between IEQ or related building design
and operational characteristics and health The susceptibility of occupants to different
and performance can be derived from the levels of IEQ may vary between and within
existing data. The Guidebook also illustrates buildings. It is possible that only a highly–
how to use these relationships in the engi- susceptible or susceptible sub–population is
neering cost–benefit analyses. These rela- significantly affected by IEQ. Theoretically,
tionships have a high level of uncertainty; it would be more cost effective to target re-
however, use of these relationships is prefer- medial actions for those who suffer most
able to the current practice of ignoring the from poor IEQ. Such targeting will often be
effects on health and performance when de- impractical, but there are exceptions, e.g.,
signing buildings and selecting building op- provision of individual temperature control
eration practices. Users of the relationships with local heaters or providing personalized
should recognize the remaining high level of ventilation systems.
uncertainty and that benefits of improved
IEQ may be distributed among stakeholders. It should also be noted that one cannot always
add the benefits of separate IEQ improvement
Based on the reviewed literature the Guide- measures as the effects of different measures
book presents some quantitative re- may be linked or overlapping. Finally, it
lationships between indoor environmental should be noted that a small company may
characteristics and work performance or sick not be able to fully benefit from modest in-
leave. While these relationships have large creases in performance. For example, reduc-
financial implications, they also have some ing sick leave per person by a few days per
limitations. year will not enable a ten–person company to
reduce the number of staff.
It is particularly important to note that the
benefits of IEQ improvement measures will The authors of this Guidebook acknowledge
depend on the initial condition in the build- the high level of uncertainty associated with
ing; for example, increased ventilation will the incorporation of productivity in cost–
be more helpful in a building with strong benefit calculations related to building design
indoor pollution sources. Hence, uncertainty and operation. At the same time we believe
about the magnitude of benefits in specific that estimating productivity benefits using the
buildings may inhibit investments in IEQ best available information will generally lead
improvements, even when average benefits to better decisions about building design and
can be estimated. IEQ improvement meas- operation compared with the current practice
ures should be most cost effective when tar- of ignoring the potential benefits.
60
REFERENCES
Abdou, O.A. and Lorsch, H.G. 1994. ”The Brundage, J., Scott R., Wayne M. et al. 1988.
Impact of the Building Indoor Environment Building Associated Risk of Febrile Acute
on Occupant Productivity: Part 3: Effects of Respiratory Diseases in Army Trainees.
Indoor Air Quality”, ASHRAE Trans., 100 JAMA. Vol. 259 (14), pp 2108– 2112.
(2), 902–913. Burton, W.N., Conti, D.J., Chen, C–Y,
ASHRAE, 1999. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1– Schultz, A.B. and Edington, D.W. 2001.
1999, Energy Standard for Buildings Except The impact of allergies and allergy treat-
Low–Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta: ment on worker productivity. J. Occup. En-
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating viron. Med., 43(1), 64–71.
and Air–Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Bælum, J., Andersen, I., Lundqvist, G.R. et al.
Bakó–Biró, Z. 2004. Human Perception, SBS 1985. “Response of solvent exposed printers
Symptoms and Performance of Office Work and unexposed controls to six–hour toluene
during Exposure to Air Polluted by Building exposure”, Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Materials and Personal Computers, Ph.D.– Environment & Health, 11, 271–280.
thesis, International Centre for Indoor Envi- Carrié, F. R., Andersson, J., Wouters, P., Im-
ronment and Energy, Technical University proving ductwork – A time for tighter air
of Denmark. distribution systems, 1999. International
Bakó–Biró, Z., Wargocki, P. Weschler, C. and Energy Agency and European Commission
Fanger, P.O. 2004. “Effects of pollution DG XVII. Air Infiltration and Ventilation
from personal computers on perceived air Centre, University of Warwick, UK.
quality, SBS symptoms and productivity in CEN CR 1752, 1998. Ventilation for build-
offices”, Indoor Air, 14, 178–187. ings: Design criteria for the indoor envi-
Bauman, F.S., Carter, T.G., Baughman, A.V. ronment, Brussels, European Committee for
and Arens, E.A. 1998. “Field study of the Standardization.
impact of a desktop task/ambient condi- CIBSE, 1999. Technical Memorandum 24:
tioning system in office buildings”, Environmental Factors Affecting Office
ASHRAE Transactions, 104, 125–142. Worker Performance; a Review of the Evi-
Bluyssen P., de Oliviera Fernandes E, Groes L, dence.
Clausen G, Fanger PO, Valbjørn O, Bern- Chao HJ, Schwartz J, Milton DK, Muilenberg
hard C, Roulet C. 1996. European indoor air ML, Burge HA. Effects of indoor air quality
quality audit project in 56 office buildings. on office workers performance – a prelimi-
International Journal of Indoor Air Quality nary analysis. In: Proceedings of 7th Inter-
and Climate. Vol. 6, No. 4. national Conference of Healthy Buildings
BOMA, 1988. Office Tenant Moves and 2003, Singapore. 3: 237–243.
Changes in report by Building Owners and Clausen, G. and Wyon, D.P. 2005. “The com-
Managers Association International, Wash- bined effects of many different environ-
ington DC mental factors on acceptability and office
Brothers, P: “Work Environment – Design for work performance”, In: Proceedings of In-
Productivity”, Workshop presentation at the door Air, Vol. 1 (I), pp. 351–356.
International Conference “Healthy Build- Clements–Croome, D. (ed): “Creating the Pro-
ings 97”, Washington DC, USA, 1997. ductive Workplace”, E&FN Spon, Taylor &
Brown, S.K., Sim, M.R., Abramson, M.J. and Francis Group, London/New York, 2000,
Gray, C. 1994. “Concentrations of volatile ISBN 0–49–23690–2. Second edition. 2006.
organic compounds in indoor air”, Indoor ISBN 0–415–35137–5.
Air, 4, 123–134.
61
Clements–Croome DJ. 2004. Chapter 3, Build- Fisk, W. and Rosenfeld, A. 1997. Estimates of
ing Environment, Architecture and People improved productivity and health from bet-
in Clements–Croome DJ (ed) Intelligent ter indoor environments. International
Buildings, Thomas and Telford Publisher. Journal of Indoor Air Quality and Climate.
Curtis, R., Birdsall, B., Buhl, W., Erdem, E., Eto, Vol. 7, No 3.
J., Hirsch, J., Olson, K., and Winkelmann, F. Fisk, W.J., Seppänen O, Faulkner D, Huang J.
1984. DOE–2 building energy use analysis 2003. Cost benefit analysis of ventilation
programme. LBL Report 18046, Berkeley, control strategies in an office building, Pro-
USA: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. ceedings of Healthy Buildings 2003 Confer-
Drinka, P., Krause P, Schilling M. 1996. Re- ence. Singapore. December 2003. Vol.
port of and outbreak: Nursing home archi- 3:361–366.
tecture and influenza–A attack rates, J Am FM Fakta kontor, 2004, (in Swedish), Services
Geriatric Society 44:910–913. and key values for Facility Management,
EN 13379:2004 Ventilation for non–residential FM Konsulterna, Gothenburg
buildings – performance requirements for Grether, W.F., Harris, C.S., Mohr, G.C.,
ventilation and room–conditioning systems Nixon, C.W., Ohlbaum, M., Sommer, H.C.,
2004. Thaler, V.H. and Veghte, J.H. 1971. “Ef-
EPA, 1991. USEPA/NIOSH: Building Air fects of combined heat noise and vibration
Quality: a Guide for Building Owners and stress on human performance and physio-
Facilities Managers EPA/400/1–91/023 logical functions”, Aerospace Medicine, 42,
1092–1097.
Evans, R., et al. 1998. The Long Term Costs of
Owning and Using Buildings, The Royal Grether, W.F., Harris, C.S., Ohlbaum, M.,
Academy of Engineering Sampson, P.A. and Guignard, J.C. 1972.
(www.raeng.org.uk). “Further study of combined heat noise and
vibration stress”, Aerospace Medicine, 43,
Fang, L, Wyon DP, Clausen G, Fanger PO.
641–645.
2004. Impact of indoor air temperature and
humidity in an office on perceived air qual- Hanssen, S–O. 1997. Economical consequen-
ity, SBS symptoms and performance. Indoor ces of poor indoor air quality and its relation
Air Journal 14 (Suppl 7) 74–81. to the total building operation costs. Proc.
EuroFM/IFMA Conference & Exhibition,
Fanger, P.O. 1988. “Introduction of the olf and
Torino, Italy, pp. 1–21, International Facil-
the decipol units to quantify air pollution
ity Management Association.
perceived by humans indoors and out-
doors”, Energy and Buildings, 12, 1–6. Hanssen, S.O. 2000: “Economics vs. Indoor
Climate – A basis for deciding appropriate
Federspiel, C.C., Liu G, Lahiff M, Faulkner D,
measures and rational decision models in
Dibartolemeo DL, Fisk WJ, Price PN, Sul-
building administration”, Appendix 2 in
livan DP. 2002. Worker performance and
Bakke J.V. (ed): “The Economics of Indoor
ventilation: analyses of individual data for
Climate: Providing Decision Support for In-
call–center workers. Proceedings of Indoor
tervention”, Workshop Report, Research
Air 2002. Vol. 1: 796–801.
Council of Norway, Medicine and Health
Federspiel, C.C., Fisk, W.J, Price, PN, Liu G, , Division, P.O.Box 2700 St. Hanshaugen,
Faulkner D, Dibartolemeo DL, Sullivan DP. Oslo, November 2000, ISBN 82–12–
and Lahiff M. 2004. “Worker performance 01192–5.
and ventilation in a call–center: analyses of
Hanssen, S.O. 2002: “Role of Human Expo-
work performance data for registered
sure Assessment in Urban Air Quality Man-
nurses”, Indoor Air, 14 (Suppl. 8), 41–50.
agement”, Proceedings from a joint WHO –
Fisk, W.J. 2000. Health and productivity gains JRC – ECA Workshop: “The Economics of
from better indoor environment and their re- Good Indoor Air Quality”, Bonn, Germany,
lationship with building energy efficiency. 14–15 October 2002.
Annual Review of Energy and the Environ-
ment 25: 537–566.
62
REFERENCES
Hedge, A., Mitchell, G., McCarthy, J., Kolokotroni, M., Perera, M., Azzi, D., Virk, G.
Ludwig, J. 1993. Effects of a furniture–in- 2001. An investigation of passive ventila-
tegrated breathing zone filtration system on tion cooling and control strategies for an
indoor air quality, sick building syndrome, educational building. Applied Thermal En-
productivity and absenteeism, Proceeding of gineering 21:183–199
Indoor Air 93 Vol. 5 pp 383 –388. Kroner, W.M. and Stark–Martin, J.A. 1994.
Heslop, K. 2002. Personal and environmental ”Environmentally responsive workstations
characteristics, occupational factors and and office–worker productivity”, ASHRAE
psychosocial correlates of sick building Transactions, 100(2), 750–755.
syndrome. Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002, KTI, 2004. Kustannus BM. Toimistokiinteis-
pp 432 – 437. töt. 2004. Statistical data from office build-
Heslop, K. 2003. The influence of sick buildings in Finland (2004), KTI Kiinteistötieto
ing syndrome on self–reported productivity Oy. Helsinki.
and work disruption amongst office em- Lagencrantz, L., Wistrand, M., Willen, U.,
ployees in two buildings in South Africa. In: Wargocki, P., Witterseh, T., Sundell, J.
Proceedings of 7th International Confer- 2000. Negative impact of air pollution on
ence of Healthy Buildings 2003, Singapore. productivity: previous Danish findings re-
Vol. 3 pp. 387–292. peated in new Swedish test. Proceedings of
Hodgett, D. 1993. Environment and Effi- the Healthy Buildings 2000 Conference,
ciency, Proc. Profit from Thin Air, Capen- Vol. 2:653–658.
hurst: EA Technology, pp. 1–11. Lahtinen, M., Huuhtanen, P., Kahkonen, E.,
Hongisto, V. 2005. ”A model predicting the Reijula, K.. 2002. Psychosocial dimensions
effect of speech of varying intelligibility on of solving an indoor air problem. Interna-
work performance”, Indoor Air, 15, 458– tional Journal of Indoor Environment and
468. Health 12:33–46
Hygge, S. 1992. “ Heat and performance”, In: Leaman, A. and Bordass, B.: “Productivity in
Handbook of Human Performance, Vol. 1, buildings, the ‘killer’ variables”, Chapter 11
The Physical Environment, Academic Press, in Clements–Croome, D. (Editor): “Creating
San Diego, CA. the Productive Workplace”, E&FN Spon,
Johansson, D.: “Modelling LCC for Different Tayler & Francis Group, London/New
Indoor Climate Systems – Background and York, 2000, ISBN 0–49–23690–2.
Principles”, Licentiate Dissertation, De- Löfberg, H.A., Lofstedt, B., Nilsson, I. and
partment of Building Physics, Lund Institute Wyon, D.P. 1975. “Combined temperature
of Technology, Report TVBH–3040, Lund and lighting effects on the performance of
2002, ISBN 91–88722–25–2. repetitive tasks with different visual con-
Jones, D.M. and Broadbent, D.E. 1979. “Side– tent”, The National Swedish Institute for
effects of inference with speech by noise”, Building Research.
Ergonomics, 22, 1073–1081. Malmström, T., Andersson, J., Carrié, F.R.,
Kaczmarczyk, J., Melikov, A. and Fanger, Wouters, P., Delmotte, Ch. Source book for
P.O. 2004. ”Human response to personal- efficient air duct systems in Europe. 2002.
ized ventilation and mixing ventilation”, In- Royal Institute of Technology and Ramboll
door Air, 14 (Suppl. 8), 17–29 Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kempski, von D. Air and well being – A way Motiva, 2004. Lämpö– ja sähköenergian ra-
to more profitability. Proceedings of kennustyyppikohtaisia ominaiskulutuksia
Healthy Buildings 2003 Conference. Singa- raportoidussa palvelusektorin rakennuskan-
pore. December 2003. Vol. 3, 348–354. nassa, in Finnish (Specific energy con-
sumption by building type in commercial
and service building stock) type
http://www.motiva.fi
63
Mendell, M. 1993. Non–specific symptoms in Niemelä, R., Hannula, M., Rautio, S., Reijula,
office workers: A review and summary of K. and Railio, J. 2002. “The effect of air
the epidemiological literature. Indoor Air temperature on labour productivity in call
3:227–236. centres – a case study”, Energy and Build-
Mendell, M, Fisk, W.J., Kreiss, K., Levin, H., ings, 34, 759–764.
Alexander, D. et al. 2002. Improving the Niemela, R., Seppänen, O., Reijula, K. 2004.
health of workers indoor environments: Pri- Prevalence of SBS–symptoms as indicator
ority research needs for a national of occu- of health and productivity in office build-
pational research agenda, American Journal ings. Submitted to American Journal of In-
of Public Health. 92:9;14301–440 dustrial Medicine.
Menzies, R., Tamblyn, R., Farant, J.P., Hanley, Nunes, F., Menzies, R., Tamblyn, R.M.,
J., Nunes, F. 1993. The effect of varying Boehm, E. and Letz, R. 1993. ”The effect of
levels of outdoor –air supply on the symp- varying level of outdoor air supply on
toms of sick building syndrome. N. Engl. J neurobehavioural performance function dur-
Med. 328:821–827. ing a study of sick building syndrome
Milton, D., Glencross, P. and Walters, M. (SBS). In: Proceedings of Indoor Air '93,
2000. “Risk of sick leave associated with 6th International Conference on Indoor Air
outdoor air supply rate, humidification and Quality and Climate, Helsinki, Finland,
occupants complaints”, Indoor Air, 10, 212– Helsinki University of Technology, Vol. 1,
221. 53–58.
Myhrvold, A.N., Olsen, E. and Lauridsen, Ø Oseland, N. and Willis, S. 2000. Property Per-
1996. “Indoor environment in schools – pu- formance and Productivity, 157–163 in Fa-
pils health and performance in regard to cility Management: Risks and Opportunities
CO2 concentrations”, In: Proceedings of In- ed.Nutt and McLennan (Blackwell Science).
door Air '96, The 7th International Confer- Persily, A. and Gorfain, J. 2004. Analysis of
ence on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, ventilation data from the U.S. Environ-
Nagoya, Japan, Institute of Public Health, mental Protection Agency building assess-
Vol. 4, 369–374. ment survey and evaluation (BASE) study,
Myhrvold, A., Olesen, E. 1997. Pupil's health National Institute of Standards and Tech-
and performance due to renovation of nology, Report NISTIR 7145.
schools. Proceedings of Healthy Build- Poulton, E.C. and Edwards, R.S. 1974. “ In-
ings/IAQ 1997. 1:81–86 teraction and range effects in experiments
Mølhave, L., Bach, B. and Pedersen, O.F. on pairs of stresses: mild heat and low–fre-
1986. “Human reactions to low concentra- quency noise”, Journal of Experimental
tions of volatile organic compounds”, Envi- Psychology, 102(4), 621–628.
ronment International, 12, 167–175. Preller, L., Zweers, T., Brunekreef, B. and Bo-
NEMA, 1989. Lighting and human perform- lej, J.S.M. 1990. ”Sick leave due to work–
ance: a review, Washington, D.C., National related health complaints among office
Electrical Manufacturers Association. workers in the Netherland”, Proceedings of
Indoor Air 1990, , Toronto, Vol. 1, pp. 227–
Newsham, G. 2003. “Making the open–plan 230.
office a better place to work”, Construction
Technology Update, 60. Pritchard, R.D.: “Organizational productivity”
In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds),
Newsham, G.R. and Veitch, J.A. 2001. ”Light- “Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
ing quality recommendations for VDT of- Psychology”, 2nd ed., vol. 3, Palo Alto, CA,
fices: a new method of derivation”, Lighting consulting Psychologists’ Press, 1992.
Research and Technology, Vol. 33(2), pp.
97 – 116.
64
REFERENCES
Raw, G.J., Roys, M.S. and Leaman, A. 1990. Seppänen, O., Fisk, W. 2005a. Some quantita-
”Further findings from the office environ- tive relations between indoor environment,
ment survey: Productivity”, Proceedings of performance and health. Proceedings of the
Indoor Air 1990, Toronto, Vol. 1, pp. 231– International conference on Indoor Air
236. Quality and Climate. Beijing. Plenary lec-
Rohr, AC, Brightman, H. 2003. Effects of ture.
characteristics on self–reported productivity Seppänen, O., Fisk, W., Lei, Q.H. 2006a. Ven-
of office workers: the base study. In: Pro- tilation and performance in office work. In-
ceedings of 7th International Conference of door Air Journal, 16 (1), 28–35.
Healthy Buildings 2003, Singapore. Vol. 3 Seppänen, O., Fisk, W., Lei, Q.H. 2006b.
pp. 231–236.
Effect of temperature on task performance in
Rosenfeld, S. 1989. Hidden HVAC Costs, office environment. Proceedings of Cold
Heating, Piping and Air–conditioning. Climate HVAC conference, Moscow 2006.
Saari, A. and Mäkelä, J. 2001. Rakennusosien Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J., Mendell, M. 1999.
ja taloteknisten järjestelmien ekologis-ta- Association of ventilation rates and CO2
loudellinen arvottaminen. Helsinki Univer- concentrations with health and other re-
sity of Technology, Laboratory for con- sponses in commercial and institutional
struction economics, Report 192, Espoo, buildings. Indoor Air J. 9:226–252.
Finland.
Seppänen, O., Vuolle, M. 2000. Cost effective-
Sandover, J., Porter, C.S. and Vlachonikolis, ness of some remedial measures to control
I.G. 1990. ”The effects of combinations of summer time temperatures in an office
heat, noise and vibration on task perform- building. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings
ance”, Archives of Complex Environmental 2000, Vol. 1 pp. 665–670, SAY Indoor Air
Studies, 2(1), 1–9. Information Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Saylor, L. 2002a. Commercial Square Foot Skåret, I.E: “Indoor environment and eco-
Building Costs. Saylor Publications, Inc. nomics”, Project no. N 6405, The Norwe-
and Deloitte & Touche gian Institute of Building Research (NBI–
Saylor, L. 2002b. Current construction costs. Byggforsk), (in Norwegian), Oslo, February
Saylor Publications, Inc. 1992.
Seppänen, O. 1999. Estimated cost of indoor Smith, S.W. and Rea, M.S. 1979. “Proofread-
climate in Finnish buildings. Proceedings of ing under different levels of illumination”,
Indoor Air 1999, 3, pp 13–18. Journal of Illuminating Engineering Soci-
Seppänen, O. (ed.) 2004. Tuottava toimisto ety, 8(1), 47–78.
2005, in Finnish (Productive office 2005). Smith, S.W. and Rea, M.S. 1982. “Perform-
Helsinki University of Technology. Labo- ance of a reading test under different levels
ratory of Heating, Ventilating and Air–con- of illumination”, Journal of Illuminating
ditioning. Report 77. Engineering Society, 12(1), 29–33.
Seppänen, O. and Fisk, W. 2002. Association Smolander, J., Palonen, J., Tuomainen, M.,
of Ventilation Type with SBS symptoms in Korhonen, P., Seppänen, O. 2003. Potential
Office Workers. Indoor Air J. 12, 2:98–112. benefits of reduced summer time room tem-
Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J., Faulkner, D. 2003. peratures in an office building. Proceedings
Cost benefit analysis night–time ventilative of Healthy Buildings 2003 Conference. Sin-
cooling. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings gapore. December 2003. Vol. 3, 389–394
2003 Conference. Singapore. December Tinker, M.A. 1952. “The effects of intensity of
2003. Vol. 3:394–399. illumination upon speed of reading six–
Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J., Lei, Q.H. 2005a. point italic type”, The American Journal of
Ventilation and work performance. A Psychology, 65(4), 600–602.
manuscript submitted for publication.
65
Tham, K.W., Willem, H.C. 2004. Effects of re- Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Sundell, J.,
ported neurobehavioral symptoms on call Clausen, G and Fanger, P.O. 2000a. “The
center operator performance in the tropics. effects of outdoor air supply rate in an of-
Proceedings (in CD) of RoomVent 2004 fice on perceived air quality, Sick Building
Conference. Coimbra. Portugal Syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productiv-
Tham, K.W., Willem, H.C., Sekhar, S.C., ity”, Indoor Air, 10, 222–236.
Wyon, D.P., Wargocki, P. and Fanger, P.O. Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P. and Fanger, P.O.
2003. “Temperature and ventilation effects 2000. “Productivity is affected by the air
on the work performance of office workers quality in offices”, In: Proceedings of
(study of a call center in the tropics)”, In: Healthy Buildings ‘2000, Espoo, Vol. 1, pp.
Tham, K.W., Sekhar, S.C. and Cheong, D. 635–640.
(eds) Proceedings of Healthy Buildings Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P. and Fanger, P.O.
‘2003, Singapore, Vol. 3, pp. 280–286. 2000c. “Pollution source control and venti-
Tuomainen, M., Smolander, J., Korhonen, P., lation improve health, comfort and produc-
Eskola, L., Seppänen, O. Potential eco- tivity”, In: Proceeding of Cold Climate
nomic benefits of balancing air flows in an HVAC ‘2000, Sapporo, pp. 445–450.
office building. Proceedings of Healthy Wargocki, P., Lagercrantz, L., Witterseh, T.,
Buildings 2003 Conference. Singapore. De- Sundell, J., Wyon, D.P. and Fanger, P.O.
cember 2003. Vol. 2, 516—521. 2002a. “Subjective Perceptions, Symptom
Veitch, J.A. 1990. “Office noise and illumi- Intensity and Performance: a Comparison of
nation effects on reading comprehension”, Two Independent Studies, both Changing
Journal of Environmental Psychology”, 10, Similarly the Pollution Load in an Office”,
209–217. Indoor Air, 12, pp. 74–80.
Veitch, J.A. and Newsham, G.R. 1998. Wargocki, P., Sundell, J., Bischof, W., Brun-
“Lighting quality and energy–efficiency ef- drett, G., Fanger, P.O., Gyntelberg, F.,
fects on task performance, mood, health, Hanssen, S.O., Harrison, P., Pickering, A.,
satisfaction and comfort”, Journal of the Il- Seppänen, O. and Wouters, P. 2002b. “Ven-
luminating Engineering Society, Vol. 27(1) tilation and Health in Nonindustrial Indoor
pp. 107 – 129. Environments. Report from a European
Viteles, M.S. and Smith, K.R. 1946. “An ex- Multidisciplinary Scientific Consensus
perimental investigation of the effect of Meeting”, Indoor Air, 12, pp. 113–128.
change in atmospheric conditions and noise Wargocki, P. and Djukanovic, R. 2005. "Simu-
upon performance”, Heating, Piping and lations of the potential revenue from in-
Air Conditioning, 18(1), 107–112. vestment in improved indoor air quality in
Vuolle, M. and Salin, P. IDA indoor climate an office building", ASHRAE Transactions,
and energy – a new generation simulation Vol. 111 (pt.2), pp. 699–711.
tool. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P. and Fanger, P.O.
2000, Vol. 2:523–528. Espoo, Finland. 2004. “The performance and subjective re-
Wargocki, P. 1998. Human perception, pro- sponses of call–centre operators with new
ductivity and symptoms related to indoor air and used supply air filters at two outdoor air
quality, Ph.D.–thesis, International Centre supply rates”, Indoor Air, 14 (Suppl. 8), 7–
for Indoor Environment and Energy, Tech- 16.
nical University of Denmark. Weinstein, N.D. 1974. “Effects of noise on
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Baik, Y.K., intellectual performance, J.Appl. Psychol.,
Clausen, G. and Fanger, P.O. 1999. “Per- 59, 548–554.
ceived air quality, Sick Building Syndrome Weinstein, N.D. 1977. “Noise and intellectual
(SBS) symptoms and productivity in an of- performance”, J.Appl. Psychol., 62, 104–
fice with two different pollution loads”, In- 107.
door Air, 9, pp. 165–179.
66
REFERENCES
Whitley, T., Makin, P., Dickson, D. 1995. The Wyon, D.P. 1996. “Indoor environmental ef-
environment, comfort and productivity: the fects on productivity”, In: Proceedings of
role of individual differences including lo- IAQ´96 Paths to Better Building Environ-
cus of control. Proceedings of Healthy ments, USA, ASHRAE, 5–15.
Buildings ´95, Vol. 3: 1419 – 1424. Wyon, D.P., Tham, K.W., Croxford, B.,
Witterseh, T., Wyon, D.P. and Clausen, G. 2004. Young, A. and Oreszczyn, T. 2000. “The ef-
“The effects of moderate heat stress and open– fects on health and self–estimated produc-
plan office noise distraction on SBS symp- tivity of two experimental interventions
toms and on the performance of office work”, which reduced airborne dust levels in office
Indoor Air, 14 (Suppl. 8), 30–40. premises”. In: Proceedings of Healthy
Woods, J.E.: “Cost avoidance and productivity Buildings ‘2000, Espoo, Finland, Vol. 1,
in owning and operating buildings”, Journal 641–646.
of Occupational Medicine, No 4, 1989. Wyon, D.P., Fang, L., and Fanger , P.O. 2003.
Woods, J., Morey, G. 1987. Office workers ” Low winter humidity indoors has a nega-
perception of indoor air quality effects on tive effect on the performance of office
discomfort and performance, Proceedings of work”, In: Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
Indoor Air 1987, 2:464–68 tional conference on Cold Climate HVAC,
Trondheim, Norway, NTU: CD–ROM.
Wu, S. and Clements-Croome, D. 2005. “Criti-
cal reliability issues for building services Wyon, D.P. and Wargocki, P. 2006a. “Room
systems”, In: the Fourth International Con- temperature effects on office work”, In:
ference on Quality and Reliability, Beijing, Croome, D. (ed.) Creating the Productive
page 559-566. Environment, 181–192.
Wyon, D.P. 1969. “The effects of moderate Wyon D.P. and Wargocki, P. 2006b. “Indoor
heat stress on the mental performance by air quality effects on office work”, In:
children”, The National Swedish Institute Croome, D. (ed.) Creating the Productive
for Building Research, Document 8. Environment, 193–205.
Wyon, D. 1993. “Healthy Buildings and Their Zimmermann, M., and Andersson, J. 1998.
Impact on Productivity”, Proceedings of In- “Low Energy Cooling – Case Study Build-
door Air '93, Vol. 6, p. 3–13, Helsinki, ings”. IEA ECBCS Annex 28.
Finland, 1993.
67
ANNEX 1
FLOOR PLANS OF OFFICES FOR THE COST CASES
Simple non–air–conditioned buildings, gross floor area (per floor) 780 m², rentable floor area
666 m² and net floor area (for working stations) 476 m².
Modern air–conditioned building, gross floor area (per floor) 2700 m², rentable floor area 2428 m²
and net floor area (for working stations) 1879 m².
68
ANNEX 2
ANNUITY FACTORS
Years Interest rate (%) Years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 20 30 40
1 1,000 1,010 1,020 1,030 1,040 1,050 1,060 1,080 1,100 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,200 1,300 1,400 1
2 0,500 0,508 0,515 0,523 0,530 0,538 0,545 0,561 0,576 0,592 0,607 0,623 0,655 0,735 0,817 2
3 0,333 0,340 0,347 0,354 0,360 0,367 0,374 0,388 0,402 0,416 0,431 0,445 0,475 0,551 0,629 3
4 0,250 0,256 0,263 0,269 0,275 0,282 0,289 0,302 0,315 0,329 0,343 0,357 0,386 0,462 0,541 4
5 0,200 0,206 0,212 0,218 0,225 0,231 0,237 0,250 0,264 0,277 0,291 0,305 0,334 0,411 0,491 5
6 0,167 0,173 0,179 0,185 0,191 0,197 0,203 0,216 0,230 0,243 0,257 0,271 0,301 0,378 0,461 6
7 0,143 0,149 0,155 0,161 0,167 0,173 0,179 0,192 0,205 0,219 0,233 0,248 0,277 0,357 0,442 7
8 0,125 0,131 0,137 0,142 0,149 0,155 0,161 0,174 0,187 0,201 0,216 0,230 0,261 0,342 0,429 8
9 0,111 0,117 0,123 0,128 0,134 0,141 0,147 0,160 0,174 0,188 0,202 0,217 0,248 0,331 0,420 9
10 0,100 0,106 0,111 0,117 0,123 0,130 0,136 0,149 0,163 0,177 0,192 0,207 0,239 0,323 0,414 10
11 0,091 0,096 0,102 0,108 0,114 0,120 0,127 0,140 0,154 0,168 0,183 0,199 0,231 0,318 0,410 11
12 0,083 0,089 0,095 0,100 0,107 0,113 0,119 0,133 0,147 0,161 0,177 0,192 0,225 0,313 0,407 12
13 0,077 0,082 0,088 0,094 0,100 0,106 0,113 0,127 0,141 0,156 0,171 0,187 0,221 0,310 0,405 13
14 0,071 0,077 0,083 0,089 0,095 0,101 0,108 0,121 0,136 0,151 0,167 0,183 0,217 0,308 0,404 14
15 0,067 0,072 0,078 0,084 0,090 0,096 0,103 0,117 0,131 0,147 0,163 0,179 0,214 0,306 0,403 15
16 0,063 0,068 0,074 0,080 0,086 0,092 0,099 0,113 0,128 0,143 0,160 0,176 0,211 0,305 0,402 16
17 0,059 0,064 0,070 0,076 0,082 0,089 0,095 0,110 0,125 0,140 0,157 0,174 0,209 0,304 0,401 17
18 0,056 0,061 0,067 0,073 0,079 0,086 0,092 0,107 0,122 0,138 0,155 0,172 0,208 0,303 0,401 18
19 0,053 0,058 0,064 0,070 0,076 0,083 0,090 0,104 0,120 0,136 0,153 0,170 0,206 0,302 0,401 19
20 0,050 0,055 0,061 0,067 0,074 0,080 0,087 0,102 0,117 0,134 0,151 0,169 0,205 0,302 0,400 20
21 0,048 0,053 0,059 0,065 0,071 0,078 0,085 0,100 0,116 0,132 0,150 0,167 0,204 0,301 0,400 21
22 0,045 0,051 0,057 0,063 0,069 0,076 0,083 0,098 0,114 0,131 0,148 0,166 0,204 0,301 0,400 22
23 0,043 0,049 0,055 0,061 0,067 0,074 0,081 0,096 0,113 0,130 0,147 0,165 0,203 0,301 0,400 23
24 0,042 0,047 0,053 0,059 0,066 0,072 0,080 0,095 0,111 0,128 0,146 0,165 0,203 0,301 0,400 24
25 0,040 0,045 0,051 0,057 0,064 0,071 0,078 0,094 0,110 0,127 0,145 0,164 0,202 0,300 0,400 25
26 0,038 0,044 0,050 0,056 0,063 0,070 0,077 0,093 0,109 0,127 0,145 0,163 0,202 0,300 0,400 26
27 0,037 0,042 0,048 0,055 0,061 0,068 0,076 0,091 0,108 0,126 0,144 0,163 0,201 0,300 0,400 27
28 0,036 0,041 0,047 0,053 0,060 0,067 0,075 0,090 0,107 0,125 0,144 0,163 0,201 0,300 0,400 28
29 0,034 0,040 0,046 0,052 0,059 0,066 0,074 0,090 0,107 0,125 0,143 0,162 0,201 0,300 0,400 29
30 0,033 0,039 0,045 0,051 0,058 0,065 0,073 0,089 0,106 0,124 0,143 0,162 0,201 0,300 0,400 30
31 0,032 0,038 0,044 0,050 0,057 0,064 0,072 0,088 0,105 0,124 0,142 0,162 0,201 0,300 0,400 31
32 0,031 0,037 0,043 0,049 0,056 0,063 0,071 0,087 0,105 0,123 0,142 0,161 0,201 0,300 0,400 32
33 0,030 0,036 0,042 0,048 0,055 0,062 0,070 0,087 0,104 0,123 0,142 0,161 0,200 0,300 0,400 33
34 0,029 0,035 0,041 0,047 0,054 0,062 0,070 0,086 0,104 0,123 0,142 0,161 0,200 0,300 0,400 34
35 0,029 0,034 0,040 0,047 0,054 0,061 0,069 0,086 0,104 0,122 0,141 0,161 0,200 0,300 0,400 35
36 0,028 0,033 0,039 0,046 0,053 0,060 0,068 0,085 0,103 0,122 0,141 0,161 0,200 0,300 0,400 36
37 0,027 0,032 0,039 0,045 0,052 0,060 0,068 0,085 0,103 0,122 0,141 0,161 0,200 0,300 0,400 37
38 0,026 0,032 0,038 0,044 0,052 0,059 0,067 0,085 0,103 0,122 0,141 0,161 0,200 0,300 0,400 38
39 0,026 0,031 0,037 0,044 0,051 0,059 0,067 0,084 0,102 0,121 0,141 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 39
40 0,025 0,030 0,037 0,043 0,051 0,058 0,066 0,084 0,102 0,121 0,141 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 40
41 0,024 0,030 0,036 0,043 0,050 0,058 0,066 0,084 0,102 0,121 0,141 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 41
42 0,024 0,029 0,035 0,042 0,050 0,057 0,066 0,083 0,102 0,121 0,141 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 42
43 0,023 0,029 0,035 0,042 0,049 0,057 0,065 0,083 0,102 0,121 0,141 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 43
44 0,023 0,028 0,034 0,041 0,049 0,057 0,065 0,083 0,102 0,121 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 44
45 0,022 0,028 0,034 0,041 0,048 0,056 0,065 0,083 0,101 0,121 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 45
46 0,022 0,027 0,033 0,040 0,048 0,056 0,064 0,082 0,101 0,121 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 46
47 0,021 0,027 0,033 0,040 0,048 0,056 0,064 0,082 0,101 0,121 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 47
48 0,021 0,026 0,033 0,040 0,047 0,055 0,064 0,082 0,101 0,121 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 48
49 0,020 0,026 0,032 0,039 0,047 0,055 0,064 0,082 0,101 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 49
50 0,020 0,026 0,032 0,039 0,047 0,055 0,063 0,082 0,101 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 50
60 0,017 0,022 0,029 0,036 0,044 0,053 0,062 0,081 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 60
70 0,014 0,020 0,027 0,034 0,043 0,052 0,061 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 70
80 0,013 0,018 0,025 0,033 0,042 0,051 0,061 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 80
90 0,011 0,017 0,024 0,032 0,041 0,051 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 90
100 0,010 0,016 0,023 0,032 0,041 0,050 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 100
150 0,007 0,013 0,021 0,030 0,040 0,050 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 150
200 0,005 0,012 0,020 0,030 0,040 0,050 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 200
300 0,003 0,011 0,020 0,030 0,040 0,050 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 300
400 0,003 0,010 0,020 0,030 0,040 0,050 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 400
500 0,002 0,010 0,020 0,030 0,040 0,050 0,060 0,080 0,100 0,120 0,140 0,160 0,200 0,300 0,400 500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 20 30 40
Saari, A. and Mäkelä, J. (2001).
69
ANNEX 3
LIFE SPANS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Examples for life spans and annual maintenance costs (EN 13379:2004).
Component Life span in years Annual maintenance cost
in % of the initial investment
Air–conditioning units 15 4
Air coolers 20 2
Air heaters, electric 15 2
Air heaters, steam 20 2
Air heaters, water 20 2
Burners, oil and gas 10 4
Condensers 20 2
Control equipment 15 4
Control valves, automatic 15 6
Control valves, manual 30 4
Cooling compressors 15 4
Cooling panels and ceilings 30 2
Dampers 20 1
Dampers with control motors 15 4
Diffusers 20 4
Dual duct boxes 15 4
Duct system for filtered air 30 2
Duct system for non filtered air 30 6
Evaporators 20 2
Extract air grills 20 10
Fan coil units 15 4
Fans 20 4
Fans with variable flow 15 6
Filter frames 15 2
Filter material, to be cleaned 10 10
Filter material to be exchanged 1 0
Grills in general 30 4
Heat pumps 15 4
Heat recovery units, cyclic 15 4
Heat recovery units, static 20 4
Humidifiers, water 10 6
Humidifiers, steam 4 4
Pipes, Cu 30 1
Pipes, plastic 30 1
Pipes, stainless 30 1
Pipes, steel in closed system 30 1
Pipes, steel in open system 15 1
Pumps in closed system 20 2
Pumps in open system 15 2
Radiators, electric 20 2
Radiators, water 30 2
Shut off valves, automatic 15 4
Shut off valves, manual 30 2
Sound traps 30 1
Thermostats for radiators 15 4
Variable flow units 15 6
V–belt drive 10 6
Wiring 30 1
70
REHVA Guidebooks:
No 1 Displacement Ventilation in Non-industrial Premises
No 2 Ventilation Effectiveness
No 3 Electrostatic Precipitators for Industrial Applications
No 4 Ventilation and Smoking
No 5 Chilled Beam Cooling
No 6 Indoor Climate and Productivity in Offices
No 7 Low Temperature Heating And High Temperature Cooling
No 8 Cleanliness of Ventilation Systems
No 9 Hygiene Requirement for Ventilation and Air-conditioning
No 10 Computational Fluid Dynamics in Ventilation Design
No 11 Air Filtration in HVAC Systems
No 12 Solar Shading – How to integrate solar shading in sustainable buildings
No 13 Indoor Environment and Energy Efficiency in Schools – Part 1 Principles
No 14 Indoor Climate Quality Assessment
No 15 Energy Efficient Heating and Ventilation of Large Halls
REHVA Reports:
No 1 REHVA Workshops at Clima 2005 - Lausanne
No 2 REHVA Workshops at Clima 2007 - Helsinki
No 3 REHVA Workshops at Clima 2010 - Antalya
rehva
Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning Associations
REHVA Office
Washington Street 40, 1050 Brussels – Belgium
Tel: +32-2-5141171 Fax: +32-2-5129062
Orders: www.rehva.eu info@rehva.eu

06 Productivity 2ed Protected

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 Productivity 2ed Protected

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indoor Climate

Pawel Wargocki, Olli Seppänen (editors)

How to integrate productivity

Pawel Wargocki, Olli Seppänen (editors)

Copyright © 2006 by Rehva,

All rights reserved

Printed in Finland, Forssan Kirjapaino Oy

REHVA, now almost 50 years old, is an conventional economic calculations per-

Belgium Hungary Russia

REHVA Task Force on Productivity

The members of the Task Force are:

Andersson Johnny Sweden

The members of the Dutch group are:

Braham Derrick United Kingdom

Annuity factor District heating

Indoor environment Performance

Perceived air quality (PAQ) Tap water heating

environmental quality. As there is no rela- being that increased profitability is due to

The individual performance is affected by affect human well–being, employee per-

Indoor air quality

Air STI-index * Luminance

Moisture * STI= speech transmission index

Introduction ing hour saved, the national cost levels

• Cleaning costs – cleaning of the prem- The costs in Finnish buildings

Maintenance costs usually have a different

Design 9% VAT 18% Property tax 14% VAT 15%

Air conditioning Rooms 12% Heating 3% Space Waste

Heating of tap Office equipment Fans 22%

Table 2. Annual use of energy and building costs.

Table 3. Total annual operating costs for the different buildings.

Productivity tablish the links between building and op-

Financial benefits Life–cycle costing

Equation (5) can be used to assess the im-

Parameter Equation factor Necessary productivity gain

Total Building related Construction

Linkage between building and

Building design and operation influence

• performance of text processing (writing, tion in the laboratory studies described

The laboratory experiments described above

Due to diversity of reported symptoms and

Table 5. Summary of studies assessing simultaneously the prevalence or intensity of SBS

The effects of noise on performance The effects of lighting on

The effects of individual control on showed that providing task/ambient condi-

than by single factors. In experiments by concentration of VOCs and other chemical

The relationship between The relationship accounts for the effects of

Figures 12 and 13 can be used to estimate 1,0

Illness or sick leave prevalence

Example 1 Consider that short–term sick 0,2

The relationship between

The relationship between ventilation rate 1,0

and performance is based on five studies

person, but the model is statistically signifi-

Weighted by sample size

1.03 Figure 17 Subjects in an office performing

(2000b,c), i.e. about 0.8% change in per- The relationship between

0.8% per 10% in PAQ

Reported in each study

Weighted by sample size

Figure 19 Change of performance (ΔP% per °C increase in temperature ) as a function of tem-

Annuity cost model Annuity factors are given in Appendix 2.

the calculations, and not only the cost of new

Total annual effect

Table 6. The effects of productivity increase (1,2 or 4% increase) on productivity in €/m².

Hourly value of the work Hourly value of the work